this post was submitted on 09 May 2024

615 points (94.2% liked)

News

22612 readers

4247 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

615

Study reveals "widespread, bipartisan aversion" to neighbors owning AR-15 rifles (www.psypost.org)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

334 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that across all political and social groups in the United States, there is a strong preference against living near AR-15 rifle owners and neighbors who store guns outside of locked safes. This surprising consensus suggests that when it comes to immediate living environments, Americans’ views on gun control may be less divided than the polarized national debate suggests.

The research was conducted against a backdrop of increasing gun violence and polarization on gun policy in the United States. The United States has over 350 million civilian firearms and gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country. Despite political divides, the new study aimed to explore whether there’s common ground among Americans in their immediate living environments, focusing on neighborhood preferences related to gun ownership and storage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

sadfsdfasfasf

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough for a general survey question. However, the point about how policy decisions shouldn't be based on opinion/anecdote is still valid (at least in the case of gun control).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

sadfsdfasfasf

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I could understand the argument for factoring people's feelings into policy in some cases, but let's take this study as an example.

Handguns are responsible for far more harm than AR-15s, but this study shows people "fear" AR-15s more. A policy that is based on these findings and not empirical data may attempt to reduce gun violence by addressing AR-15 ownership. Thereby not having a major effect on reducing actual gun violence.

A policy focusing on reducing handgun ownership would be much more effective at reducing gun violence, despite people not fearing them as much.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

sadfsdfasfasf

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing me with other commentors. I haven't suggested this research in particular is being actively used to support policy decisions. Nor have I suggested this research is advocating for policy.

In my initial comment I simply said policy in general (at least with gun control) shouldn't be based on people's feelings/anecdotes.

I think this study asked a very interesting question, and I find the results to be very interesting. I don't really have any issues with this research by itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

sadfsdfasfasf

[–] Kecessa 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How people feel is important to know because it will influence how a change needs to be presented.

In this example: A lot of oeople feel safer owning guns, science show they're wrong and it actually decreases their safety, in order to be able to change things in a way that people will accept it that perception needs to be changed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

sadfsdfasfasf