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.
Partly because the AR-15 is lighter than the Mini 14, is easier to reload, and is generally designed to meet the modern needs of armies killin’ humans better. Then there’s the incessant marketing, the huge number of manufacturers at multiple price points (the Mini 14 being a Ruger exclusive), the aftermarket of optics and tacticool accessories, and the general cultural impact. How many Mini 14s have actually been involved in mass shootings and gun-nerd intimidation exercises? It’s almost like the least stable assholes are interested in a “badass” gun.
But okay, fine. There’s a not-insignificant amount of truth to the graphic. By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public. I don’t think the result will be to convince people the AR-15 is actually useful, just that the Mini-14 is equally unnecessary as a civilian tool or hunting rifle, and they shouldn’t assume a wooden-stock rifle is inherently less dangerous than a plastic one.
And, for the record, I am tediously, annoyingly aware of current second-amendment jurisprudence and the lack of sufficient political will to change the constitution, and while I don’t think the former is well considered, the situation is what it is. It just sucks. It leaves America unique among stable democracies in having gun violence anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death.
By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public.
The problem is how rude so many of them are about it.
Instead of “there is no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’ and here’s how that myth got started,” it’s “define assault rifle.” It’s this weird assumption that everyone knows as much about guns as they do and it really doesn’t help them. I get that it can be a knee-jerk reaction to people who have issues with guns (as is assuming anyone who has issues with guns wants a blanket ban on them), but it really does not help.
Yeah, the level of gatekeeping is extraordinary. “Not only must you respect my political position, but your lack of nuanced technical information means you have literally no room to be part of the conversation!” I see similar attitudes about military matters, where not having served is viewed as a reason to completely dismiss concerns, rather than a valuable outside perspective to be considered.
I grew up in the gun culture, and we actually have a few guns locked up in a safe in my father-in law’s garage, but I haven’t been motivated at all to go get them in the last 5+ years, because WTF do I really need them for? I might grab the single-shot 12-gauge someday because casual skeet shooting is legitimately fun, but while I still have a sort of lingering “suburban white guy” interest, I just fell out of love with actually having guns over the years, and my fellow gun owners were a not insignificant part of that.
“Assault Rifle” is a bit of a boogeyman term, true, but part of the reason gun folks hate it so much is that while they don’t personally intend to use their own toys that way (anytime soon), their favorite guns absolutely DO amount to semi-automatic versions of common military weapons. You know, the rifles one might need when assaulting an enemy position:
- lightweight
- compact compared to earlier weapons serving a similar use case
- accurate
- high rate of fire. One little factoid the gun folks don’t like to have mentioned is that even the most common military rifles stopped being fully automatic years ago because it’s wasteful, and most are semi-automatic and three-round burst (correction: The US Army retrofit its burst to have fully auto again, though the USMC did not). “They’re not machine guns” is another way to weaponize pedantry. Semi-auto sends plenty of lead downrange.
- arbitrary magazine size limited only by material science and added weight
- quick and easy reloading of the rifle with pre-loaded magazines.
- easily adapted with aftermarket parts that enhance only anti-personnel activities (lasers, flashlights, bump stocks, bayonets, etc.).
- chambered in a mid-size round: high-velocity, small bullet. Designed specifically to do well taking down animals human sized and smaller, but lightweight enough to carry a shitload of them without being over-encumbered.
It’s not hard at all to come up with an objective technical definition that has nothing to do with “scary looking or not”. Find some numbers for the various criteria and make bright lines, such that weapons that are still legal will be more poorly suited to mass murder than the current crop of black rifles. There will absolutely be people pushing at the margins, but you can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. But no… people like the feeling of power they get by having weapons that are virtually identical to the stuff that “warriors” have, so they’re going to cling to them like their lives depend on it, even though statistically they very much do not.
If someone is going to make claims about ARs that are dubious wouldn’t asking for a definition of ARs be the best way to make sure they’re talking about the same thing instead of misunderstanding? I’ve never seen someone ask for the definition of AR from someone who wasn’t talking about ARs. Seems like a completely reasonable question and I have no idead why one would think otherwise.
Telling someone, “define assault rifle,” which is what I see, is not the same as something like, “do you know that there is no such thing as an assault rifle?”
I don’t disagree but it’s frustrating to somebody who cares and is knowledgeable about a topic to have people militantly try to outlaw and poorly regulate it while not having critical knowledge and understanding on the topic. There’s a reason gun people tend to be very irritated by a lot of the anti-gun crowd.
Not to go off on a tangent, but it’s “assault weapon” that’s the boogeyman term, meant to confuse the uninformed with assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire, full auto and burst fire capable rifles. Assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles that have the same or similar cosmetics as assault rifles.
The trick is a person latches onto the adjective, not the noun, and a rifle is a kind of weapon, so it makes it seem like assault rifles fit under assault weapons, when I’m fact it’s the opposite.
It’s a distinction without much of a difference, though. Apart from auto and burst fire, a modern AR-15 does everything an M4A1 does. The Marines’ M4 and M16A4 models don’t even go past burst.
If semi-auto rifles are going to be legal at all, they should have a small integral magazine that’s non-trivial to modify. The sheer efficiency of these rifles makes them really good for assaulting humans, because that’s what they were designed for.
Thank you for correcting me politely! This is the sort of thing that needs to be done more! I did mean to write ‘assault weapon,’ my apologies.
