this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
615 points (94.0% liked)

News

23311 readers
4163 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
 

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] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You need to stop assuming what the general public perceives. You are misapplying your personal perception. Who is the general public, am I excluded from that?

Making incorrect assumptions and speaking on behalf of the "general public" is incredibly rude. Take some of your own advice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Assuming?

Let's start with the Republican-sponsored act to make the AR-15 the national gun of the U.S. - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1095/cosponsors

Then there are the AR-15 pins Republican politicians wear- https://time.com/6253690/ar-15-pins-congress/

And the AR-15 giveaway fundraisers Republicans hold- https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/10/19/virginia-write-in-race-gun-giveawway/

Here are a whole bunch of Republicans begging the army to keep selling AR-15 ammo on the market- https://thereload.com/republicans-urge-army-to-continue-sale-of-surplus-ar-15-ammo/

Here's Lindsay Graham saying he has an AR-15 to defend himself from gangs- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-graham-ar-15-protect-home-gangs/

And we can finish with this article about how the AR-15 has become the symbol of the right- https://www.newsweek.com/how-ar-15-became-symbol-us-right-1792587

So no, I don't think I'm assuming anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, what you are doing is making an assumption. Again, you do not speak on behalf of "the general public." You speak on behalf of a portion of the general public and your entire premise is based on a no true Scotsman fallacy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I gave you a huge mountain of evidence. Claims made with evidence are not assumptions. Why are you being so dishonest? All I can think is you didn't even bother to view those links. The right has undeniably made the AR-15 their symbol. I have shown that very clearly. Because they have made it their symbol, the general public associates them with it. That's not an assumption, that's how it works when someone makes something their symbol.

Am I making an assumption when I think the general public associates red baseball caps with MAGA Trumpers? No, because that's one of their symbols.

Again, I understand that you do not like it that a gun you own is viewed as a right-wing thing by people, but blame the right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You provided several links (many of which were not relevant) that support the idea that a portion of the population (not the whole of a population) believes something. I am having a hard time figuring out why you are unable to differentiate a % of something from the whole of something.

Am I making an assumption when I think the general public associates red baseball caps with MAGA Trumpers? No, because that’s one of their symbols.

Again, you are doing the same thing, so I guess you're consistent. I associate "MAGA" hats with Trumpers, sure... but my initial inclination when I see a red hat from afar is that it's a baseball cap (maybe Angles, Cards, Reds...). Once again, I am a portion of the "general public" that you're completely ignoring; and in doing such, you make a logical fallacy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I see, you think "general population" means "everyone in the entire country." It does not. You also seem to think that symbols have no meaning, which is weird.

I am a portion of the “general public” that you’re completely ignoring

You clearly aren't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

“General population” is typically in reference to prison populations; but the term can be used when referencing a full sample size, E.G. 70% of the general population associates red caps with MAGA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so you do know what it means. Then I'm not sure why you suggested it meant 100% of the population.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You’re clearly still misunderstanding and misusing the term. “General population” is 100% of itself.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Everything is 100% of itself.

A pear is 100% of itself. Even if you eat part of it, it's still 100% pear.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You’re almost there…

Now when you say “a pear” you’re not taking about portions of the pear, you’re talking about the whole thing.

So when you say “general population…” without qualifying the specific portion you’re referring to… go ahead, I’ll let you say it…

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I am referring to 100% of the people to whom I am referring. I'm not sure why you think that is a great revelation. I'm talking to 100% of you right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

100% of me is a % of the general public. Thus, the general public does not agree that all AR-15 owners are conservative dickbags.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you're saying that if I claim "the general public likes chocolate" and you personally don't like chocolate, it isn't true?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Correct.

If you want to say “there’s a percentage of the general population that likes chocolate,” that would be a true statement; but by the same account, it also means “there is a percentage of the general population that does not like chocolate.” The former implies the latter, and when it breaks down like that, you’re really not saying fuck-all.

Provide some percentages.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you do think "general public" means "100% of the population."

Good luck getting the rest of the world to agree with you on that. That's certainly not what I meant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What % of the public do you need in order to qualify usage of the statement “general public?”

Is it 51%? That would mean 49% do not agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What part of "that’s certainly not what I meant" is unclear to you?

Or are you claiming that you know what I meant better than I do?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I think it's a little late to be asking me what I meant at this point since you were so sure you knew up until now.