- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmit.online
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.
As a matter of fact, most progressive policies have majority support in the US. The system is deliberately designed to prevent the will of the majority from being enacted.
That’s a feature, not a bug. The point is you want to protect rights fro the tyranny of the majority.
Eh, that may have been the excuse for the separation of powers into a Republic, but that’s not what gave rural southern states an advantage of their more populated neighbors in the north.
That was the great compromise in 1787, which led to the 3/5th compromise. They didn’t fear the “tyranny of the majority” as much as they didn’t want to join a union that could potentially outlaw slavery.
It didn’t really give the southern states an ‘advantage’; it mostly meant that the north couldn’t steamroll them. But the south also couldn’t force their will on the north. It forced the states to have some kind of consensus, rather than allowing the more populous states to govern without the consent of the less populous states.
It’s… Complicated.
I want individual rights to be respected. To that end, I have a problem with the way a lot of states treat e.g. LGBTQ people. But I’m also distrustful of allowing all/most governance to be from a single, centralized organization that isn’t very responsive or responsible.
I think that’s just a semantic dispute waiting to happen… Plus, I’d hardly call wanting to end slavery “steam rolling” the south.
Maybe not in the time it was written, but I’m pretty sure we’re dealing with the south forcing their opinions on people presently.
And that may have made sense when we were mostly just a loose confederation… as an actual country it’s done nothing but create a tyranny of the minority.
I could say the same thing about states rights bullshit. That loose confederations just create an environment where there is no overall protection for minority views, and that state governments are too individualistic and incompetent to respond to crises like COVID. And that they are highly irresponsible and unresponsive unless there’s a federal mandate, or it entises their lust for bigotry.
That’s called democracy. You have to accept democratic decisions even if you don’t like them. I think you people are extremely pathetic for preferring fascist dictatorship to democracy just so can keep stroking your fucking guns.
Their comment has nothing to do with guns.
Suuuuure. Whenever US “conservatives” talk about their rights being taken away, that is always what they mean.
LOL. I’m not even remotely a conservative. By every political measure, I’m a social libertarian, or an anarchist.
Taking rights away only benefits authoritarians. And there are a whooooooole lot of authoritarians in both major US parties.
Another one that people are talking about right now is reproductive rights; I think women should have them. Lots of old white dudes around me (and, TBH, a lot of the women too, because they drink the Flavor-Aid) think women should not have that right.
If you went back 50 or 60 years, you’d be looking at rights to protest (which are on the chopping block now, too), and rights to freedom from religious tyranny (which, again, is also a problem now, albeit mostly in flyover states).
Rights are never very popular when they’re being exercised by minority groups.
If we’re going to accept the concept of rights in the first place, then we also have to say that the majority can’t take those rights away from the minority when a particular right isn’t popular anymore.
That and their right to force us all into following the rules of their religion.
There are supposed to be fundamental rights that remain protected even when one falls into a minority. The tyranny of the majority includes silencing the temporarily minority opposition party, for example. Or minority ethnic and religious groups who are demonized by a slim majority.
And that isn’t happening in the current US system?
I take it you are only against it when it happens to the wrong people.
Of course it is. And guess what? It’s wrong in that case too.
Freedom of assembly means, yes, to freedom to protest things that the majority in the country are okay with.
So when America democratically decides to end free speech for palestine supporters you’ll just lay down and take it?
They already did that. Everyone protesting safely is a progressive idea with broad support that’s being withheld. And the argument that we can’t grant basic rights because there might be a tyranny of the majority is illogical and morally bankrupt.
You know what stops cops from overreacting at protests? It begins with R and ends with ifles.
Tyranny of the Majority is the concept.
Oh yes we need to protect the rights of (checks notes) religious people to oppress us all.
Yup definitely in danger of a tyranny of the majority.
Edit, looking down thread you’re not here in good faith. You say we can’t have progressive ideas with broad support because tyranny of the majority but you use those very same ideas as examples of things that might be crushed by a tyranny of the majority. Let’s be real the stuff we can’t vote out because of this system is the right of rich white people to oppress minorities. The right of police to execute people. The right of corporations to abuse their workers. No one in the majority is out there cheering the arrest of protestors or the implementation of Christian Sharia law.
You don’t believe that I’m here in good faith because I believe in individual liberties…?
That’s certainly a take.
But you don’t. Based on what you’ve said you favor the rights of capitalists and corporations over individuals.
The primary problem with implementing those policies that people want are in the details. Everyone wants [thing], but have widely differing views on what that means. Or they have concerns, some of which are valid, that get in the way of implementing the change.
Most people want universal background checks and for people who are likely to be violent to not have guns. But many also don’t want registration to be tracked because when it has been teacked it has been made publically available. Others don’t want to have to pay for the background check to loan their gun to a friend for hunting.
That is of course before differences in who should be paying for the checks and how to track a check was made without that list being made public.
It is like saying everyone likes fruit, but we have to establish a list of acceptable fruit that will never cover the differences in what kinds of fruit people like. Have fun passing that law.
That would be the task of a democratic process, to figure out those details, if only there was one.
If only we had a functioning democracy!
The filibuster is the tool used most often to avoid even having those discussions in congress. The House won’t spend time on legislation that will just be filibustered in the Senate.
deleted by creator