Study reveals "widespread, bipartisan aversion" to neighbors owning AR-15 rifles
Study reveals "widespread, bipartisan aversion" to neighbors owning AR-15 rifles
A new study has found that Americans, including traditionally pro-gun groups, are averse to living near AR-15 owners and neighbors who store guns insecurely. This consensus highlights potential local-level agreement on gun safety practices.
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're viewing a single thread.
The aversion to AR-15 owners was stronger than the aversion to owners of other types of firearms (pistols). When given a choice, the probability that a respondent would prefer to live near someone who owned an AR-15 plummeted by over 20 percentage points, indicating a strong societal preference against this type of gun ownership.
Which, as usual, goes a long way towards illustrating how effective propaganda and manipulation of people's opinions can be. Not just on this specific topic either, but in this case I guess that's what we're talking about. Despite its scientific dressings, what this study is exploring isn't actually any mechanical factor, it is measuring people's perceptions which are not guaranteed to be reflected by reality. (And again, this is true of many other topics as well...)
The AR-15 platform does the same damn thing and shoots the same damn bullet in the same damn way as numerous other firearms, and yet just the name itself has a bad rap from being incessantly repeated in the news and social media.
Here's this old chestnut. It's still true.
Why's the one on top "scarier?"
Tl;dr: Own, store, and handle your gun responsibly. Don't be a paranoid loon. Don't believe in whatever boogeyman Fox News is pushing this week. Don't hyperventilate about fictional distinctions.
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.
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.
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.
You're good! In many ways that's exactly what the marketing people on the anti-gun side wanted to happen. They knew that psychologically the two terms would become synonymous with each other. Unfortunately the attitude problem you highlighted in the loud minority of gun owners only helped that advertising campaign.
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.
The brass took away the giggle switch from the crayon eaters to save on their ammo bill. There's a reason "marining" is a verb, after all.
But every gun is designed to kill people, all the way back to the musket. And your suggestion of an integral magazine doesn't do much, even if you could somehow round up all the ARs with detachable mags and "fix" them. The M1 Garand and it's stripper clips are a historic example, and the modern ejection port mag loaders the neutered California ARs have to use make it trivial to reload.
You want to tackle this issue? Safe storage laws, building a culture around free, government-provided training and safety, and harsher punishments for NDs are a place to start. That's not even getting into the quagmire that is our terrible healthcare system, and law enforcement that on average can't do their jobs and act on tips that would stop many of the recent big mass shootings.
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.
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.
Which is exactly the reason why patience is needed.
Again, I agree, but have you ever tried to patiently educate every poorly informed opinion on the internet?
I agree, it is difficult, but that's what makes it so important if it's something that you feel passionately about.
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 see how that changes the validity of the question. If we're not talking about the same thing, the conversation is only going to end badly. What's explicitly wrong with asking for a definition? Because I'm not understanding you at all.
You are conflating asking and demanding. The problem is the demanding. It's about the way it is communicated that is the problem.
Okay that makes sense. To me, especially over text, the phrase "Define X" reads as a pretty standard question in a back and forth, the same way English speakers omit the pronoun 'you' when using imperatives. I feel like unless they were cursing at you, interpreting that as a rude demand makes a lot of assumptions.
I guess you need to see the context of the sort of discussions I'm talking about, but there's not one I can provide this second because I'm thinking of Reddit arguments and my VPN is on right now and Reddit wants me to log in to see them and fuck them if they think I'm going to do that.
Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15's lighter and easier to fire?
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It's one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Why is it surprising that it's considered deadiler?
This picture is often used to draw out all the points you've made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can't do).
A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn't, even though they're functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.
The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.
I asked the question because i honestly dont know the difference, but right off the bat youre saying the image is designed to show one gun in a "action ready" and the other in a "not ready" state. Leaving out the magazine for the second gun is especially misleading when trying to elict a "they are totally the same" reaction.
It's no wonder that people will think one is deadlier than the other shown these exact guns in these conditions, because one literally is from the magazine capacity alone.
Sorry for not being more clear in my response. There is a magazine in the second one. It is a 5 round magazine (The standard option for this particular model). However, for example, here are the readily available options for the mini 14: https://themagshack.com/product-category/rifle-magazines/ruger-mini-14-magazines/
As I said this picture points out that many people don't know the difference (as you acknowledged you yourself don't know the difference). My point is semi auto rifles as a category of firearm are more deadly. It doesn't matter what semi auto. The mini-14 vs AR-15 argument is used to illustrate the general ignorance many people have about various firearms. The mini-14 is very much as dangerous as an AR-15, but it doesn't get the same attention because it's a gun that can easily look innocuous. The photo used in this post is intentionally disingenuous to highlight this point.
For example, here are the "tactical" models of the Mini-14: https://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
Ruger literally highlights the following benefits to the tactical models: Their short barrels and overall short length make them favorites in any application where maneuverability and ease of handling are priorities.
Many people argue one way or the other while fully acknowledging their own ignorance, and it makes it difficult to find a solution to an issue. As an owner of more than one semi auto rifle, it is frustrating when this particular argument comes up because of how ridiculous it can be. The AR-15 looks scarier, and is therefore deadlier to many people. There are numerous other semi autos that are just as deadly, but don't get demonized because they don't look scary. The AK and SKS are a similar example, though less hyperbolic. The argument to be made is to get rid of semi autos, not demonize particular ones.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
You're right. We should regulate black paint just in case someone decides to turn their legitimate wooden rifle into a war machine.
So you ignored everything i asked about except the color?
Okay.
In aggregate, these differences between the two guns, especially the magazine shown on one gun and not the other, make the weapon more dangerous to others, so it's considered more dangerous to others. Seems pretty simple to me.
Someone already shit on you about everything else, seemed redundant to pile on.
In aggregate, these changes make the weapon
more dangerous to otherslook scary.Fixed.
So it's your firm connection that the top gun with a 10 round magazine is equally dangerous as the bottom gun with a 1 round chamber?
Okay then.
Why don't you compare chamber to chamber? The top gun also only has a one round chamber.
Why don't you compare magazine to magazine? They each only store one round (in the chamber) without a magazine. Standard hunting magazines for both in most states which allow hunting with them, is 5 rounds. You can also get 10, 20, 30, or higher capacity for either.
The point is that they're both highly customizable and acquirable, and their basic functions and performance are identical, but only one is publicly stigmatized. Either do both or neither.
I don't get the point about firing from the hip, no one who is trying to hit a target is firing from the hip unless they're a trick shooter or firing a shotgun and even then, very rare. And you can also have a pistol grip on a mini-14. And even if it was an issue, holding a pistol grip from the hip is less natural and more awkward than holding a standard hunting rifle grip at that angle.
You've already had it explained to you that the mini14 takes magazines. Being overly pedantic doesn't help your case.
#BlackGunsMatter
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
In all of the PCSL, 2-gun, etc. matches I've been to, I've never seen anyone shooting from the hip.
A 'traditional' stock offers certain benefits that an AR-15 stock doesn't; you can sometimes get different comb heights (or an adjustable comb height) in order to make it easier to get a good sight picture. Since an AR-15 has a buffer tube in the stock, you can't really do much to move it up or down, and your charging handle limits your ability to have a stock with a comb that goes very far forward or up. Neither is "right", but is going to be at least partially preference and purpose of the firearm.
But fundamentally, a gun that is difficult and uncomfortable to shoot is a bad design, regardless of how the stock is designed.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
So, it turns out that black isn't actually less visible at night. Nor are bright colors more visible at night. If you wear solid black at night in the woods, you're going to be more visible than if you were wearing camouflage. No joke. It has to do with the way that you perceive color.
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?
They're both roughly the same out of the box. Both should be in the 5-6 pound range. An AR-15 trigger assembly can be replaced fairly easily by anyone that wants to spend the money ($200-500, depending); I replaced mine with a flat-faced 2.5# trigger since I use it for competitions. Ruger uses a lot of MIM parts, so you'd need to start by replacing the guts with something made from tool steel, and then go to a gunsmith to get the detailing done to safely reduce trigger pull weight. (Done incorrectly, you can end up with things like a gun that is no longer drop safe.)
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. [emphasis added] It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Exactly how do you mean this? Both have the same rate of fire. Both use the same cartridge. They have the same overall length. You can change the furniture on the Mini-14 to black plastic if you want. It's literally the same bullet, at the same speed, and producing the same number of foot-pounds of force. How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?
How, exactly, is one deadlier than the other?
It's not. You're never going to get a non-disingenuous question to this answer. You can easily get a 30 round magazine for the Mini 14, too, so the notion that the Armalite platform is somehow inherently has more "rapid fire capacity" is nonsense, too.
FWIW you can get aftermarket stocks to go on an Armalite buffer tube with adjustable combs. I've seen them. Like, in catalogs. I've never actually seen anyone install one in real life, but at least they exist. You can even get a lower for a monte carlo style "sporting" stock for an Armalite upper receiver, if you really want to.
You're ultimately correct in that it's just cosmetics.
FWIW you can get aftermarket stocks to go on an Armalite buffer tube with adjustable combs
Sure, the Magpul PRS, for instance. But you can run into issues with LOP and the cheek riser interfering with the charging handle. It's not really an ideal solution. Mostly you just need to get used to a different cheek weld than you might otherwise have. (Specifically, you use something closer to a chin weld on an AR.) That type of stock is more often used by people that are trying to make an accuracy-focused rifle, with a 20-22" heavy barrel, etc.
Or run a slickside upper.
I suppose this illustrates another point, though, in that the Armalite platform is so popular because it's so easily customizable. And it's easily customizable because there are a ton of parts available because it's popular, so it's popular because there are a ton of parts available, and there are a ton of parts available because... etc.
Agreed, that image is misleading.
Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.
The magazine isn't in the second picture but it has one. Looks like a Ruger 5816 to me, so if you want to see what it looks like with the magazine in it, check out their webpage. Funny enough, it looks like a 10 round mag in the AR, and the 5816 comes with a 20.
How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?
You're talking about personal preferences here. I tend to find them both pretty comfortable, but you really want to keep the stock at your shoulder.
How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?
One of them is black metal, the other one is wood. Either could be painted if you wanted to I suppose, but if we're talking about night-time scenarios, using a light would make either relatively visible.
Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15’s lighter and easier to fire?
You could probably answer these questions in less time than it took you to write them out by looking them up. The 5816 has a pull of 13.50" the base model ruger AR (8500) is 10.25" - 13.50".
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It’s one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Clearly this is bullshit.
The image implies these guns have the same capabilities and fire rate, but one has a magazine and the other doesnt.
Given a circumstance where someone is shooting at you with either the top gun with a magazine and the bottom gun with no magazine, which would you prefer they have?
Yea, I see your point - no magazine at all has a capacity of 1.
These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It's one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.
Others have already explained how they're both equally lethal, but to your point about mass murderers using the one over the other: The top rifle can be had for ~$400 & looks like the one all the soldiers and video game guys use. The bottom is closer to $1000 and does not look as cool (to the young adult male demographic that commits most mass shootings, at least). I would argue those two factors account more for their difference in mass shooting use than anything else.
These are all differences without distinction, both of these rifles are capable of the same amount of harm.
Magazine capacity is the same, the Ruger just doesn't have it's magazine in the picture. Higher cap mags can be found for either rifle.
Pistol grip and color might make a difference in a video game, but no so much in reality.
Trigger pull difference is negligible, and could be lighter on either of the two rifles. There is no such thing as default trigger pull..
The hip fire point really got me. Hip firing a gun makes it far less deadly. You have to actually aim to hit targets. Real life isn't like video games.
Why’s the one on top “scarier?”
Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.
I'm not sure why people like you don't understand that. It's not the gun, it's the sort of people buying it.
And if you are an AR-15 owner and don't like who the gun is associated with, I'm sorry. You don't get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.
Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.
Who's that?
You don’t get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.
Are you saying that a study with a self-selection bias of participants that specifically use MTurk, that has 3 comparative subjects (no gun, pistol, AR) is indicative of societal perspective?
You know exactly who I am talking about. You don't live under a rock, I'm sure. Don't pretend and play coy. I'm not going to play that game with you.
So now you're going to defend your own ignorant statement with, "I should know better?" You should not make blanket assumptions about who owns what. I think you are living under a rock.
Fine. I'll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren't is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?
Whether you think it's a fair association or not is irrelevant. That's what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.
Bitch about it all you want, them's the breaks.
Now, any more silly game-playing you want to do?
Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?
I despise games, but I despise ignorant bullshit more. I don't want to play games with you. The AR-15 is a popular choice among rifle owners in the US typically because of the availability of parts and ammo... that's the main reason. It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223, so again, if you're actually keeping one around to protect yourself against ______ (fill in the blank) you'll have a better chance at acquiring ammo.
I'm the polar opposite of a right-wing asshole (the asshole part may still hold), but if more ARs and AR parts are being produced, it's simply a matter of practicality in the long-term.
Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.
Fair association? What the fuck are you talking about? I could give a fuck about perceptions, but assuming that everyone that owns an AR is a right-winger is dumb. I don't think YOU get to speak for a large segment of the population; you simply speak for yourself.
It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223
The difference between 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Rem is so negligible that it's almost entirely academic. The vast majority of rifles that can use one can use the other. You can't buy separate dies for reloading, and they don't have separate sections in reloading manuals. Yes, 5.56 can produce much higher chamber pressures when fired in a .223 chamber, but in most cases you aren't going to have problems.
And as far as AR-15s... They're modular, easy to work on, parts are readily available. That's what makes it the most popular rifle platform in the US, period. The Mini-14, for example, is the IP of Sturm, Ruger & Co; they're the only ones that make the rifle. An AR-15 is an AR-15, almost regardless of who makes it (other than BCA or PSA). That's nearly unique among firearms; there really aren't any other guns on the market where exactly the same firearm, made to the same set of specs, is made by many different manufacturers. Only Glock makes the Glock 17. Only Sig makes the P320 (so far, despite it being the Army service pistol), and only Beretta makes the model 92/M9; that's why you see so, so many different choices in pistols, because there's not any single standard design that's all made to exactly the same spec. (And, BTW, 1911s are awful in that way, as are all AKs; everything needs to be hand fit.)
I can’t help that you don’t like the general public perception of people who own the gun that you own. It doesn’t change that perception and being rude about it also doesn’t help.
It’s also not about what I personally believe, so please stop suggesting it is.
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.
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.
The study only had 3 categories: no firearms, pistol(s), or an AR-15, so you're literally just ranting at bad survey design.
Okay, so? Does that make it less bullshit somehow?
Because you're railing against the perception of AR15s vs other rifles when that literally wasn't part of the study in any capacity. People responding to this just chose the biggest gun on the list, that's all there is to it.
In 1986 someone used the bottom to basically single-handedly kill 2 FBI agents and wound 4 others in an active gunfight. In most other countries, both weapons are heavily regulated if not prohibited for civilian ownership.
Assault weapon bans are both a product of ignorant perception and the lack of political will to ban all self-loading firearms or subgroups thereof.
active gunfight
I've always wondered this. What's the fixation with adding "active" all the time? Is a "passive" gunfight an overweight Floridian on an oxygen tank, draped across a mobility scooter waiting for the targets to come to him?
I put that there to emphasize that it was a fairly even two-way exchange, "active," as opposed to something like him setting an ambush where the FBI got little or no shots off. Probably didn't serve that purpose but I tried.
Then why do people buy the top one over the bottom one?
I can't answer for "people," only for me. But I'm pretty sure you can't just slap an upper receiver for a different caliber on a Mini 14. The AR platform is inherently customizable and modular.
That doesn't make it shoot bullets any harder versus another gun in the same chambering, though. (Edited).
Way cheaper too.
What's the practical purpose of changing calibers if it doesn't make a difference?
Changing calibers absolutely does make a difference. If it didn't, we wouldn't have so many. My comment about not shooting bullets harder has the implicit clarification that this is if it's chambered in the same caliber as another gun.
In their default factory configurations, the vast majority of AR-15's as well as the Mini 14 (the other gun pictured there) fire the same cartridge in the same caliber with approximately the same amount of energy, to no appreciable difference whatsoever from the point of view of whatever was shot with them. That is .223 Remington.
If you convert your gun to a different caliber, obviously the comparison no longer applies unless you compare it to other guns of the same caliber. But the Armalite platform is very modular, so making that conversion is super easy. This allows you to, just as an example, buy a bog standard model chambered in .223 and leave it that way for self defense or whatever, but then get an inexpensive .22LR upper to fire cheap .22LR ammo for target practice or plinking without having to spend the entire GDP of a third world country on ammunition, and/or keep a larger caliber receiver on hand in .300 Blackout or .450 Bushmaster or similar for hunting.
This saves you from having to buy and secure three separate guns for three separate tasks, especially considering you're unlikely to be needing all three at the same time. (I don't know about you, but I only have two hands.)
I think most gun owners tend to own quite a few guns. I also have seen where people tend to buy multiple AR-15 rifles in order to build something different every time for no discernable reason other than they like to build them and show them off. The issue is that the AR-15 platform attracts certain kinds of people who really don't have an interest in shooting as a sport. If it wasn't available I would guess that many of those people wouldn't buy some other rifle in its place.
I see you've never met the Ruger 10/22 grandpas. You want to talk about a bunch of guys who spend thousands of dollars buying, building, and ricing out rifles for "competition" or "varmint control" and inevitably have one or more builds they've never even fired nor do they ever intend to.
But it's got a rainbow-stained burl walnut thumbhole stock, magazine release lever conversion, 2" thick carbon fiber bull barrel, all stainless hardware, a $900 trigger group, 50 round aftermarket banana mag, a bipod, and a 10-32x240mm illuminated reticle night vision scope! You don't understand, I had to spend $8000 on building it because .22 ammo is just so cheap!
Some weirdos are just like that.
The short answer is that AR-15s are just better rifles. They're more accurate, they're more reliable, they're easier to clean and maintain, they're easier to repair, they have much better ergonomics, none of the parts are proprietary, and consequently there's an enormous aftermarket for parts, accessories, and customization. They also have a modular design that, with the exception of the barrel nut and castle nut which have torque specifications, can be almost completely disassembled with a single roll punch and an allen wrench or two. That means if something breaks or wears out you don't have to send it back to the manufacturer or pay out the nose for a gunsmith, you can just order the part and fix it yourself with basically just a pointy stick and a YouTube video. It also means you can start out with a really cheap rifle and upgrade it component by component until you have a high-end rifle if you want to.
That Mini-14 on the bottom is a fine rifle, and they're actually pretty popular, but the AR platform outclasses it on most crucial metrics. If you could only have one or the other, for most people it'd be the AR without question. A lot of people have spilled a lot of ink speculating about this reason or that reason as to why so many people want ARs, and usually manage to miss the fact that they're just fantastic rifles. Even with the amount of cringey fetishizing of the military that happens on the conservative side of the gun community, nobody would want one if they sucked.
Details like this are really just a distraction. Do you really think the average respondent understands these technical details, or have any good reason to memorize the specs of all rifles? The focus on the AR-15 is not because of any risk associated with that particular gun, but because most people understand that this is a semi-auto rifle. There is no other model of gun that will have that kind of widespread recognition.
Drawing up these very silly technical arguments is a willful ignorance of the underlying issue: What is the limit of deadly force we should allow one person to lawfully own? We don't let people own tactical nukes. We don't need to argue over thermonuclear or hydrogen nukes. We don't need to understand quantum mechanics to regulate these devices. The technical details do not matter. The potential body count is what matters. And so it is with guns, which happen to occupy that grey area where reasonable people disagree on an acceptable level of lethality. You do not need to know all the different models of gun to be killed by one, so we should not require such technical knowledge when engaging in discourse around their regulation.
Gun owners who demand that you have a favorite brand of gun oil before you are allowed to have an opinion will, as a group, gladly make profoundly ignorant statements about regulating other people's religions, medical conditions, sexual preferences...
Is that true about those guns though?
I'm assuming the magazine size. Which is generally why magazine size is the common way to enforce which rifles are considered problematic for home ownership.
There's nothing physically preventing anyone from putting a readily available 30+ round magazine into a Mini 14.
It even says "same capacity" right there in the picture. Although to be fair, the Mini 14 in that picture either has a flush fit low capacity magazine installed in it or is unloaded.
Well, the top one is much easier to convert to fully automatic for starters.
Also, the branding that a loud portion of AR-15 owners have given themselves doesn't help (trust me I used to be friends with one of them).