Recent comments in /f/IAmA

GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jebn56s wrote

As the owner of several ARs and several hunting rifles, I can tell you that the above comment is not quite accurate. The vast majority of semi-auto hunting rifles, like my Remington Woodsmaster, are in larger calibers than the 5.56, don't have pistol grips, don't allow for the C-Clamp grip, and don't accommodate muzzle brakes... all of which mean a slower rate of fire and reduced accuracy.

−14

UnadvertisedAndroid t1_jeblnfo wrote

Many of these people were brainwashed into thinking they needed the AR-15 for protection by the media, so how is it that the media has very little influence? Even if not directly, they encourage gun ownership by way of hyperbolizing headings and showcasing tragedy because that's what drives views and clicks. Until we start holding them accountable for this, people are going to be frightened into thinking our country is a constant warzone.

2

yargrad t1_jebl1uw wrote

Hypothetically, if there was a credible push for an amendment to overturn the 2nd Amendment, would gun owners and conservatives be willing to compromise and accept modest gun control legislation?

We are witnessing gun control protests at the TN Capitol, which could indicate that even voters red states want some kind of gun legislation.

−12

washingtonpost OP t1_jebkmvi wrote

From Ashley Parker:

My sense is that media ownership has very little influence over why people choose to own or not own AR-15s. I’d specifically point you to our polling story that delves into, among other things, why people own guns — and the top reason is to “protect self, family and property.”

This story also features interviews with several gun owners, talking about why they ended up deciding to own AR-15s. I found them so fascinating that I watched them all, some several times, and I don’t think media ownership — or anything related — come up even obliquely.

−37

washingtonpost OP t1_jebkidy wrote

From Todd Frankel:

We looked at the role the NRA played in promoting the AR-15. The NRA is far from alone in supporting the AR-15. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and others do, too. Our reporting did find that while NRA membership has declined in recent years, members who are AR-15 owners and supporters became more important to the organization. And so the NRA has become one of the most ardent opponents of any laws that would restrict the AR-15.

But the rise of the AR-15 did not start with the NRA. As our “American Icon” story showed, the NRA did not openly welcome the AR-15 at its conventions in the 1990s or early 2000s.

From our story:“We’d have NRA members walk by our booth and give us the finger,” said Randy Luth, the founder of gunmaker DPMS, one of the earliest companies to market AR-15s.

That eventually changed. The AR-15 is today largely the star of gun conventions and trade shows.

6

undefined_one t1_jebjivw wrote

Can you please explain to everyone that an AR15 is not a machine gun and shoots bullets no faster than a hunting rifle? The only difference is the number of bullets each magazine can hold. People have the wrong idea about the AR15. The media has made everyone fear it, when it's still just a semiautomatic rifle - like a hunting rifle. It just looks mean, so people play on that. I have one and it has never killed anyone. The lazy thing won't even clean itself!

28

washingtonpost OP t1_jebi5r6 wrote

From Todd Frankel:

We wrote about one potential way to reduce gun violence: Banning large-capacity magazines.

It’s a pretty simple and very controversial idea – the more often a shooter needs to stop and reload, the fewer people that are killed. The standard magazine on AR-15s today holds 30 rounds. That’s usually considered a large-capacity magazine. A handful of states ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or 15 rounds or 17 rounds. The basic idea is the same. Cutting down on the number of bullets that can be fired quickly.

Some experts call the period when a shooter stops to reload “the critical pause.” The shooting has stopped, maybe it’s only for 10 to 15 seconds. But that’s enough time for people to escape or for people to rush the gunman.

For example, a gunman wielding an AR-15-style rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in 2019. He killed one person and injured three others while emptying a 10-round magazine. California bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. And while he tried to reload with another 10-round magazine, people confronted him and chased him away. The shooting stopped.

A magazine ban wouldn’t prevent mass shootings from occurring. But researchers and experts say that studies show the ban reduces the death toll. It gives victims a chance to survive.

−17

washingtonpost OP t1_jebg1y7 wrote

From Ashley Parker:

I cover national politics, and from a political standpoint, one thing that could make a difference is what always makes a difference — voters actually voting on this issue. The reason why some Republicans are reluctant to support even slightly modest measures that would restrict gun rights are because they believe — often correctly — that the Republican base will punish theme in a Republican primary. But in my conversations with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — who obviously represents the state where Sandy Hook occurred — he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win. He says in the wake of the Parkland shooting, he sees a real movement, led by young people, where politicians may now expect to pay a price for NOT supporting what he would term common sense gun reform. But of course, before it can become a real general election issue, it has to stop being a toxic Republican primary issue.

−6

APECS_Polarscience OP t1_jeako4f wrote

When on a reconnaissance flight with the helicopter along the shelf ice edge in Antarctica we discovered the leftovers of a research station/research container of unknown origin. I found it incredible that we were for days on the ship without seeing anything human made and then found traces of humankind left behind. Antarctica is an incredibly large continent, so the chance to discover something like this was rather small, I believe.

2

APECS_Polarscience OP t1_jea70vx wrote

This is Mareike adding on to this question: From my knowledge there are a lot of jobs that are not within research at Antarctic (and I guess Artic) research stations: e.g. Rothera Research Station has seasonal staff for air field operations, field guides, which are mainly coming from a mountaineering/climbing background to keep research and operations teams safe in the field, but also general assistants who keep the station running and organise kitchen, cleaning, supply and logistics. Some of the jobs will only operate in the summer season (e.g. airfield, some of the field guides), but some of the jobs will stay and overwinter as well (field guides, a chef, generator mechanics, ...).

1

APECS_Polarscience OP t1_jea4gfz wrote

>How about the trees from the eocene on Axel Heiberg?

Right now, yes!

Historically, the Inuit and Innu have not been participants in the governance of Arctic shipping for example, but efforts are underway to better account for their concerns concerning the operations of vessels in their waters through partnerships. There is a higher need for Arctic Indigenous to be active in different forms of collaboration due to their knowledge of the ecosystems!

Also, I never saw the Smoking Hills or even Axel Heiberg island, but it should be an amazing experience!

1