Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun-toting motorists more prone to road rage (Banglist Barf Alert)
New Scientist ^ | 3 feb 06 | Anon

Posted on 02/03/2006 6:05:12 AM PST by white trash redneck

GUN lobbyists like to repeat the quote often attributed to American writer Robert Heinlein, that "an armed society is a polite society". But this is certainly not true for motorists.

A survey of 2400 drivers carried out by David Hemenway and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that motorists who carry guns in their cars are far more likely to indulge in road rage - driving aggressively or making obscene gestures - than motorists without guns. Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns (Accident Analysis and Prevention, DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014).

Yet in some states it is easier than ever to own a gun and carry it a car. In the past two decades 23 states have eased restrictions on carrying guns, says researcher Mary Vriniotis. Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

“In some states it is easier than ever to own a gun and carry it in a car”

"Our findings indicate that the people driving around with guns in their cars are not among the most responsible and best-behaved people on the road," says Vriniotis. "In the interests of injury and violence prevention, it probably makes more sense to tighten rather than relax restrictions on gun carrying in motor vehicles."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; concealedcarry; rkba; roadrage; stupididiot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
That's one possible explanation. Others could be:

1) People who don't have the responsibility to own guns are less honest in their responses, or

2) Maybe gun owners were aware of the investigators' biases, and just wanted to f*ck with their data.

1 posted on 02/03/2006 6:05:16 AM PST by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

If they have no convictions and can pass a background check, what, exactly, makes them unsuitable?

2 posted on 02/03/2006 6:10:44 AM PST by Klatuu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

I wonder if they're including criminals in their numbers.


3 posted on 02/03/2006 6:11:37 AM PST by nerdwithamachinegun (All generalizations are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Harvard School of Public Health

Nope, no agenda here - perfectly unbiased.

4 posted on 02/03/2006 6:14:32 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Again, just as it is with cell phones and driving, there are already laws on the books to deal with these sorts of things: aggressive driving, following too close, reckless driving, "road rage", etc.

Don't take away or restrict my rights because of the behavior of a minority that abuses the right. Punish them under existing laws.

5 posted on 02/03/2006 6:14:50 AM PST by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
The only thing this study shows is that gun owners are more honest. Only 168 more gun owners than non-gun owners out of a total population of 2400 admitted to making rude gestures, which is a pretty small number- 7% of the study's population.

The gun owners may also have NRA or Bush stickers on their vehicles, which makes them more prone to harassment by other motorists. The results could also be influenced by the researcher's selection of participants (i.e., they may only have picked guys wearing trucker hats at the local tavern).

6 posted on 02/03/2006 6:19:15 AM PST by jsmith48 (www.isupatriot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

I would lie on principle to any pollster or surveyer. I had the opportunity once for an exit poll and did.


7 posted on 02/03/2006 6:19:49 AM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than over here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun

Why are people not more concerned about police losing their rights?

8 posted on 02/03/2006 6:19:59 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Pascal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu
If they have no convictions and can pass a background check, what, exactly, makes them unsuitable?

Lack of celebrity status or not a member of the government

9 posted on 02/03/2006 6:22:21 AM PST by from occupied ga (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
David Hemenway and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health

Nope, no agenda here folks, move along, nothing to see, just the facts.....

10 posted on 02/03/2006 6:22:28 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

This is what I have mounted on my hood,
but I have never had to use them!!

11 posted on 02/03/2006 6:25:50 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9; white trash redneck
Nope, no agenda here - perfectly unbiased.

Hemenway is a long-time lefty activist.

David Hemenway

Says it all.

Hemenway's work on guns and violence is a natural evolution of his research on injuries of various kinds, which he has pursued for decades. (In fact, it could be traced as far back as the 1960s, when, working for Ralph Nader, LL.B. '58, he investigated product safety as one of "Nader's Raiders.") Hemenway says he doesn't have a personal issue with guns; he has shot firearms, but found the experience "loud and dirty—and there's no exercise"—as opposed to the "paintball" survival games he enjoys, which involve not only shooting but "a lot of running." He also happens to live in a state with strong gun laws. "It's nice," he says, "to have raised my son in Massachusetts, where he is so much safer."

12 posted on 02/03/2006 6:26:33 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska
This is what I have mounted on my hood,

I thought the Bismark sunk the Hood in 1941

13 posted on 02/03/2006 6:28:45 AM PST by from occupied ga (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu

Most likely, the fact that they want to "own" a gun. Some LE orgs, especially in enemy territory don't want anyone to own a gun but them....


14 posted on 02/03/2006 6:29:27 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Hemenway says he doesn't have a personal issue with guns; he has shot firearms,

Every freedom hating anti-gunner says that. They're all liars of course.

15 posted on 02/03/2006 6:30:03 AM PST by from occupied ga (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu
If they have no convictions and can pass a background check, what, exactly, makes them unsuitable?

Given the source of many gun laws, it's often the person's complexion or heritage. Best examples being the GCA of 1968, which is based on the NAZI Germany gun bans, and of course, NY's Sullivan Law.

Mark

16 posted on 02/03/2006 6:31:29 AM PST by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu

Being a postal worker?


17 posted on 02/03/2006 6:33:04 AM PST by albionvectis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

Did they have any type of control for age and/or sex? I think that young men would be the ones most likely to be armed. I also think that they would be be the ones most likely to fly the bird at someone who cuts them off. Did they then compare unarmed young men vs. armed young men? No? Would it have unskewed their data in a way they didn't like?


18 posted on 02/03/2006 6:34:54 AM PST by KarlInOhio (During wartime, some whistles should not be blown. - Orson Scott Card)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

All this is moot, even if true. The 2A is a right not contingent on some future death rate (13 chilrens a day killed with guns), emotional polls or any other BS.


19 posted on 02/03/2006 6:39:43 AM PST by umgud (uncompassionate conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu; Joe Brower
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun.

When did they?

20 posted on 02/03/2006 6:39:59 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

Rude signs!!!
Oh, good gosh, the HORROR!!!

(Memo to Harvard: this is whatcha might call "sarcasm")


21 posted on 02/03/2006 6:40:30 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun.

What about the right of citizens finding unsuitable police from owning guns?

I've heard more stories of cops going wacko with their guns than ordinary citizens.


22 posted on 02/03/2006 6:44:11 AM PST by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
"When did they?"

Well, the statement strikes me as disingenous since police don't ban things, but judges and juries sure do.

It's also very possible that it's just something the "reporter" made up out of whole cloth.

23 posted on 02/03/2006 6:46:15 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jsmith48
Did they segregate the study by sex? Many more men are gun owners than women, also men are more likely ,IMHO, to use offensive hand signals. I would bet that if you segregated for sex that you would find the gun carriers to be more polite.

Also, was this a national study? Was it done in urban vs rural areas? Hemingway is known for his sampling bias, as I recall.

I am pretty sure that at one symposium that I was at, he argued that bill of rights included "collective rights" because the "right to assemble" must be collective, therefore the 2nd amendment was a collective right.
24 posted on 02/03/2006 6:53:11 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns (Accident Analysis and Prevention, DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014).

Need more data on a couple of points from the research:

1. How many of these "gun-toting" drivers are legally carrying guns (i.e. law-abiding citizens who go through the trouble to get cc permits, etc.) vs people who carry guns illegally?
2. How many of the people who did not carry guns lied about their use of rude signs.
3. How do the two respective groups define "rude signs" (e.g. if the gun-toters being more responsible and more polite consider frustrated shrug and frown to be "rude" while the anti-gunners don't even consider the middle-finger salute to be "rude", then the results of the survey are meaningless)

Finally, the survey appears to use an overly broad definition of "road rage" to get to its conclusion that gun-toters are more prone to road rage. It reminds me of the surveys that purport to show how rampant sexual harrassment is in high schools -- the definition is so broad that if a guy asks a girl out for a date and she doesn't like him, his mere asking her out constitutes harrassment.

25 posted on 02/03/2006 6:55:38 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

I don't think this has anything to do with carrying a gun but it has more to do with idiots that don't know how to drive and us sane people having to yell at the insane people that don't know the rules of the road.

Just last night I almost had a pizza delivery driver slam into the side of my truck.

I was making a right turn out of a sub-division and the a$$hat across from me that was making a left turn didn't seem to understand that I HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY! Luckily it was a rather warm night and I had my window down so I'm almost positive that he could read my lips. But even if he didn't read my lips I'm sure he understood the one finger salute I was giving him.

I don't call what I did "road rage", at no time did I draw my gun or go after the guy, heck I didn't even brake check him after he got behind me.


26 posted on 02/03/2006 6:55:57 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

I do not believe this crap. As a gun owner and concealed carrier I am extremely prudent. I do not wish to give the gun grabbers any excuse to make us look bad. My many friends that also carry share the same attitude.

If the story were true we would have many incidents of Concealed Carry Holders involved in incidents. This has not happened. What does happen is violent crime goes down when a state passes a concealed carry law.

The author has printed a bogus survey!


27 posted on 02/03/2006 6:58:13 AM PST by cpdiii (roughneck (oil field trash and proud of it), geologist, pilot, pharmacist, full time iconoclast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I know in some states the sheriff has to sign off on a carry permit but I can't recall having to get permission in order to buy a gun.

I could be wrong though, some states have some funny laws.
28 posted on 02/03/2006 6:58:42 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
In the past two decades 23 states have eased restrictions on carrying guns, says researcher Mary Vriniotis. Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

It's too bad that I am not granted ultimate power to ban people I consider unsuitable from reproducing. Ms. Vriniotis should not be allowed to contribute to the gene pool because I consider her unsuitable. As it is, she doesn't even have to pass a background check, such as absence of criminal convictions; she can just go and get knocked up and pop out as many babies as she wants.

29 posted on 02/03/2006 6:59:18 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

If it weren't for road stupidity there would never be any road rage. (and the worst road stupidity offenders are almost always registered democrats.)


30 posted on 02/03/2006 7:00:31 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu
"Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions."

Typical liberal deliberate confusion of rights and powers.

Police no longer have the *power* to ban someone they don't like from owning a gun.

People always had the right to own and carry a gun, the police just had the power to arrest them for it, because our cowardly courts would not uphold the Constitution.
31 posted on 02/03/2006 7:01:51 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun.

Yeah, none of this individual rights crap! What about the rights of the government??? </SARCASM>

32 posted on 02/03/2006 7:02:09 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Jack Murtha: America's best-known EX-marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Klatuu
Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

Here, let's play with that a little.

Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun publishing their idiot ideas. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

Try that on for size, Leftie weenies.

33 posted on 02/03/2006 7:02:14 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
I admit to having road rage, but it is not dependent on if I am carrying a gun. It usually occurs right after some jerk nearly wrecks me. I feel no shame for being rude to other drivers who's inability to drive nearly kill me.
34 posted on 02/03/2006 7:02:28 AM PST by smug (Tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Every freedom hating anti-gunner says that. They're all liars of course.

You mean like this guy?


35 posted on 02/03/2006 7:04:18 AM PST by Angus MacGregor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: facedown
He also happens to live in a state with strong gun laws. "It's nice," he says, "to have raised my son in Massachusetts, where he is so much safer."

I'm sure he also thinks it's nice to be able to vote every six years for somebody who let a young woman drown in his car back in 1969.

36 posted on 02/03/2006 7:04:24 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Jack Murtha: America's best-known EX-marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
Yet another example of how you can make statistics read into ANYTHING you want.

I carry a firearm with me at all times, and I think the converse to this article is true. Carrying my gun fits me with a much greater responsibility, and I am even more courteous on the road than usual. I don't want to get into a scuffle with an idiot who may be carrying and DOES fit into the relatively small cadre of ill-tempered gun toters, and I really don't want to deal with LEOs if I can avoid it.

I go about my business, and I encourage everyone who carries to go through a tactical firearms class above and beyond your range time. Learning the tips to lawful firearm use gives you a confidence that you'd never imagined. And if you're a desk dweller like me, it gives you a chance to experience that adrenaline rush of a distracting, potentially life threatening situation in the safety of a controlled environment.

37 posted on 02/03/2006 7:11:28 AM PST by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I generally won't take a survey unless they pay me. And they never pay me. What makes people think I want to give up five minutes of their time answering their stupid questions?


38 posted on 02/03/2006 7:11:42 AM PST by Flavius Josephus (Enemy Idealogies: Pacifism, Liberalism, and Feminism, Islamic Supremacism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

Is there some reason GUN is in all caps?


39 posted on 02/03/2006 7:12:35 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angus MacGregor

Yeah, like that a$$hole. BUT... He is the duly elected senator from NY and and as such is representative of values and attitudes of the state he represents. He's a symptom of the rot, not the cause.


40 posted on 02/03/2006 7:16:08 AM PST by from occupied ga (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
This guy is a flippin' moron. If I am using my hand to make obscene gestures, then I am not drawing my gun. D'oh!

If you were to cut me off and not see the fickle finger of fate giving you that "you're number one" salute, then it might be time to worry...

41 posted on 02/03/2006 7:18:08 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithamachinegun
I wonder if they're including criminals in their numbers.

Of course they are. And they are also including everybody in states that allow vehicle carry with no license. This has practically nothing to do with concealed weapons permit holders, who as a class are among the most law-abiding citizens in the country. I suspect their results would have been quite far in the opposite direction if they had surveyed only CCW permittees.

-ccm

42 posted on 02/03/2006 7:19:00 AM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck

John Lott has a discussion of this at:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/02/research-on-guns-and-road-rage.html


43 posted on 02/03/2006 7:19:43 AM PST by Richard05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm


44 posted on 02/03/2006 7:29:43 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
This study is way short of credibility both as to source and method.

A random survey of drivers would prove my father's comment on the subject more than 60 years ago while riding with him to LGA...

"Son, you may wonder why cab drivers in NYC are so aggressive and the simple answer is the Sullivan law..." (said law the very same that prevented me from legally owning a BB gun).

Rude tough guys already carry big sticks...and they are the ones who now have to consider their safety.

I say allow stickers on your vehicle which state,

Polite, Sane, and Armed

45 posted on 02/03/2006 7:29:59 AM PST by harrowup (Born perfect and humble about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard05

I particularly like the part of Lott's article where he mentions that one result of the study could be used to justify preventing liberals from driving (using the same logic that the study used with gun owners)...


46 posted on 02/03/2006 7:36:00 AM PST by The Electrician ("Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

"If the story were true we would have many incidents of Concealed Carry Holders involved in incidents. This has not happened. What does happen is violent crime goes down when a state passes a concealed carry law.

The author has printed a bogus survey!"

My thoughts exactly! As a retired scientist, I'd love to examine their paper to see how they did this research.


47 posted on 02/03/2006 7:44:08 AM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: white trash redneck
I Doubt David Hemenway and his Harvard pals really were able to find many carriers of Guns in cars in Massachusetts.

Having Lived in Massachusetts for 20 years( thankfully not there now), I saw many rude gestures from drivers and I am almost sure they were not carrying guns in their cars. First of all, to carry a gun in your car in Massachusetts, you have to have a permit, and to get a permit, you have to have never committed a felon or even a misdemeanor. You have to take a class in gun safety, be fingerprinted by your local police and intense security check into your background by law enforcement.

By the way, I had a license to carry a concealed weapon in Massachusetts, and never ever even carried a gun in my car or on my person in the state. Did I make rude gestures while driving??? Maybe, but not because I had a gun in my possession. HA!

48 posted on 02/03/2006 7:56:23 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

David Hemenway

David Hemenway: 'Our key goal is to try to build a society where it is safe for teenagers, so nobody wants to carry a gun.' (Staff photos by Jon Chase) http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/10.31/09-guns.html

49 posted on 02/03/2006 8:02:17 AM PST by AmericanMade1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jsmith48

Lot's of bias potential. What if men are more likely to carry a gun than women and men are also more likely to rage? Could turn out that male gun owners are less likely than men in general to rage.


50 posted on 02/03/2006 8:03:45 AM PST by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson