Skip to comments.Gun-toting motorists more prone to road rage (Banglist Barf Alert)
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.
"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."
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.
If they have no convictions and can pass a background check, what, exactly, makes them unsuitable?
I wonder if they're including criminals in their numbers.
Nope, no agenda here - perfectly unbiased.
Don't take away or restrict my rights because of the behavior of a minority that abuses the right. Punish them under existing laws.
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).
I would lie on principle to any pollster or surveyer. I had the opportunity once for an exit poll and did.
Why are people not more concerned about police losing their rights?
Lack of celebrity status or not a member of the government
Nope, no agenda here folks, move along, nothing to see, just the facts.....
This is what I have mounted on my hood,
but I have never had to use them!!
Hemenway is a long-time lefty activist.
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 dirtyand 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."
I thought the Bismark sunk the Hood in 1941
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....
Every freedom hating anti-gunner says that. They're all liars of course.
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.
Being a postal worker?
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?
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.
When did they?