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?
Oh, good gosh, the HORROR!!!
(Memo to Harvard: this is whatcha might call "sarcasm")
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.)
Yeah, none of this individual rights crap! What about the rights of the government??? </SARCASM>
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.
You mean like this guy?
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.
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.
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?
Is there some reason GUN is in all caps?
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.
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...
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.
John Lott has a discussion of this at:
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,
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)...
"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.
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!
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
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.