Gun-toting motorists more prone to road rage

[rory_20_uk]

I saw thig and I thought it was rather interesting:

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."

So, best keep guns off roads, or is the data fundimentally flawed?

~:smoking:

[Kanamori]

It only shows that gun owners are more likely to be agressive, not that the guns cause that mentality. If you took away their guns, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority would stay as agressive as they are.

[Xiahou]

So, best keep guns off roads, or is the data fundimentally flawed?

~:smoking:
It's total crap- on so many levels. What gun grabbing site did you pull that off of? 2400 people? How many admitted to keeping a gun in the car?
Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns I think admitted is an important word too. All it could mean is that people with guns are more honest- maybe 50% of those without them make obscene gestures and lie about. Who knows? Then it tries to make an unfounded connection between "obscene" gestures and shootings before going into the usual anti-gun tripe about how poor police officers dont have the discretion to keep people who pass rigorous background checks, references, and paperwork just because they don't want civillians to have guns. Boo hoo. :wink:

[rory_20_uk]

The site was new www.scientist.co.uk

I agree that if they had performed PET scans on 100,000 people there would be lieelt room for agrument, but with the small power of the study along with the questions asked requiring honesty I agree it is far from perfect.

In the context of a person undergoing "road rage" they would use whatever came to hand. I think that in the Uk there have been cases where people have been beaten to death with car jacks.

That the police ould prefer the civilians to be civil before they can become barbaric seems reasonable to me.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

"An armed society is a polite society" is total bull anyway. The Medieval society was functionally armed to the teeth - just about everyone reguarly carried something they could kill someone with if need be, if only their tools of trade or a simple utility knife - and was neither polite nor safe. People were quite literally killed at the drop of the hat.

The assorted "barbarian" societies (Celts, Germanics, Vikings, whoever) made it a point of pride and status for every free man to have weapons and know how to use them. Were they "polite" or "safe" ? Like Hell. Weapons were gleefully drawn and used over minor perceived offenses, which there was no shortage of.

Whatever the gun-toting American Frontier has been described as, "polite" and "safe" rarely figure in it.

In most European societies private firearms ownership (or rather, handgun ownership) is minimal and socially frowned upon; yet just about all of them are *way* safer than and presumably at least as polite as the armed American one.

Just pointing out. The sheer fallacy of that claim irks the living daylights out of me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ah, but Watchman, in Switzerland any male of a certain age is required to own an (assault?) rifle, and the murder rate there per capita is very low.

:book:

[Goofball]

It's total crap- on so many levels.

Of course it is. It must be. It presents ideas about guns that you don't agree with.


What gun grabbing site did you pull that off of? 2400 people? How many admitted to keeping a gun in the car? :wink:

While I would also be curious about the answer to your second question, as I agree it is important to know the answer before trying to draw any conclusions, I don't know why you are scoffing at the sample size. 2400 is a not insignificant sample size. To predict results for a population of 10,000,000 with a reasonable degree of confidencea sample size of less than 1900 would be sufficient.


I think admitted is an important word too. All it could mean is that people with guns are more honest- maybe 50% of those without them make obscene gestures and lie about. Who knows?

Nobody does. But as there is nothing on the face of the study to indicate that "owning a gun makes people more honest" (man, did that one ever make me laugh) these really is no basis to make that assumption.


Then it tries to make an unfounded connection between "obscene" gestures and shootings

Where did it do that?


before going into the usual anti-gun tripe about how poor police officers dont have the discretion to keep people who pass rigorous background checks, references, and paperwork just because they don't want civillians to have guns. Boo hoo.

"Rigorous" background checks? I don't know what it's like in the U.S., but I will assume from all of the criticism of our system I hear from American gun-advocates that the Canadian system is even more "rigorous" than the American one. And guess what the "rigorous" background check consisted of when I applied for a Canadian FAC.

They checked the system to see whether I had any criminal convictions, then made me fill out a cleverly subtle questionnaire that only a criminal mastermind could have seen through that asked questions like "Have you had a romantic relationship end within the past twelve months?" and "Have you contemplated suicide in the past twelve months?" and "Have you considered using violence against anybody in the past twelve months?"

Very rigorous...

Personally, I would like the police to have the discretion to say "Although this man doesn't have any criminal convictions, we think it would be a bad idea to let him own guns because we have to attend his residence at least 5 times every month because the neighbors get tired of listening to his wife scream while he beats the snot out of her."

[Crazed Rabbit]

"An armed society is a polite society" is total bull anyway. The Medieval society was functionally armed to the teeth - just about everyone reguarly carried something they could kill someone with if need be, if only their tools of trade or a simple utility knife - and was neither polite nor safe. People were quite literally killed at the drop of the hat.

Really? I'm pretty sure the feudal lords didn't let their peasants keep weapons, and a shoddy hammer or shovel is useless against a sword. The lords maintained a monopoly on good weapons. And even then, all these weapons required phsyical strength to operate.


The assorted "barbarian" societies (Celts, Germanics, Vikings, whoever) made it a point of pride and status for every free man to have weapons and know how to use them. Were they "polite" or "safe" ? Like Hell. Weapons were gleefully drawn and used over minor perceived offenses, which there was no shortage of.

I doubt the veracity of your claims. Even where your claims of a bunch of people itching to kill true, it would point out that people would want to be polite so as not to get into fights.


Whatever the gun-toting American Frontier has been described as, "polite" and "safe" rarely figure in it.

Perhaps the Hollywood description, but in reality the 'wild west' was safer than many modern day cities. Why? Because everyone had a gun. Not wise to get into a lot of fights if you've a very real chance of dying.

Consider Britain around the turn of the century 1900. There were no limits on what guns you could own or where or how you could carry them. And the murder rate was one a year.

Consider modern Britain. 'Anti-social behavior' is on the rise, and hooligans engage in fights with opposing team's supporters. The worst they have to worry about is getting beat up a bit, because they know noone will be carrying a gun.

It is true that a 'armed society is a polite society, because you may have to back up your acts with your life.' Logical really.

As to this 'study'; from a biased source that doesn't say if the motorists carrying guns are doing so legally. And has anyone heard of people who legally carry guns becoming aggresive on the road? Not in any news I've seen in the states.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

Ah, but Watchman, in Switzerland any male of a certain age is required to own an (assault?) rifle, and the murder rate there per capita is very low.

:book:And what part of "handgun" eluded you ? The thing about the Swiss ARs is that they tend to stay in the closets and aren't carried on peoples' persons...

Look, the Finnish countryside is chock full of summer cottages and farmhouses containing hunting rifles and shotguns. And every now and then it happens some lonely farmer goes loco (nigh invariably when drunk) and the police and the local version of SWAT keep him under siege for two days until he either gives up or is taken into custody (often with minor wounds in extremities from snipers). Private handgun ownership is minimal, and while I don't frankly know what it'd take to get a carry permit it's most likely somehting pretty hideous and in any case virtually nobody does it.

And our murder rates per capita with firearms is about the bottom of the world. Murder rates with other weapons - mainly blunt instruments and knives - are only slightly worse.

Honestly, if I got an Euro every time the Swiss case was (futilely) brought up in these discussion my Poor Student Budget would be meaningfully less tight.

[Xiahou]

Of course it is. It must be. It presents ideas about guns that you don't agree with.No, because it's heavy on supposition and very light (almost absent) on fact.


While I would also be curious about the answer to your second question, as I agree it is important to know the answer before trying to draw any conclusions, I don't know why you are scoffing at the sample size. 2400 is a not insignificant sample size. To predict results for a population of 10,000,000 with a reasonable degree of confidencea sample size of less than 1900 would be sufficient.My point was that of the 2400, how many carried guns in their car? We dont know because the auther isnt telling- my guess would be in the low single digits. You can't take a sample size of 50 and compare it's results to a size of 2000- which is why it's crap.


Nobody does. But as there is nothing on the face of the study to indicate that "owning a gun makes people more honest" (man, did that one ever make me laugh) these really is no basis to make that assumption.And there's nothing in it to indicate that people with guns have more 'road rage' either- my point. So there is no sound basis for that assumption either.


Personally, I would like the police to have the discretion to say "Although this man doesn't have any criminal convictions, we think it would be a bad idea to let him own guns because we have to attend his residence at least 5 times every month because the neighbors get tired of listening to his wife scream while he beats the snot out of her."So you're saying a man who beats his wife on a weekly basis- severly enough that the police are called, would never be charged? Sounds like hyperbole to me. Even a restraining order- let alone domestic violence charges is enough to get one's permit suspended. I notice this is always your 'go to' argument against guns. I've asked before and I'll ask again, how many cases of all criminal gun violence are domestic abuse related? Smells like a red herring to me. Further, it has little to do with people carrying guns in cars- you're talking about owning them in the home.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's the study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm
And the relevant bit:

15. Gun carrying and road rage
Over 2,400 licensed drivers responded to questions about their own aggressive driving in a 2004 national random digit dial survey.
Major findings: Seventeen percent of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary; Miller, Matthew. "Is an Armed Society a Polite Society? Guns and Road Rage." Accident Analysis and Prevention. in press.

Gee, I wonder if they qualified that statement enough? How much do the people who have a gun somewhere in their vehicle contribute? I doubt its causation.

Also note that they are funded by the Joyce Foundation, an anti-gun organization that repeats the same 'gun violence' tripe on its website (http://www.joycefdn.org/):

The tragedies caused by gun violence have rippled throughout the headlines in recent weeks:
Blah, blah, blah...
What can the nation do to reduce this tragic toll? Foundations could help find the answers to this question. By supporting critical research, foundations can give law-enforcement officials, health professionals, and others the information essential to develop and evaluate potential solutions.

The Joyce Foundation also funds the 'Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/)', according to this (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/gunland.pdf) Pdf file about some 'gunland USA' study. Go to page two, at the top, and look at those funding the study. Also on page two are various other 'studies' the VPC has released: How the NRA is Rearming Criminals, Why Handguns Must be Banned, etc.

The Joyce Foundation wouldn't fund the press releases...er, 'research' by Hemenway if it didn't advance their anti-gun agenda.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Gee, I wonder if they qualified that statement enough? How much do the people who have a gun somewhere in their vehicle contribute? I doubt its causation.I doubted it's causation even before you found that little gem. It's totally destroyed now. Shows once more how eager many gun grabbers are to use distortions and partial truths to push their agenda.

[Goofball]

It is true that a 'armed society is a fearful society, because you may have to back up your acts with your life.' Logical really.

Fixed.

I really don't want to live in a society where I fear getting shot at if I give somebody the finger.


As to this 'study'; from a biased source that doesn't say if the motorists carrying guns are doing so legally. And has anyone heard of people who legally carry guns becoming aggresive on the road? Not in any news I've seen in the states.

Google "road rage shooting" and you come up with hundreds of stories like this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/roadrage/browse_thread/thread/482e90ec1b104b3e/f40d806129799e35#f40d806129799e35

Although they make no mention about whether or not the shooter owned the weapon legally, they do list the charges against him and "Illegal possession of a firearm" is not among them. Draw your own conclusion...

[Goofball]

So you're saying a man who beats his wife on a weekly basis- severly enough that the police are called, would never be charged? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

It's not. My sister worked at a Vancouver womens' shelter for years and has seen it all. It is extremely common for police to be called by neighbors over and over again but be powerless to do anything, because the only witness to the crime, the abused spouse, swears up and down that she "fell down the stairs again."

They can charge him all they want and even hold him for a day or two at a time, but they can never convict him so they have to send him home. And guess what? On paper, he's still a fine, upstanding, responsible citizen. He can go buy a gun tomorrow and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

[Goofball]

I doubted it's causation even before you found that little gem. It's totally destroyed now. Shows once more how eager many gun grabbers are to use distortions and partial truths to push their agenda.

No "causation" was stated anywhere in the study, only correlation. Causation is just a straw man that you and CR set up.

[Watchman]

Really? I'm pretty sure the feudal lords didn't let their peasants keep weapons, and a shoddy hammer or shovel is useless against a sword. The lords maintained a monopoly on good weapons. And even then, all these weapons required phsyical strength to operate.You obviously don't know terribly much of the way feudal military obligations worked, then. What the lords monopolized was the elite of the soldiery and the fortifications, and they had a basically symbiotic relationship with the commoners. The lords protected the peasants from external threats, and the peasants in return supported the lords and their soldiers. The peasants were also, sensibly enough, required to partake in the fighting and thus legally obliged to meet certain minimum quotas of equipement - along the lines of "decent spear, shield and clotches on" was the norm. In any case even those peasants not required to own serviceable weapons for fulfilling their feudal military obligations (say, serfs) had no shortage of items entirely sufficient for killing other unarmoured people in a fit of rage (or whatever; the requirements are obviously rather lower than those involved in killing an armed and armoured feudal professional), and for that matter the warrior class was also more than little "sword happy" about settling perceived scores with their peers. Heck, do you know why courtly etiquette developed ? Because monarchs got fed up with their courtiers constantly slaughtering each other over minor issues; if nothing else that created unacceptable amounts of trouble concerning inheritance.

I know quite a few good online writings on the topic of the organization of ancient military systems. If you want I can link them...?

As for physical strenght, people who did hard physical labor on the fields from sunrise till dusk had quite enough of that. Not that very much is necessary to kill someone with a knife, especially when you consider how nonexistent medical care was.

I doubt the veracity of your claims. Even where your claims of a bunch of people itching to kill true, it would point out that people would want to be polite so as not to get into fights.Why would they ? We're talking about barbarian warrior machismo here. I'm under the impression modern street gangs display much the same mentality when it comes to delivering and receiving insults - ie. one's own social dominance is constantly re-established by throwing one's weight around, and challenges to it are very likely to become physical. And that's not yet accounting for material interests (even in Early Modern times violent intimidation over the exact borders of fields etc. was extremely common, for example), blood feuds, and all the jolly rest.

The later Medieval warrior aristocracy inherited much of those attitudes. Do you know the background of left-handed traffic ? That's a leftover from the time when mounted noblemen passed each others on the left, so the other was on the side of their sword arm...

Perhaps the Hollywood description, but in reality the 'wild west' was safer than many modern day cities. Why? Because everyone had a gun. Not wise to get into a lot of fights if you've a very real chance of dying.Please. Do I look like someone who takes spaghetti westerns seriously ? ("No, you look like a picture of a spiky-haired Celt and a lot of text.") I said "accounts", and those don't involve fiction.


Consider Britain around the turn of the century 1900. There were no limits on what guns you could own or where or how you could carry them. And the murder rate was one a year....which doesn't say a thing about how common it was to own and carry firearms. Given that the "murder rate was one a year" bit has to be bunk, even if not taken literally, I'm not terribly convinced your data on firearms legislature nevermind ownership is all that reliable either. Great Britain alone had easily enough squalid slums where crime was rife and life not worth much that the body count among the underclass was no doubt considerable.

Anyway, the UK experienced a marked drop in serious violent crime around the early-mid 1800s. That had jack all to do with weapons or lack thereof, and everything with changes in how law enforcement worked. It started running effectively enough to fulfill its role as a preventive of murder - when the likelihood of getting caught and duly judged is high, people tend to shy away from the more serious offenses.


Consider modern Britain. 'Anti-social behavior' is on the rise, and hooligans engage in fights with opposing team's supporters. The worst they have to worry about is getting beat up a bit, because they know noone will be carrying a gun.Funny that. Around here nobody carries a gun either, and we don't even have hooligans...


It is true that a 'armed society is a polite society, because you may have to back up your acts with your life.' Logical really.Except people aren't terribly logical creatures, especially when emotions run high and adrenaline surges. And I think you've been ingesting too much of Robert E. Howard's pearls of wisdom about "barbarian politeness"...

'Sides, care to explain why the US has such an appalling murder rate compared to, say, the UK then ?

[Xiahou]

It's not. My sister worked at a Vancouver womens' shelter for years and has seen it all. It is extremely common for police to be called by neighbors over and over again but be powerless to do anything, because the only witness to the crime, the abused spouse, swears up and down that she "fell down the stairs again."

They can charge him all they want and even hold him for a day or two at a time, but they can never convict him so they have to send him home. And guess what? On paper, he's still a fine, upstanding, responsible citizen. He can go buy a gun tomorrow and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Sad stuff to be sure, but how many of those cases result in the abusive husband shooting their spouse? Besides, as Ive said, being charged with domestic violence will get your permit suspended and guns seized.


No "causation" was stated anywhere in the study, only correlation. Causation is just a straw man that you and CR set up.Wait, 'causation' is a strawman now? So what is the point of this thread/article? Can we just delete it?

[Vladimir]

Compare the number of firearms related deaths and injuries to the fatalities and injuries caused by automobiles. If saving lives is paramount you'll want to ban automobiles. (good argument for efferent mass transportation)

[Goofball]

Sad stuff to be sure, but how many of those cases result in the abusive husband shooting their spouse?

I'm not claiming any of them do. I am simply saying two things:

1) That a person who beats their spouse regularly can legally buy a gun, even if the cops know he beats his spouse regularly,

and

2) that I don't think the kind of person who believes violence is an acceptable solution to domestic strife is the kind of person who should be able to own a firearm.


Sad stuff to be sure, but how many of those cases result in the abusive husband shooting their spouse? Besides, as Ive said, being charged with domestic violence will get your permit suspended and guns seized.

If that's the case, then I applaud that aspect of the American justice system. (no sarcasm)


Wait, 'causation' is a strawman now? So what is the point of this thread/article? Can we just delete it?

You miss the point. Nowhere did the study claim that owning a gun causes road rage or shootings on the road.

You were the only one saying that. But hey, if the shoe fits...

[Watchman]

"To the owner of a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail" ?
...
...
...for some reason that looks very appropriate in a gun-ownership argument...

[Xiahou]

You miss the point. Nowhere did the study claim that owning a gun causes road rage or shootings on the road.If I'm missing a point, it's because there isnt one. If they're not suggesting a correlation between gun ownership and road rage, what was the author doing? Just tossing out a meaningless study before going on an anti-gun diatribe?

[Major Robert Dump]

People who are prone to road rage are typically going to be prone to other sorts of violence as well. If they have a weapon it also increases the chance that they will not back down even when wrong. This is going to be the case in and out of a car, applicable to all parts of that persons life, and really if you take the gun out of the equation it doen't change anything.

Unfortunately, these people can still buy a gun because it is their right. Short of a felony, or medication, or domestic abuse or dishonrable discharge, they will get their gun.

Aggressive drivers and road rage and things that fascinate me. It really shows how shortsighted, petty and irresponsible people can be. The idea of running someone off the road, or following them home, or assaulting them because they wronged you in traffic is so strange. Just as strange are the people who drive like maniacs, play the "my car is bigger than your car" game and feel absolutely no need to follow law and obey signs because they know they will get away with it. I have a feeling the forementioned groups both encompass the exact same people, which makes me happy I have gun in the car.

So, to all you social experts out there, if a guy folllows me to a stop light because he feels I wronged him in traffic, gets out of his car and comes at me with a baseball bat, and I shoot him, did I just road rage?

[Crazed Rabbit]

'Sides, care to explain why the US has such an appalling murder rate compared to, say, the UK then ?

You mean the murder rate that's been going down for 30 years, as the number of guns, and the ability to carry guns with you in public, have both increased? And I seem to remember that violent crime in the UK is increasing.


You miss the point. Nowhere did the study claim that owning a gun causes road rage or shootings on the road.

It seems to have implied so using subtle assertions and manipulations. And if it doesn't, what is the point of the article or posting it here? Heck, the whole thing's pretty clearly exposed for the anti-gun slander it is.

Crazed Rabbit

[Proletariat]

"An armed society is a polite society" is total bull anyway. The Medieval society was functionally armed to the teeth - just about everyone reguarly carried something they could kill someone with if need be, if only their tools of trade or a simple utility knife - and was neither polite nor safe. People were quite literally killed at the drop of the hat.

The assorted "barbarian" societies (Celts, Germanics, Vikings, whoever) made it a point of pride and status for every free man to have weapons and know how to use them. Were they "polite" or "safe" ? Like Hell. Weapons were gleefully drawn and used over minor perceived offenses, which there was no shortage of.


How on Earth are people wielding melee weapons comparable to people wielding firearms? The element of wit replaces brute strength in conflicts so no longer can the lumbering caveman go around raping whomever he likes. I don't care that much about this issue, but how you came to this conclusion is beyond me. Do you really think this is apples and apples? And no, I'm not saying 'an armed society is a polite society.' But an armed Prole is a safer one.



Just pointing out. The sheer fallacy of that claim irks the living daylights out of me.

No kidding.

[Watchman]

You mean the murder rate that's been going down for 30 years, as the number of guns, and the ability to carry guns with you in public, have both increased? And I seem to remember that violent crime in the UK is increasing.:inquisitive: It's been going down for the last three decades ? Either you're feeding me horse cakes or your society's way worse off the deep end than I've thus far thought, because you're *still* comfortably the lead amongst First World states as far as violent crime goes. Nevermind now murders with firearms...

And all that is despite prisoner numbers looking like this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap). Guns or no guns, you guys are pretty fundamantally cracked somewhere.

The UK crime rate hike is hardly surprising, IMHO. Not only are these things in constant flux, I'd be very surprised if Thatcher's legacy combined with the way the global economy has developed as of late hadn't stirred up trouble. It seems to have done that everywhere else, anyway.

Increase or no, they're still lagging pretty far behind the US.

So, I assume you had a point somewhere ? I get the distinct impression I've posted something similar to the above only a short while ago, too...

[Watchman]

How on Earth are people wielding melee weapons comparable to people wielding firearms? The element of wit replaces brute strength in conflicts so no longer can the lumbering caveman go around raping whomever he likes. I don't care that much about this issue, but how you came to this conclusion is beyond me.The lumbering caveman goes down pretty fast when there's a knife in his gut, wood axe in his skull and a hunting spear in his chest. Nevermind now if there's half the village mobbing him - irate peasants were quite capable of bushwhacking solitary knights too when it came down to it. Feared gang bosses have died ignomiously when bullied farmers have grabbed the knife from their belt and stabbed them with it.

Not that "lumbering cavemen going around raping whomever they liked" seemed to be all that common an issue in the unarmed parts of the First World anyway. And don't most rapes happen inside four walls by people the victim is at least partially familiar with in any case ?

[Goofball]

If I'm missing a point, it's because there isnt one. If they're not suggesting a correlation between gun ownership and road rage, what was the author doing? Just tossing out a meaningless study before going on an anti-gun diatribe?

Okay, I think I see the source of the misunderstanding between us. You are using the words correlation and cause interchangably when they mean very different things, especially when it comes to statistical analysis.

Until you understand the difference between them, there really is no point in our carrying on this discussion.

[Goofball]

You mean the murder rate that's been going down for 30 years, as the number of guns, and the ability to carry guns with you in public, have both increased?

Speaking of confusing cause with correlation...

:wall:

[Proletariat]

Not that "lumbering cavemen going around raping whomever they liked" seemed to be all that common an issue in the unarmed parts of the First World anyway. And don't most rapes happen inside four walls by people the victim is at least partially familiar with in any case ?

I think you missed my point. Don't get hung up on the rape example. Before guns came along, might meant right (think brawn.) Then the playing field was evened, and even a 70 year old Grandma has a chance at defending herself.

I don't care about discussing this tired issue for the millionth time on this board, but your reasoning made so little sense I wanted to comment on it. Not to mention it epitomized the strawman argument.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Speaking of confusing cause with correlation...

:wall:

Really, now, where did I say that? At the very least, however, this refutes the tired argument of gun banners who argue that more guns equals more crimes.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

The "chance" is somewhat theoretical. How many actually do ? Besides, the "lumbering cavemen" can use guns too.

Which is besides the point anyway, as I've yet to see any evidence of personal firearms being irreplacably vital to personal safety in a properly functioning society.

Effective crime prevention isn't about the prospective victim maybe being faster on the draw. Neither is safety from bodily harm about being able to inflict bodily harm.

[scooter_the_shooter]

This doesnt mean anything to me. Look at the statistics if you have a ccw you are LESS likely to commit a crime then a person with out one! Guns don't = death and violence. I still don't get how people come up with that.:no:

[Watchman]

....this refutes the tired argument of gun banners who argue that more guns equals more crimes.So what does it take to refute the tired arguments of gun adherents who by all evidence seem convinced that less guns equals more crimes ? Facts certainly don't seem to do it.

Or at least I'm still waiting on the explanation on how we can get by without abominable violent crime rates around here without widespread handgun ownership in fairly direct violation of the baseline pro-gun postulation...

[Proletariat]

The "chance" is somewhat theoretical. How many actually do ? Besides, the "lumbering cavemen" can use guns too.

Which is besides the point anyway, as I've yet to see any evidence of personal firearms being irreplacably vital to personal safety in a properly functioning society.

Effective crime prevention isn't about the prospective victim maybe being faster on the draw. Neither is safety from bodily harm about being able to inflict bodily harm.

I can't tell if your being obstinante, or if I'm just explaining this that poorly, but I don't think you understood what I've said. Anyhow, with the cavalry just now showing up, this is about to be a long and tedious thread.

Bon apetit! :burnout:

[Goofball]

Really, now, where did I say that? At the very least, however, this refutes the tired argument of gun banners who argue that more guns equals more crimes.

That is not my argument.

My argument is that more guns = more gun crimes.

[Xiahou]

Until you understand the difference between them, there really is no point in our carrying on this discussion.Nice cheap shot.... no really, Im too stupid to know the difference. :rolleyes:

I use them interchangeably because this study/article has shown neither causation nor correllation. All the article has done is try to compare 2 disproportionate samples- the unknown number who kept guns in their vehicles( or males, young adults, binge drinkers, or those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation) with the unknown remainder of the population.

Perhaps you dont understand what a correlation is? There wasn't enough data, nor has what data there was been shown to demonstrate any sort of correlation between people with guns in vehicles and road rage. And it sure hasn't shown that guns in vehicles cause road rage, although it certainly seemed to imply it.

correlation:the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone


My argument is that more guns = more gun crimes.But less guns does not equal less crime or even less violent crime. Your argument is like saying more cars=more drunk driving. If you take away everyone's cars, there wont be any drunk drivers right?

I'm not going to try to prove that more guns reduce crime- I don't need to. All I'm interested in doing is dispelling the fallacy that less guns = less crime.

[Goofball]

Nice cheap shot.... no really, Im too stupid to know the difference. :rolleyes:

Wasn't a cheap shot at all. In your previous post you were referring to "cause." Then in your last post, you used the word correlation instead, but to mean the same thing. To me, that indicated that you either didn't understand the difference, or were being deliberately obstinate. In neither case would it have been beneficial for my sanity to continue the discussion.

My apologies if I misread the situation.

[econ21]

Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.

Gee, I wonder if they qualified that statement enough? How much do the people who have a gun somewhere in their vehicle contribute? I doubt its causation.

I don't see any qualifications in that statement. I think it's reporting the results of a multivariate analysis - all the factors listed (males, binge drinkers etc) were statistically significant determinants of reported road rage. It would be bizarre to think gun possession was the only factor.

I suspect the paper does not look at causation per se, but it is interesting to me that the statement refers to there being a gun in the vehicle as opposed to gun ownership in general. One might expect gun owners in general to be more aggressive, it is true. But if it is having a gun to hand that is statistically significant, I'd be more inclined to view the association as causal.

By the way, the study reminds me of what a Canadian friend said about living in the US. He said people - or was it just him? I forget - were much more polite on the road than in the UK because you never knew if the person you were dealing with would flip and shoot you. I don't think the approach of this study could catch such an effect.

[Proletariat]

By the way, the study reminds me of what a Canadian friend said about living in the US. He said people - or was it just him? I forget - were much more polite on the road than in the UK because you never knew if the person you were dealing with would flip and shoot you. I don't think the approach of this study could catch such an effect.

I think that's more of a cultural thing. Our urban areas are just as bad as anywhere else. I don't think your Canadian friend was describing life in New York or Los Angelos, huh?

[econ21]

No, I think he was describing the (nicer) parts of Washington DC. The capitol has always seemed rather well mannered to me - even the beggars I encountered there during my first fraught trip were remarkably charming:

Beggar: "Can you spare a dollar?"

(Me: No response.)

Beggar: "How about a smile?"

(Me: reluctant smile.)

Beggar: "All right!"

[Watchman]

Well, it's the East Coast. Nothing but hippies, commies and social bums there. ~;p

I'll incidentally be vaguely impressed if someone knows the reference.

[Papewaio]

Then the playing field was evened, and even a 70 year old Grandma has a chance at defending herself.

That is the best arguement yet for anyone to have guns that I have heard yet.

The problem with the idea that a gun levels the playing field is this:
1) Criminals tend to start a crime with the weapon aimed at the victim.
2) Fast draw isn't really an option at that point.
3) SAS and the army in general are fit... why if guns truly level the playing field?

[Proletariat]

That is the best arguement yet for anyone to have guns that I have heard yet.

The problem with the idea that a gun levels the playing field is this:
1) Criminals tend to start a crime with the weapon aimed at the victim.
2) Fast draw isn't really an option at that point.
3) SAS and the army in general are fit... why if guns truly level the playing field?

1) Sure, but then you're screwed no matter what you're carrying. At least this way she had a chance, or a passerby Granny has a chance to intervene.
2) Guess one and two were the same.
3) The Military's physical training program is as much about instilling discipline as anything else. Plus they have to do 25 or 30 mile a day foot marches and slug it out in the jungle and desert.

[Crazed Rabbit]

3) SAS and the army in general are fit... why if guns truly level the playing field?

Oh, please. That's pretty lame. The army fights wars, you know, involving long marches, sustained combat operations, and great discipline. The citizen defending herself on a street or in her house doesn't.

Guns can be operated very easily and provide great power to those who are otherwise at a physical disadvantage. Guns 'give claws to the weak'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

That is the best arguement yet for anyone to have guns that I have heard yet.

The problem with the idea that a gun levels the playing field is this:
1) Criminals tend to start a crime with the weapon aimed at the victim.
2) Fast draw isn't really an option at that point.
3) SAS and the army in general are fit... why if guns truly level the playing field?
I could show you hundreds of examples where a criminal threatened a victim with a weapon and was still either forced to retreat or shot. You have to remember, your average low-life isn't out to risk their life. They just want a quick buck and aren't counting on their victims being armed. Actually, according to a poll, armed victims are what criminals are most afraid of- more than the police or imprisonment.

[Watchman]

That still doesn't seem to keep your violent crime rates low, though.

[Major Robert Dump]

Maybe thats because the places with the highest violent crime rates also don't let people legally conceal firearms

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure the slums have no shortage of concealed firearms, and Devil take the legalities.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My argument is that more guns = more gun crimes.

Wrong. (http://www.ky3.com/news/2266381.html?autovid=Y) In Missouri, passing a concealed carry weapons law led to a decrease in gun crime. Regardless of whether CCW contributed to this decline, it is obvious that passing CCW laws-which anti gun groups scream will cause 'road rage shoot outs' and turn law abiding citizens into mentally unstable people- does not result in more gun crime.


That still doesn't seem to keep your violent crime rates low, though.

The cities with the most crime don't let people carry guns.



I'm pretty sure the slums have no shortage of concealed firearms, and Devil take the legalities.

Those are criminals. Law abiding people can't carry guns. It's pretty simple.

Crazed Rabbit