Gun-toting motorists more prone to road rage (Banglist Barf Alert)

New Scientist ^ | 3 feb 06 | Anon

[white trash redneck]

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.

[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.

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

[nerdwithamachinegun]

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

[NY.SS-Bar9]

Harvard School of Public Health

Nope, no agenda here - perfectly unbiased.

[SW6906]

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.

[jsmith48]

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).

[arthurus]

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

[Oztrich Boy]

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?

[from occupied ga]

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

[xsrdx]

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.....

[USS Alaska]

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!!

[facedown]

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."

[from occupied ga]

This is what I have mounted on my hood,

I thought the Bismark sunk the Hood in 1941

[Gaffer]

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....

[from occupied ga]

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.

[MarkL]

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

[albionvectis]

Being a postal worker?

[KarlInOhio]

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?

[umgud]

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.

[OXENinFLA]

Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun.

When did they?