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 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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