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

New Scientist ^ | 3 feb 06 | Anon

[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."

[Redbob]

Rude signs!!!
Oh, good gosh, the HORROR!!!

(Memo to Harvard: this is whatcha might call "sarcasm")

[unixfox]

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

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.

[Joe Brower]

"When did they?"

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.

[marktwain]

Did they segregate the study by sex? Many more men are gun owners than women, also men are more likely ,IMHO, to use offensive hand signals. I would bet that if you segregated for sex that you would find the gun carriers to be more polite.

Also, was this a national study? Was it done in urban vs rural areas? Hemingway is known for his sampling bias, as I recall.

I am pretty sure that at one symposium that I was at, he argued that bill of rights included "collective rights" because the "right to assemble" must be collective, therefore the 2nd amendment was a collective right.

[VRWCmember]

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).

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.

[OXENinFLA]

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.

[cpdiii]

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!

[OXENinFLA]

I know in some states the sheriff has to sign off on a carry permit but I can't recall having to get permission in order to buy a gun.

I could be wrong though, some states have some funny laws.

[VRWCmember]

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.

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.

[VRWCmember]

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.)

[marktwain]

"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."

Typical liberal deliberate confusion of rights and powers.

Police no longer have the *power* to ban someone they don't like from owning a gun.

People always had the right to own and carry a gun, the police just had the power to arrest them for it, because our cowardly courts would not uphold the Constitution.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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

Yeah, none of this individual rights crap! What about the rights of the government??? </SARCASM>

[FreedomPoster]

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.

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.

[smug]

I admit to having road rage, but it is not dependent on if I am carrying a gun. It usually occurs right after some jerk nearly wrecks me. I feel no shame for being rude to other drivers who's inability to drive nearly kill me.

[Angus MacGregor]

Every freedom hating anti-gunner says that. They're all liars of course.

You mean like this guy?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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'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.

[rarestia]

Yet another example of how you can make statistics read into ANYTHING you want.

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.

[Flavius Josephus]

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?

[OXENinFLA]

Is there some reason GUN is in all caps?

[from occupied ga]

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.