This is what I have mounted on my hood,
but I have never had to use them!!
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?
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!!
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?
Rude signs!!!
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.
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.
Yeah, none of this individual rights crap! What about the rights of the government??? </SARCASM>
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.
Is there some reason GUN is in all caps?