Study Claims Drivers are More Aggressive With a Gun In Their Car

There’s a study being published in the November edition of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology titled “The weapons effect on wheels: Motorists drive more aggressively when there is a gun in the vehicle.” The authors claim that the mere presence of a firearm in a vehicle makes people more aggressive and therefore a danger to themselves and others. Interesting premise, but does it pass the sniff test?

From the abstract:

In this experiment, participants (N = 60) were randomly assigned to drive a frustrating driving scenario with a gun or a tennis racket in the vehicle’s passenger seat.

The study makes its conclusions based on the observations of 60 “random” people. Not necessarily the best sample size from a statistical perspective. But wait, it gets worse.

As is often the case in psychology experiments, the subjects were university students — most likely drawn from the never-ending pool of Psych 101 attendees required to participate in such studies for credit.

College students a poor choice for this study, given their under-developed decision making capabilities. Liberal arts students in particular tend to have had significantly less exposure to firearms and the safety culture surrounding them.

This is a group that’s most likely to join anti-gun movements and rely on “blood in the streets” arguments for their opinion that gun owners are unstable and can’t be trusted with firearms. A classic example of projection, according to some gun rights supporters.

In contrast, gun owners tend to be a self-selecting group who believe in taking responsibility for one’s own actions and defense.

So the study is based on 60 first year psychology students, people who are legally unable to purchase a handgun or obtain a carry permit, whose opinions and training are wildly different from those of typical gun owners. This won’t end well.

From PSMag.com:

Half of the participants entered to find “an unloaded black airsoft training pistol on the passenger seat, which looks like a real 9mm semi-automatic handgun.” […] The other half found a tennis racket on the passenger seat.

[…]

They report that the students were more likely to tailgate when there was a gun on the passenger seat, as opposed to a tennis racket. In addition, “the mere presence of a gun increased speeding regardless of the frustrating event participants encountered in the driving scenario.”

The exact results weren’t forthcoming, so we have no idea exactly how much more “aggressive” the “armed” students were than the preppy racket-wielding students.

All of which renders the study pretty much worthless. The only new information we have: students at this specific university were more likely to speed and tailgate when there was a firearm in the seat next to them than the were sitting next to a tennis racket.

What we don’t know: how an actual firearm owner would do in these situations, which seems to be a much more important and pertinent question to answer.

We also don’t know if the increased aggressiveness was a fluke, whether sheer randomness (it was a very small sample) put the more aggressive drivers in the cars with handguns. There doesn’t seem to have been any baseline testing to control for that possibility.

And yet news organizations will no doubt use this as irrefutable proof that the mere presence of a firearm in the car turns an otherwise mild mannered citizen into a bloodthirsty post-apocalyptic raider. Go figure.

comments

  1. avatar Renner says:

    Yeah, I call bull honkey. These kids don’t lose their ccw license and gun rights if they don’t walk the straight and narrow. Law abiding gun owners know they have more to lose if they get into an altercation, so they drive more cautiously.

    1. avatar Gilbert says:

      I agree 100%

    2. avatar Stuart K says:

      Exactly!! I instantly became more conscientious while driving when I got my CPL. Those college students didn’t have ‘you start it you’re going to jail’ drilled into their heads.

      I call bullshit.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        As Lord Humungus put it, “just walk away.”

    3. avatar MLeake says:

      That has been my experience, and that of my CCW friends. We drive closer to the speed limit, and work harder to ignore jerk drivers on the road, to avoid problems.

      1. avatar Jeff K says:

        Absolutely right on.

    4. avatar pieslapper says:

      Lies. Damn Lies. And an experimental social psychologist whoring themselves out for grant money.

    5. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Cars are more aggressive with drivers in the them.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Garrison….. When I worked for an electrical contractor in one of our liberal bastion cities in Texas, I started carrying a pistol because of the crazy hot heads that would honk their horns and try to run you off the road because THEY cut in front of you and almost caused a wreck. These idiots would follow you around honking their horns and try to start trouble. I would usually use traffic to loose them and finally quit and went somewhere else before I got into an incident where I would have to shoot one of the idiots. My pistol did not make me more or less aggressive, I learned a long time ago to avoid trouble. One day the trouble makers will run into another of their kind and make the news.

  2. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

    What was the control? Shouldn’t they have tested the same driver with and without a gun to see if there was a difference? You can’t evaluate an effect without changing a variable (i.e one static test configuration is useless)

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      Sadly, the only use the Left has for science anymore is that it makes a handy cudgel to use against anyone who thinks the U.S. Military shouldn’t be giving out hand grenades to someone who’s suicidal over having the wrong genitals.

    2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      I imagine that the drivers with tennis rackets were considered the controls. I suspect that the experiment was transparent enough that the students knew what was expected of them and did it.

      1. avatar David J. says:

        As per the scientific method, the control group should have been driving without knowledge of what was in the car. As such, there should have been three groups of drivers not two.

        1. avatar Dereklsj says:

          Transparent is an understatement! Of course they knew the desired outcome. Not only a 3rd group, but another study too. One that was conducted in another manner altogether. An experiment that required making the right choices or be subject to some form of consequence, i.e. scoring, negative feedback, or deemed a potential unsafe / aggressive driver for purposes of the experiment. In addition, ranked scoring against their peers. The results provided by a print-out posted for all participants to see how they measured up compared to others. Just spit balling…

          My point being, the participants would be forced to make wise, thoughtful decisions. Just as we have to in real life. Nobody, especially good students, wants to be singled out with a low score, showing they demonstrated poor or dangerous decision making. Putting them at a lower status compared to their peers.

          Lastly, maybe offer a $20 “Safe Driver” bonus for a top percentage or quartile. Now let’s see how many choose to instigate problems, make aggressive decisions and brandishes their gun vs. wise decisions.

          *This got me wound up, it’s just not based on sound data, hence my long post. I feel compelled to add some background and my everyday real life to this nonsensical “study”. I live in a state awash in guns and people that CC everyday, including me.* In cars, stores, on the street, etc.

          Living in AZ, we can CC or OC in public. AZ is the number one out of all fifty states when it comes to being very gun friendly and the least restrictions placed on gun owners. You can walk in, pay your $$’s, pass the FBI check and walk out immediately with your pistol, revolver, even fully auto guns with silencers are sold in gun stores here, (must have passed extensive FBI background check prior), but it’s like no other state! 100 round drums for AR’s, etc., you get the idea. Hard rule, never broken! AZ will only sell guns to full time residents! Besides, 80% of the guns sold here are illegal in most other states anyway. My next “house gun” is a .223 / 5.56 “pistol”, that can take a 40 round clip. That’s an example.

          No special license or permit is needed to carry concealed or open in public in AZ. Heck, we even let out of state visitors bring in their guns and allow them to do the same CC & OC, no permit etc.!! Starting to get the picture? This is still the real Old West here in respect to guns. It’s been that way so long, it just keeps working for all in AZ.

          My point is that is almost a sure bet that 90+% of folks either have a gun on them or within reach in their car. I live in Nor AZ. We have very little gun violence here, almost none, even with extremely high CC rates. Heck, when I go to Safeway, I don’t even think about it, but my carry gun is holstered on my hip, a lot of the time not concealed. I see other males doing the same. Women carry in their purse. Nobody, gives it a thought, points, stares, etc. It’s daily life here and we like it.

          It’s a model that has worked since AZ was a state. Road rage is none existent here. I’m from Silicon Valley. Almost nobody had guns in their cars, but I witnessed serious road rage on a daily basis in my commutes. Some shooting from their cars.

          People respect one another here. I’m sure a good deal of respect and having personal restraint stems from knowing the other guy has a gun too. Puts everyone on the same level. My 70 y.o. Mom packs a .357 in her purse daily. Even the criminals leave well enough alone. Phoenix, with 1.5 million peeps, does have some gang problems. But when their not the only ones carrying a gun, it’s an effective mental deterrent, and they leave the good folks alone the vast majority of the time. With so many guns carried in public, some may think shootings are commonplace, but not so!

          **Way more incidences of road rage shootings from cars in CA, where it’s illegal to have a gun inside the car. It must be transported in the trunk, unloaded AND out of reach from the driver!! THAT STUDY IS COMPLETELY FALSE! Not based on real world situations and gun laws in different states!!!!!**

          **I lived in CA for decades. Freeway shootings are not uncommon and many arise out of road rage by someone that is not mentally fit to even own a gun. They’re committing a felony just by having a loaded gun inside the car.**

          Remember: The police cannot get to you or your family in time to save your lives. Only you can change the outcome! The police can only be there to take a report after the fact.

          Thanks for reading…if you made it this far.

        2. avatar Surly Old Arizonan says:

          dereklsj, you wildly exaggerate the gun laws of Arizona.

          They’re good, but they’re no better than those of most Southern, Midwestern and non-coastal Western states.

          But reading your other postings, you’re just a nutjob in general.

  3. avatar Mike Oregon says:

    Okay, I’m just thinking maybe it would be better to study data from actual concealed carry permit holders and see if reality matches there “study” . Hint, it doesn’t, ccw permit holders are constantly the law abiding demographic.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      A study like this is fantasy. If I entered a driver simulator and discovered a gun or tennis racket, I will decide I am chasing down the mafia and engage in a fierce gun battle with them. And smash their cars. And drive into a building. Because it is just a game with no consequences. Grand theft auto.

      But in the real world, actions do have consequences. So I am going to ensure to the best of my ability that I drive safely, don’t invite road rage and let the other guy go if someone else is being aggressive, and don’t attract attention of the police. Avoid stupid. I suspect most follow a similar path, because raging gun battles with your fellow drivers will certainly ruin your day.

      1. avatar Dereklsj says:

        That sums it up for me too! I live in AZ, where CC & Open are both legal. The majority of citizens here carry. The violent gun crime rate, save for Phoenix like other cities with gangs, is pretty damn low. People don’t start many problems or get road rage for the most part. I came from Silicon Valley, CA 4 years ago. Almost nobody carried and I witnessed serious road rage on a daily basis! I think most responsible people relax, feel more confident and don’t feel a need to have pissing matches! That’s my take and attitude. Respect and no problems.

        1. avatar OhThatGuy says:

          Took the words right out of my mouth, everyone around here drives like they are going to a fire and you are in their way.
          And I know for a fact almost none of them have anything more than a cell phone on them here in Kalifornistan.

  4. avatar racer88 says:

    Well… MY “study” which has included the perusal of thousands of gun blog and forum posts along with thousands and thousands of comments have shown me that gun owners are LESS aggressive behind the wheel… LESS likely to engage in road rage.

    Sure, it’s self-reported anecdotes, and multiple anecdotes do not make data. But, it’s every bit as “scientific” as the cited “study.” And, I’d bet money that my findings are FAR more accurate and true to life.

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      Yeah, but you didn’t get grant cash for your study. With a likely understanding of what the results were supposed to look like attached to the cash. Wink wink.

    2. avatar Dereklsj says:

      Using college students negates this type of study in particular. Here’s my thoughts why: 1) College students need days off school when they “feel” too stressed out by Trump. 2) They’re being taught and exposed to unrealistic ideals that don’t exist outside of said college. 3) To further their newly warped minds, self ascribed special needs groups are formed to maintain their cocooned, misinformed minds from having to learn real world problem solving and expectations. 4) They know at the outset that no matter how they acted, there would be no consequences to their actions. 5) Lastly, there’s no way to determine how many hate guns, were never exposed to one and only wanted a negative outcome to prove an invalid point. This needs to be done with CCP holders of at least three years of experience or the median time the CCP has been granted. College students have never had less knowledge of the real world, especially gun experience, than today. All they know is the school tragedy in Connecticut. What almost 10 years ago?

      1. avatar AubreyB says:

        I disagree. Having recently graduated from college myself, the image a lot of the right perpetrates about how “college” kids are and what they are taught based on the mass image you see from the super liberal schools is as bad as the left painting all gun owners in the same light based on a few examples. I without a doubt know, first hand, that there are some professors, some students, and some schools, that do in fact fall neatly into how you described it, but as with gun owners, it isn’t indicative of the whole. Belittling a huge segment of people based on what you see on the news isn’t effective. Both colleges i went to for my undergrad, and graduate degree were much more conservative and were both public schools that made fun of the “safe space” liberal arts trust fund babies just as much as you and me. I visited dozens of schools from coast to coast while working with the justice studies student association and the economics program and more often than not, MOST college kids aren’t anything like the crazies you see on the news.

  5. avatar ~yawn~ says:

    So, another useless, decidedly un-scientific “study” ginned up to suit the predetermined/preferred outcome of those who barfed it up?

    No surprises here.

    1. avatar Dereklsj says:

      A correct, short and concise answer!!

  6. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Well bless their hearts, isn’t that interesting!

    Of course the real test would have been to put an actual gun under the driver seat, unbeknownst to the driver. If guns really are instruments of evil as many antis seem to think, the proximity alone should, on average, cause the driver to behave worse than one with, say, an Airsoft replica under there. (that would be the control group.)

    And you’d need to have N at least 1000 to get to usefully small margins of error. But let’s not pick nits.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t know, man, but whenever I drive with a tennis racquet in my car, I just wanna kill John McEnroe.

    1. avatar Zeke says:

      You CANNOT be serious!!

      🙂

      1. That comment was clearly OUT of line.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    No, I don’t tailgate, but I do drive aggressively (or so I’ve been told). I have a Miata with a sports suspension and sticky tires. So it can’t be helped. Guns have nothing to do with it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, at least you’re saved from being a total jerk, due to lack of adequate motor. Stay away from BMW 135 convertibles, you might embarrass yourself!

  9. avatar jwm says:

    That picture. Somebody must have snapped a photo of 880 at commute time.

  10. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    I have found that gun owners are less a less violent group than almost any other group out there, including police officers, according to studies that don’t stretch the definition of the word scientific to “whatever predisposed notion we feel the study must confirm”, right up until the point where they need to be very violent to end a real threat. Then I find them to be temporarily and sufficiently violent. Then they aren’t again.

  11. avatar GSLer says:

    Fake news by me, as I drive the same now as I did before carrying and it never was aggressive.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh man I drive the same gun or not(fake gun or not?). Driving on I-80 at a 70mph speed limit(which means many go 90-100mph) means no middle fingers or yelling. It’s pretty damn intense for this old guy…or anyone.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      I knew it was you!!!!!
      I actually drive more carefully when im cc.
      And im calling total bs on this study.
      The results are easily tainted as a couple of liberal arts morons can go ” i have a gun in the car if i drive crazy i can chang the results YAY ME.”
      Heres an idea, why dont actually go out and meet some gun owners. We are not bad people.

      1. avatar BLoving says:

        Well of course we are. That was the point of the study. Here’s how it works: we keep telling them theyre bigots because they erroneously believe and treat gun owners like homicidal trailer trash with short fuses.
        They respond with “nuh-uh! It’s 4 reelz! See? We have this study that proovzit!” And then they put together this performance art project and call it a “study” to reinforce their bigotry.
        To actually talk to a gun owner would put them in mortal danger due to our inherent mental defect of us wanting a gun. We couldn’t expect them to take on that kind of risk, could we?

        1. avatar Ironhead says:

          Totally forgot about that. Been a long day.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Somebody should tell them we dindunuffin.

  13. avatar William Ashbless says:

    They make numerous references to the volume of work by David Hemenway.

    I’m astounded that a researcher that is on record for calling gun owners ‘wimps’ and ‘wusses’ still is able to gain funding for anything.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    n of 60 isn’t that bad but the rest of the study is bulldookey.

  15. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    “Experimental” + “Social” + “psychology”

    That’s where I stopped reading

  16. avatar The Duke says:

    Also worth noting that people who never held a gun in their life tend to not respect the responsibility of that privilege.

    Just like 16 y/o drivers don’t tend to respect the power of a gasoline powered weapon they now control.

    But hey what do I know I’m just a road raging lunatic compensating for a “lack of manhood” right?

  17. avatar VictorVector says:

    I’m sure most carry permit holders are, like me, far more cautious while carrying. I ignore actions which in other circumstances might warrant a horn or a middle finger.

  18. avatar Pg2 says:

    This is what passes for “science” these days.

  19. avatar #1 Idiot says:

    Ummm. Uhhhh. BS.
    I’m just as much a danger while driving armed or unarmed. Especially when I’m driving 75 MPH down the freeway as is everyone else.

  20. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

    https://youtu.be/YfYMH7wxDeE

    Personally I’ve found I am way more cautious and passive when I’m carrying. The last thing I want is to get in an altercation that results in a dgu and have some lawyer claim I was driving like a jackass looking to shoot someone.

    1. avatar AFGus says:

      Exactly! I’m the same way. I have not had so much as a speeding ticket since 1986, and I attribute that to the fact that I am “always” armed when I’m driving. Because I don’t want to go through all the extra BS that comes by being stopped by the Police when you are armed, I am always more cautious when I’m carrying while driving. I know quite a few other people who say the same thing. They are more cautious and less aggressive when armed while driving.

  21. avatar Darkman says:

    The most important things to remember about any study or survey is Who is doing it or for Whom it is being done. In this case the journal of experimental social psychology. The name alone should be all anyone needs to know about the so called study. Social psychology is at best a widely misunderstood field endorsed by a group of people who believe they know what is best for the rest of the world. They try to generalize behavior to fit their preconceived models. They begin with a conclusion and work backwards to justify that conclusion. All you have to do is look at the sample group and size used in any study or poll. Sample groups are always small and based on only one factor in which many times is ambiguous at best. Once they get the desired results they affix them to the general population. Polling is done the same way. I know because I worked in the field some years ago. It’s the old belief that The End Justifies the Means. Take every Study Survey or Poll with a grain of salt. Someone is looking for a way to influence your behavior or a paycheck.

  22. avatar barnbwt says:

    As usual, the rush to judgement by the liberals is a product of their own projection.

  23. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Non sequitur is non sequitur.

    The study conflates “gun in the car” with “lawful gun owner carrying while driving”.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Never mind “an unloaded toy gun in the car”.

  24. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I will argue that there is another problem using Psychology students as the test subjects: a LOT of people who pursue a Psychology degree are in fact suffering from psychological troubles themselves and hoping to gain insights into their own neurotic tendencies. Therefore, any sample of Psychology students is going to me more volatile than the general public.

  25. avatar Dern Galoot says:

    “….the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology….”
    Oh… oh, that one…. FFS

  26. avatar strych9 says:

    Vehicle selection has something to do with this too.

    I’m a pretty sedate driver but when things get screwy I can get really aggressive to get out of situations.

    I almost never did that with either of my Jeeps because, really, they couldn’t hack it. However, both my WRX’s have been confidence inspiring in both acceleration and deceleration as well as handling so I can be much more aggressive with them, situation permitting, simply because they are so much more capable.

    Don’t even get me started on bikes. I’ve had people try to pull “cage rage” on me. I just hit the throttle and I’m gone. I don’t care if lane splitting is illegal, I’ll do it at 120 to GTFO of a situation involving road rager or serious careless/drunk driving.

    I’ve carried on all these types of vehicles and the capabilities of the vehicle are the ONLY consideration in my book.

  27. avatar Isaac says:

    Umm yes we actually do have pretty good data on this, it’s called controlling for other variables and comparing permit to carry holders with general population conviction rates. Sorry but if firearms were a significant factor in road rage permit holders would be all over the news on a weekly if not daily basis. Therefore I call bullshit and this professor a hack (or whore depending on who funded this study).

    1. avatar deepdive68 says:

      ^
      This

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Speaking of which, who DID fund this “study”?

  28. avatar Kendahl says:

    The test subjects were told not to touch the “gun”. That made it as inaccessible as if it hadn’t been there at all. They were “driving” a simulator which meant a major traffic accident had only hypothetical consequences.

    We joke about keyboard commandos’ fantasies yet this is exactly the same thing. Even if the test results are statistically significant, they are meaningless because the experiment was badly designed. It left out the restraining effect of the adverse consequences that can result from aggressive driving. It could be improved by threatening to reduce the test subject’s grade for the class if they cause an accident or drive in ways that would reasonably provoke road rage.

  29. avatar rt66paul says:

    Were they playing rowdy music on the radio, or elevator music? Somehow, I think there were other factors.

  30. avatar Boba Fett says:

    I drive aggressively no matter what.

  31. avatar DerryM says:

    This “experiment” was cited as absolute fact in the Science Channel series “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman” [Season 8, Episode 4, “Is Gun Crime a Virus?”], along with several other dubious anti-gun memes. We get “Fake News” and “Fake ‘Science'”. Makes one wonder who you can trust for any sort of information these days. No wonder so many of the younger folks are so screwed-up. They have been raised on lies and disinformation.

  32. avatar Troubled Soul says:

    There was no control model. They would have had to test the subjects without either firearm or tennis racket in the car. That test would have at least given a base line to start from. They have no idea of how they would have behaved in a simulator under any circumstances.

    1. avatar Dereklsj says:

      Bad studies with unproven data and lacking a control group, is exactly how this unfounded “study” becomes peoples realities. Especially, the anti-gun groups that spin crap like this to further their message. Perception is reality.

      1. avatar Five says:

        Interestingly, if you tested a bunch of student with a tennis racket phobia (I’m sure the collegiate culture could induce mass tennis racket phobia if they worked at it as long as they have for firearms), then you’d get the same result (for the tennis racket). This study was testing how anxiety affects driving. They just picked a bunch of people who were afraid of guns, but not afraid of tennis rackets.

  33. avatar Offautumn says:

    When I go drivin’, I stay in my lane…
    but getting cut off, makes me insane.
    Open the glove, reach inside
    gonna wreck this effers ride.
    Cause I got bad habit.

  34. avatar AFGus says:

    I’ve got just one thing to say about this “BOGUS” and “UNSCIENTIFIC” so-called study…….Bull Crap!

  35. avatar deepdive68 says:

    My wife pointed out not too long ago that when I am not carrying I drive much more aggressively and even sometimes use, um, “hand signals” for other drivers, things I don’t do when armed. If we are traveling somewhere with a lot of 2 lanes to get there she’ll tell me to be sure I’m carrying so she doesn’t end up getting thrown around in her seat as I put the paddle shifters, performance tires and braking system to good use.

  36. avatar JDH says:

    Please. I’m less inclined to get into a situation with someone when I am driving or walking or doing anything while carrying a concealed weapon. It’s only there as a last resort, not a last retort.

  37. Junk Science should be defunded.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      You’d put the medical/pharmaceutical complex out of business.

  38. avatar Dan says:

    I dunno. Here in the Philippines, otherwise mild mannered salarymen turn into assholes once they get their PTC and start toting their RIA 1911 or Glock in their Toyota sedans. It probably adds two inches to their dicks and a third testicle.

  39. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

    The study just leaves me thinking about how to kill someone with a tennis racket.

  40. avatar Robert says:

    More fake science from the left. Don’t the idiots on the left know that rational people can see through this? This is why Trump won the first time and why he will win again.

  41. avatar Will says:

    I say again: ALL “studies” are BS.

    1. avatar Dereklsj says:

      That’s 100% fact. Studies to prove a group or individuals point, are manufactured in about every industry there is. Especially environmental studies, which are done by scientists, but for private or government industry that seek a specific, optimal and desired outcome to their benefit. The data can be: manipulated, incomplete, biased and unintelligible to all but the scientists in that field. It’s why now there’s multiple studies performed by more than one entity to check, balance and verify results. Any study done by a single group or entity, which may employ services outside their range in a quest for a certain result, are all B.S.!

      Outside of laboratory experimental studies done to create new technologies or products for example, performed with zero bias, in a controlled, pure, untainted, contained environment. Any compromise or manipulation of findings, defeats the product or technology advancement. These are the only study’s that are true to the data. Zero use outside of their labs.

      The only point I see for this obviously biased study, is to show that driver’s that carry a gun in the car while driving, are more aggressive and dangerous vs. a tennis racket, which all CCP folks know just isn’t true. This study is of no use to the public. It’s sole purpose is to benefit anti-gun groups. It’s pure and total B.S.!

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Sounds like you’re familiar with the pharmaceutical industry funded vaccine safety and efficacy “studies”.

        1. avatar Dereklsj says:

          OFF TOPIC – A Hot Button!! Yep. The big pharma vaccine push, motivated by huge revenue, spilled over into the pet (Dogs & Cats), sector. I do believe, especially dogs, that come in casual contact with others while out with their owners, need certain ones that save their lives. Perfect example is having pups vaccinated for “Parvo”. Uneducated owners run a huge risk of a dead dog before it’s 1 y.o. without this once in a life. Many others are unnecessary, even shortening the animals life.

          In cats, I’ve raised Grand Champion American Exotics and Grand Champion Ragdolls. These are $2,500+ investments each. My Champs are strictly indoor only cats!! Most are today and only need 2-3 as kittens. This is cheap insurance in case they accidentally get out and contact a feral cat with feline AIDS, rabies, etc. Same reason here and required if you go on a long vacation and stuck with boarding your cat.

          Vets push the uneducated to get “boosters” every year of 4 to 5 types of vaccines. It’s unethical and for sure not needed. Studies show the vaccines given as kittens, last 7-10 years!! After that, I’ve never allowed boosters, save for rabies if I’m boarding. It’s a fact among breeders that vaccinating annually considerably shortens their lifespan by years. People poison their pets and the vet laughs all the way to the bank. M-Fkrs!

  42. avatar Conservatarian says:

    I can see it now…

    Student, displaying a “firearm” on the seat, while driving in the wrong city/state, where another driver sees it and reports it via 911, police stop and arrest the student and put them in jail.

    That would make me chuckle a bit.

  43. avatar pg2 says:

    Well it is peer-reviewed, so it MUST be true…right pserge?

  44. avatar Five says:

    So personal anecdotal evidence tells me the premise of this study is highly suspect.

    However, given the rough details of the study, I could concede that it was carried out rigorously and even should a substantial and measurable effect, however, the premise and conclusion are completely wrong.

    Given that these were college students, I would assume at least 75% have no experience with firearms and exist in an environment that demonizes firearms while characterizing them as something intrinsically unsafe. So, in the participants mind, just sitting next to a firearm is unsafe.

    What the researchers created, and were measuring, was an environment of heightened anxiety. And yes, a highly anxiously driver is likely to drive more aggressively than a calm driver.

    Anyhow, good example of how to lie with statistics and misdirection.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Of course. Most studies can be set up to produce the outcome the people funding the study want, or the outcome the people performing the study want. Especially true of studies in a purely subjective field with no objective data.

  45. avatar Scott says:

    Excellent illustration of the truism: “Garbage in, garbage out.”

  46. avatar Sian says:

    Junk.

    Science.

    Nothing more needs be said.

  47. avatar Mad Max says:

    I think that is backwards.

    When I am armed (which is most of the time), I drive very cautiously and stick close to the speed limit. I don’t get angry or cut anyone off and I just let everyone else do what they want (I just yield the right of way).

    When I’m unarmed, look out; I’m hell on wheels (I try to get to my destination as fast as possible).

  48. avatar Cody says:

    Some issues with the study I haven’t seen brought up yet;
    1. In Ohio where the study was performed, it is illegal to have a gun in the front seat loaded. It is required to be stored out of reach of the driver, unless the driver is a CCW holder. (ORC 2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle) That alone would make most drivers more irritated knowing they are driving illegally.
    2. Airsoft guns in Ohio are required by law (state and Federal) to have the orange tip, So, if the tip was orange; drivers may have known it wasn’t a real firearm, or if the tip was removed, these ‘scientists’ should be prosecuted to whatever extent the law allows, because they’re douches.

  49. avatar Alex says:

    The only thing that surprises me about this study is that they found 60 college students that actually knew how to drive….

  50. avatar Russ H says:

    I would only believe this study if the gun or tennis racket were placed in the car hidden – the driver not knowing which was there. LOL.

  51. avatar James Drouin says:

    A couple of years ago, the American Journal of Political Science published a study the asserted a high degree of pathological behaviors with conservatism. Then, to no one’s surprise, a few months after that, they issued a page 99 one sentence retraction stating they got it exactly backwards.

    One can only wonder how long it’ll be before the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology issues a page 99, one sentence retraction.

  52. avatar davzway says:

    WHAT AN INCREDIBLY LARGE PILE OF HORSE DEW PUCKY …. IF COLLEGE STUDENTS, AND IF THEY EVER TOOK A COARSE IN STATISTICS INSTEAD OF CURRICULUM OF ART APPRECIATION OR GETTING IN TOUCH WITH YOUR INNER SELF, ETC. WOULD KNOW THAT A PARTY CAN CHANGE HIS SAMPLE, CHANGE THE QUESTIONS, OR WHATEVER WAS NEEDED, CHANGING THE DATA TO ‘PROVE’ THE REQUIRED ‘CONCLUSION” DESIRED. WORDS… SCIENTIFIC STUDY, OR REFERENCING ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO PROVING THE TRUTH. IN FLORIDA, HAVING THIRTY (30) YEARS OF ACTUAL FACTS AND REAL EVIDENCE REGARDING CITIZEN’S WITH CONCEAL CARRY PERMITS SINCE OCTOBER 1, 1987 WHEN FLORIDA’S ‘SHALL ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS’ STATUTE PASSED ALLOWING CCW PERMITS.

    WHEN SOMEONE STARTS OUT WITH AN AGENDA, CONSIDERING REAL FACTS IS JUST NOT PART OF THEIR PROGRAM.

  53. avatar lorddunsmore says:

    Actually I’m just the opposite: Less aggressive when I have a gun in the car or person. I don’t want to start trouble and then be forced to use it to defend myself. Not a good situation for me if that were to happen. You have to use your brains while carrying a firearm with you. If anything, you have to be more willing to back down from trouble while carrying than you would not carrying.

  54. So…there’s no difference between driver who’s a gang member with a gun and a law abiding citizen with one, eh? Someone with nothing to lose vs. someone with everything to lose.
    Didn’t these college kids know that guns can “self explode” sitting in the back seat. They were so brave.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email