RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT

RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:04:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only hard data that admits of no equivocation is that as the number of people carrying went up in the U.S. the rates of violent crime and homicide went down. That isn't sufficient to establish a causal connection, but it does disprove the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death. The data indicates that the number of armed households in the US is decreasing rapidly, due to a fall in the numbers of hunters. So the increased gun sales are to people who already have guns and are interested in expanding their arsenals for whatever reason(s). There are more guns per household in significantly fewer households. It is unreasonable to infer that there are "more guns on the streets" on the basis of this data, unless you wish to advance an argument that gun owners are carrying multiple weapons simultaneously "on the streets". It is also unreasonable to claim that the data "disprove(s) the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death". It does no such thing at all. That's a cute dance step, but nobody said anything about gun sales or the number of armed households. And why would anyone? The relevant data for "the number of people carrying" is the number of CCW permits, which increased significantly over the years as more and more states passed "shall issue" carry laws. K.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:15:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML THE WEAPONS EFFECT The effects on behavior of incidental environmental stimuli is referred to as "priming," and you can just as easily prime subjects to give more compassionate responses. Moreover, in social situations weapons are rarely in view or displayed until and unless things have already reached a point where they're needed. You will not find any support in science for the view that guns are imbued with evil magic. K. You totally ignore the experimental events where guns were or were not on display in the gun racks of pick up trucks. If the data does not confirm your fantasy you ignore it. The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun [SNIP] Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). No opinion polls there: recognition and reaction.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:27:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only hard data that admits of no equivocation is that as the number of people carrying went up in the U.S. the rates of violent crime and homicide went down. That isn't sufficient to establish a causal connection, but it does disprove the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death. The data indicates that the number of armed households in the US is decreasing rapidly, due to a fall in the numbers of hunters. So the increased gun sales are to people who already have guns and are interested in expanding their arsenals for whatever reason(s). There are more guns per household in significantly fewer households. It is unreasonable to infer that there are "more guns on the streets" on the basis of this data, unless you wish to advance an argument that gun owners are carrying multiple weapons simultaneously "on the streets". It is also unreasonable to claim that the data "disprove(s) the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death". It does no such thing at all. That's a cute dance step, but nobody said anything about gun sales or the number of armed households. And why would anyone? The relevant data for "the number of people carrying" is the number of CCW permits, which increased significantly over the years as more and more states passed "shall issue" carry laws. K. But, it is "unreasonable". Didn't you hear that?

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML THE WEAPONS EFFECT The effects on behavior of incidental environmental stimuli is referred to as "priming," and you can just as easily prime subjects to give more compassionate responses. Moreover, in social situations weapons are rarely in view or displayed until and unless things have already reached a point where they're needed. You will not find any support in science for the view that guns are imbued with evil magic. K. You totally ignore the experimental events where guns were or were not on display in the gun racks of pick up trucks. If the data does not confirm your fantasy you ignore it. The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun [SNIP] Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). No opinion polls there: recognition and reaction. Lol, I did, and do, all of those aggressive driving things. Did it before I kept a gun in the car, still do it now that I always have a gun in the car.

Kirata -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:44:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun Except it's not clear (and not established) that honking your horn is a valid measure of aggression and not just an indicator of impatience and low frustration tolerance. And, too, the attitudes of the subjects toward guns and people who own them is a confounding factor that wasn't examined. You're over your head here, Vincent. You don't know how to evaluate what you read. You just post any kind of shit you think will stick. Another example: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). Except that people who score low on the cluster of personality traits that subsume assertiveness and aggressiveness may simply be less like to own a gun in the first place. One way to determine the effect of the gun would have been to determine whether the same subjects could be shown to drive more aggressively when they had a gun in the car, but that's not what they did. And by the way, repeatedly posting the same gibberish doesn't improve it. K.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only hard data that admits of no equivocation is that as the number of people carrying went up in the U.S. the rates of violent crime and homicide went down. That isn't sufficient to establish a causal connection, but it does disprove the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death. The data indicates that the number of armed households in the US is decreasing rapidly, due to a fall in the numbers of hunters. So the increased gun sales are to people who already have guns and are interested in expanding their arsenals for whatever reason(s). There are more guns per household in significantly fewer households. It is unreasonable to infer that there are "more guns on the streets" on the basis of this data, unless you wish to advance an argument that gun owners are carrying multiple weapons simultaneously "on the streets". It is also unreasonable to claim that the data "disprove(s) the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death". It does no such thing at all. That's a cute dance step, but nobody said anything about gun sales or the number of armed households. And why would anyone? The relevant data for "the number of people carrying" is the number of CCW permits, which increased significantly over the years as more and more states passed "shall issue" carry laws. K. But, it is "unreasonable". Didn't you hear that? Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — there are many more cataloging the numerous ways in which Lott has erred. [SNIP] The Texas A&M paper directly challenges the hypothesis that increased numbers of concealed carry permits reduce crime. The study analyzes a decade of data from every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, the only states with at least a decade of reported data on permit holders and arrest rates after the implementation of their RTC laws (an explanation of their methodology that, unlike what Lott misleadingly suggests in a rebuttal, is very clearly delineated). Using several statistical models, Phillips found no significant relationship between changes in concealed carry rates and changes in any crime rate. In other words, the study found no evidence that increasing the number of permit holders decreases (or increases) crime. The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime. The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year, which would mean millions of criminals being directly deterred from crime. However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs are nowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence There is more data to refute your feeble argument about good guys with guns. Feel free to read the entire article. CARRY PERMITS DON'T MEAN SHIT

Kirata -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 9:57:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only hard data that admits of no equivocation is that as the number of people carrying went up in the U.S. the rates of violent crime and homicide went down. That isn't sufficient to establish a causal connection, but it does disprove the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death. “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Sharp rebuttal. Mind like a steel trap. Take a bow. K.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:01:39 AM)
Ya, I've been hearing people assault Lott for years. But, they then never review his response. It seems they get paid to attack him and when he responds, they are no longer around and good ol' anti-gunners are free to use the paid for study with no consideration to criticism of it. And the trends, shown by Lott years ago, continue to prove true. More guns, less crime.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:08:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only hard data that admits of no equivocation is that as the number of people carrying went up in the U.S. the rates of violent crime and homicide went down. That isn't sufficient to establish a causal connection, but it does disprove the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death. The data indicates that the number of armed households in the US is decreasing rapidly, due to a fall in the numbers of hunters. So the increased gun sales are to people who already have guns and are interested in expanding their arsenals for whatever reason(s). There are more guns per household in significantly fewer households. It is unreasonable to infer that there are "more guns on the streets" on the basis of this data, unless you wish to advance an argument that gun owners are carrying multiple weapons simultaneously "on the streets". It is also unreasonable to claim that the data "disprove(s) the claim that more guns on our streets means more violence and death". It does no such thing at all. That's a cute dance step, but nobody said anything about gun sales or the number of armed households. And why would anyone? The relevant data for "the number of people carrying" is the number of CCW permits, which increased significantly over the years as more and more states passed "shall issue" carry laws. K. But, it is "unreasonable". Didn't you hear that? Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings. One particularly decisive critique, a 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. Another critical analysis, this time issued from 15 of the 16 panel members of National Research Council (NRC), concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Then, in 2011, a team of researchers analyzed the NRC panel’s findings and conclude that RTC laws, in fact, increase crime. And these three studies represent only the tip of the iceberg — there are many more cataloging the numerous ways in which Lott has erred. [SNIP] The Texas A&M paper directly challenges the hypothesis that increased numbers of concealed carry permits reduce crime. The study analyzes a decade of data from every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, the only states with at least a decade of reported data on permit holders and arrest rates after the implementation of their RTC laws (an explanation of their methodology that, unlike what Lott misleadingly suggests in a rebuttal, is very clearly delineated). Using several statistical models, Phillips found no significant relationship between changes in concealed carry rates and changes in any crime rate. In other words, the study found no evidence that increasing the number of permit holders decreases (or increases) crime. The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime. The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year, which would mean millions of criminals being directly deterred from crime. However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible. In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1,600 verified DGUs in 2014. This means that 99.936 percent of Kleck’s claimed DGUs are nowhere to be found, despite those very surveys stating that more than 50 percent of DGUs are reported to the police (meaning there should be a record of them). With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence There is more data to refute your feeble argument about good guys with guns. Feel free to read the entire article. CARRY PERMITS DON'T MEAN SHIT Lol, "The Trace", a site chock full of anti-gun propaganda I've never heard of before. God, it's like whack-a-mole or ankle biting dogs. Little yapping things funded from the dark side to make noise.

Kirata -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:10:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is more data to refute your feeble argument about good guys with guns. Feel free to read the entire article. CARRY PERMITS DON'T MEAN SHIT Yeah, I'll get right on that. The Trace is an American non-profit journalism outlet devoted to gun-related news in the United States. It was established in 2015 with seed money from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and went live on June 19 of that year. The site's editorial director is James Burnett. ~Source K.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:12:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun Except it's not clear (and not established) that honking your horn is a valid measure of aggression and not just an indicator of a tendency towards impatience. You're over your head here, Vincent. You don't know how to evaluate what you read. You just post any kind of shit you think will stick. Another example: Nor is it clear that impatience is not is subset of aggression except by your very self-serving definition, Kirata. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). Except that people who score low on the cluster of personality traits that subsume assertiveness and aggressiveness may simply be less like to own a gun in the first place. One way to determine the effect of the gun would have been to determine whether the same subjects could be shown to drive more aggressively when they had a gun in the car, but that's not what they did. Clearly, that would have contaminated the experimental process. But, also quite clearly you acknowledge by inference that drivers who score highly are more likely to have guns in their windows. Thank you.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is more data to refute your feeble argument about good guys with guns. Feel free to read the entire article. CARRY PERMITS DON'T MEAN SHIT Yeah, I'll get right on that. The Trace is an American non-profit journalism outlet devoted to gun-related news in the United States. It was established in 2015 with seed money from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and went live on June 19 of that year. The site's editorial director is James Burnett. ~Source K. Right. Deal with the data and the studies. don't give me your cop out bullshit about the messenger. I didn't expect the NRA to fund this research.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is more data to refute your feeble argument about good guys with guns. Feel free to read the entire article. CARRY PERMITS DON'T MEAN SHIT Yeah, I'll get right on that. The Trace is an American non-profit journalism outlet devoted to gun-related news in the United States. It was established in 2015 with seed money from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, and went live on June 19 of that year. The site's editorial director is James Burnett. ~Source K. Right. Deal with the data and the studies. don't give me your cop out bullshit about the messenger. I didn't expect the NRA to fund this research. I find the NRA to be open to what research actually finds to be true, unlike Bloomberg.

Kirata -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Nor is it clear that impatience is not is subset of aggression except by your very self-serving definition, Kirata. Yes, I understand. When you think that something supports your position you are more than happy to defend the experimenters assuming whatever they like without having to establish that any of it is true. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Except that people who score low on the cluster of personality traits that subsume assertiveness and aggressiveness may simply be less like to own a gun in the first place. you acknowledge by inference that drivers who score highly are more likely to have guns in their windows. Thank you. Yeah, no. You need to buy some candles and caulk up those lamp-sockets before someone throws a net over you. K.

Lookin4Lace -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 10:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML THE WEAPONS EFFECT The effects on behavior of incidental environmental stimuli is referred to as "priming," and you can just as easily prime subjects to give more compassionate responses. Moreover, in social situations weapons are rarely in view or displayed until and unless things have already reached a point where they're needed. You will not find any support in science for the view that guns are imbued with evil magic. K. You totally ignore the experimental events where guns were or were not on display in the gun racks of pick up trucks. If the data does not confirm your fantasy you ignore it. The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun [SNIP] Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). No opinion polls there: recognition and reaction. Id like to see those same test polls for LA, or Seattle Washington, or Brooklin NY, or Las Vegas, or Detroit M. and then lets talk about who is more aggressive the ones with the confederate flag and thr gun in the window or the other way, it wont make no difference youant to pick on a country for an isolated test and expect everyond to agree with you , thats like holfing a kkk meeting in a public park in The middle of Harlem, ofcourse your going to get results you are aiming your sites on but it does you no good to point your finger and say "see i told you , your all screwwed up" it just doesnt work, if anything it makes you look like an ass ,just my 2cents

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 12:12:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lookin4Lace quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML THE WEAPONS EFFECT The effects on behavior of incidental environmental stimuli is referred to as "priming," and you can just as easily prime subjects to give more compassionate responses. Moreover, in social situations weapons are rarely in view or displayed until and unless things have already reached a point where they're needed. You will not find any support in science for the view that guns are imbued with evil magic. K. You totally ignore the experimental events where guns were or were not on display in the gun racks of pick up trucks. If the data does not confirm your fantasy you ignore it. The weapons effect occurs outside of the lab too. In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle. The results showed that motorists were more likely to honk their horns if the confederate was driving a truck with a gun visible in the rear window than if the confederate was driving the same truck but with no gun [SNIP] Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). No opinion polls there: recognition and reaction. Id like to see those same test polls for LA, or Seattle Washington, or Brooklin NY, or Las Vegas, or Detroit M. and then lets talk about who is more aggressive the ones with the confederate flag and thr gun in the window or the other way, it wont make no difference youant to pick on a country for an isolated test and expect everyond to agree with you , thats like holfing a kkk meeting in a public park in The middle of Harlem, ofcourse your going to get results you are aiming your sites on but it does you no good to point your finger and say "see i told you , your all screwwed up" it just doesnt work, if anything it makes you look like an ass ,just my 2cents You must have lace covering your face. The sample used was representative of the nation. No regions were sampled. "Confederate" does not refer to confederate flag; it refers to the role played by the participant in the experiment. I have never called anyone on here stupid, but you are really pushing me.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 12:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Nor is it clear that impatience is not is subset of aggression except by your very self-serving definition, Kirata. Yes, I understand. When you think that something supports your position you are more than happy to defend the experimenters assuming whatever they like without having to establish that any of it is true. Clumsy side step. Deal with the data, not with me personally. If the data is unpalatable to you you side step it. At least dance with the music. This research was all published in reputable journals before being reported in 'Psychology Today'. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Except that people who score low on the cluster of personality traits that subsume assertiveness and aggressiveness may simply be less like to own a gun in the first place. you acknowledge by inference that drivers who score highly are more likely to have guns in their windows. Thank you. Yeah, no. You need to buy some candles and caulk up those lamp-sockets before someone throws a net over you. SPEAK TO THE DATA! Your little funnies are sophomoric. K.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 12:21:15 PM)
Lol. Because the really pushing me is funny.

vincentML -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 1:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Lol. Because the really pushing me is funny. That wasn't addressed to you. Jesus, I hate to think what kind of gun owner you are if you can't read straight.

Nnanji -> RE: AW SHIT, ANOTHER SENSELESS KILLING BY A WIDE-EYED 2ND AMENDMENT NUT (7/20/2016 1:05:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Lol. Because the really pushing me is funny. That wasn't addressed to you. Jesus, I hate to think what kind of gun owner you are if you can't read straight. I am aware who it was addressed to. I just thought it was funny. Funny ha ha not funny you idiot. Lighten up.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625