Holding a Gun Makes You Think Others Are Too, New Research Shows

[Old Rocks]

Well, I didn't check the number of subjects in that study. However, we have a little study going on right here on this message board. Look at the number of posts from wigged out 'Conservatives' about how they are going to enjoy blowing away all the libs when the libs come for them with guns. Obviously, they are seeing their own reflection, as most libs don't own the arsenals that they do. And have no intention of going after the 'Conservatives' in any situation.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe if the university sissies got off their asses and went out in the real world they would find that holding a gun makes you think a ten point buck will walk up the path any moment.

 

[PredFan]

So, if everyone had a gun with them, and saw everyone else as having guns then there probably would be a whole lot less crime. Mingling in with a bunch of gun-toting people tends to make one mind his or her manners.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Why do you hate Catholics?

 

[Synthaholic]

Guns are scary, and only Democratic Party government officials should be allowed to carry them.

Yes - the Catholic Notre Dame University is a Democratic Party front group.

My god, you are one stupid motherfucker.

No, you ignorant asshead, I was describing your motivation for posting the ridiculous study.

I like science? Ok.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

It's incredible, isn't it?

It's a psychological study, that doesn't mention gun control, or Democrats. But this stupid shit only sees things through his anti-Democrat, 'Anybody But Obama' wingnut glasses.

His emotional bitterness would be funny if he wasn't so pathetic.

And yet he claims to NOT be a partisan hack

He's claimed a lot of shit over the years. I point. I laugh.

 

[California Girl]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

 

[Peach]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

And of no use in the investigation of the Trayvon Martin's death. The Grand Jury will decide if Zimmerman is indicted. The study is interesting however.

 

[California Girl]

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

And of no use in the investigation of the Trayvon Martin's death. The Grand Jury will decide if Zimmerman is indicted. The study is interesting however.

Certainly, with regard to that case, it is meaningless.

 

[Truthmatters]

Guns are for scared people

 

[Synthaholic]

Ol' Daveboy, totally dependable for dumb fuck statements.

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

Thank you. You are correct. But you don't hate Catholics.

I posted it because it was interesting. I posted this because it was cute. Nothing monumental, just thread topics.

 

[Synthaholic]

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

And of no use in the investigation of the Trayvon Martin's death. The Grand Jury will decide if Zimmerman is indicted. The study is interesting however.

Why are you bringing that story into this thread?

 

[California Girl]

Naturally, you're in here defending bad science.

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

Thank you. You are correct. But you don't hate Catholics.

I posted it because it was interesting. I posted this because it was cute. Nothing monumental, just thread topics.

Interesting? No. If you wanted 'interesting' studies about the impact of carrying a gun, you would have found a much more relevant study. There are a few around. I suspect you didn't read it properly and didn't realize how ridiculously small the sample was. And now, you are trying to back track it.

 

[Peach]

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

And of no use in the investigation of the Trayvon Martin's death. The Grand Jury will decide if Zimmerman is indicted. The study is interesting however.

Why are you bringing that story into this thread?

I gathered the study was aimed at Martin's death; EXCUSE me. Just news that recently came out?

 

[Synthaholic]

Actually, it's not "bad science", just not anything that can be used as a basis for a solid conclusion. It can add to other studies to help inform, but nothing more than that. As a stand alone study, it is useless.

Thank you. You are correct. But you don't hate Catholics.

I posted it because it was interesting. I posted this because it was cute. Nothing monumental, just thread topics.

Interesting? No. If you wanted 'interesting' studies about the impact of carrying a gun, you would have found a much more relevant study. There are a few around. I suspect you didn't read it properly and didn't realize how ridiculously small the sample was. And now, you are trying to back track it.

I'm not backtracking anything.

I wasn't looking for gun studies. Someone tweeted the link, and I thought it was interesting.

Ratchet down the desperation, wouldja?

 

[Synthaholic]

And of no use in the investigation of the Trayvon Martin's death. The Grand Jury will decide if Zimmerman is indicted. The study is interesting however.

Why are you bringing that story into this thread?

I gathered the study was aimed at Martin's death; EXCUSE me. Just news that recently came out?

No, studies usually take months.

 

[whitehall]

The dirty little secret is that "researchers" are usually grad students who work for a professor and professors usually lean way to the left. You can count on the students to "find" data that tends to get them a good grade and praise from the professor. If the "study" is part of a grant you can bet your ass that the study will find whatever it is that the grant specifies.

 

[Crackerjack]

I don't really see the point of this study as far as politics and law are concerned.

If the assumption is that people holding firearms are more likely to believe others have firearms, and are therefore more likely to engage in a gun battle, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All else being equal, I'd much rather shoot at someone who isn't going to return fire.

 

[Synthaholic]

The dirty little secret is that "researchers" are usually grad students who work for a professor and professors usually lean way to the left. You can count on the students to "find" data that tends to get them a good grade and praise from the professor. If the "study" is part of a grant you can bet your ass that the study will find whatever it is that the grant specifies.

So, all science is suspect?

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't really see the point of this study as far as politics and law are concerned.

If the assumption is that people holding firearms are more likely to believe others have firearms, and are therefore more likely to engage in a gun battle, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All else being equal, I'd much rather shoot at someone who isn't going to return fire.

What does politics or the law have to do with it?

This was on a scientific website.