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

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8QTU0HMT8&feature=player_embedded]Real Police Shooting Video - watch before reading description! - YouTube[/ame]

Check this out, a few times if you need to.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

I like science? Ok.

Then you admit the study you linked is bad science.

Oh, wait -- no, you don't.

Who says it's bad science? You? Are you a scientist? No. You're just a fool with a computer.

 

[westwall]

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.

More like a science light website.

 

[daveman]

I like science? Ok.

Then you admit the study you linked is bad science.

Oh, wait -- no, you don't.

Who says it's bad science? You? Are you a scientist? No. You're just a fool with a computer.

Oh, then you "think" a sample size of 5 can accurately predict the reactions of 150 million people.

Don't worry your empty little head about it, Synthia. I'd hate for you to blow a gasket trying to go against your programming.

 

[old navy]

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

This was on a scientific website.

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

I'm a gun nut. I contributed.

 

[daveman]

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

I'm a gun nut. I contributed.

Yes, but you didn't agree that guns are icky scary mean dangerous, and that guns should be removed by government people with guns.

So you're wrong.

Right, Synthia?

 

[Synthaholic]

Then you admit the study you linked is bad science.

Oh, wait -- no, you don't.

Who says it's bad science? You? Are you a scientist? No. You're just a fool with a computer.

Oh, then you "think" a sample size of 5 can accurately predict the reactions of 150 million people.

Don't worry your empty little head about it, Synthia. I'd hate for you to blow a gasket trying to go against your programming.

Still trying to do the work of actual scientists?

Why would a science website publish it if it had no validity?

Better question: why would a prestigious university like Notre Dame publish a study that had no validity?

Do you know science better than Notre Dame scientists?

I'm still pointing. I'm still laughing.

Dumbass.

 

[Synthaholic]

What sort of discussion were you trying to provoke? Honest question.

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

I'm a gun nut. I contributed.

And I thank you!

 

[Synthaholic]

Whether holding a gun makes you think the other person is holding a gun. We have a lot of self-professed gun nuts on this site. I thought some of them could contribute their feelings on the matter.

I'm a gun nut. I contributed.

Yes, but you didn't agree that guns are icky scary mean dangerous, and that guns should be removed by government people with guns.

So you're wrong.

Right, Synthia?

Where do you get this bullshit?

 

[daveman]

Who says it's bad science? You? Are you a scientist? No. You're just a fool with a computer.

Oh, then you "think" a sample size of 5 can accurately predict the reactions of 150 million people.

Don't worry your empty little head about it, Synthia. I'd hate for you to blow a gasket trying to go against your programming.

Still trying to do the work of actual scientists?

Why would a science website publish it if it had no validity?

Better question: why would a prestigious university like Notre Dame publish a study that had no validity?

Do you know science better than Notre Dame scientists?

I'm still pointing. I'm still laughing.

Dumbass.

Were there any statisticians involved? Sure doesn't look like.

But you just go ahead and mindlessly agree with what they said, because they're SCIENTISTS, and they're never wrong.

 

[daveman]

I'm a gun nut. I contributed.

Yes, but you didn't agree that guns are icky scary mean dangerous, and that guns should be removed by government people with guns.

So you're wrong.

Right, Synthia?

Where do you get this bullshit?

You. I've been reading your posts for years.

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh, then you "think" a sample size of 5 can accurately predict the reactions of 150 million people.

Don't worry your empty little head about it, Synthia. I'd hate for you to blow a gasket trying to go against your programming.

Still trying to do the work of actual scientists?

Why would a science website publish it if it had no validity?

Better question: why would a prestigious university like Notre Dame publish a study that had no validity?

Do you know science better than Notre Dame scientists?

I'm still pointing. I'm still laughing.

Dumbass.

Were there any statisticians involved? Sure doesn't look like.

But you just go ahead and mindlessly agree with what they said, because they're SCIENTISTS, and they're never wrong.

I think you've made enough of an ass of yourself in this thread.

But continue if you think you're actually winning.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yes, but you didn't agree that guns are icky scary mean dangerous, and that guns should be removed by government people with guns.

So you're wrong.

Right, Synthia?

Where do you get this bullshit?

You. I've been reading your posts for years.

Where do you get this from the story in the OP?

You really are a dumbass.

 

[daveman]

Still trying to do the work of actual scientists?

Why would a science website publish it if it had no validity?

Better question: why would a prestigious university like Notre Dame publish a study that had no validity?

Do you know science better than Notre Dame scientists?

I'm still pointing. I'm still laughing.

Dumbass.

Were there any statisticians involved? Sure doesn't look like.

But you just go ahead and mindlessly agree with what they said, because they're SCIENTISTS, and they're never wrong.

I think you've made enough of an ass of yourself in this thread.

But continue if you think you're actually winning.

The difference between us is I actually think.

You emote.

 

[daveman]

Where do you get this bullshit?

You. I've been reading your posts for years.

Where do you get this from the story in the OP?

You really are a dumbass.

It's the conclusion of the study plus the fact that you posted it.

Now that you've backpedaled once, I suppose now you'll claim that you didn't post it at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Interesting but the study makes some wild ass claims. First:

Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

That was not addressed in the study anywhere in your link as the only target was whether or not they thought the individual had a weapon. They were also holding the weapon, an unusual state to be in if you did not already expect someone to be wielding a weapon as well. What about when the firearm is holstered? Where was that covered? How about the fact that the people were carrying a toy gun, hardly a comparison to carrying an actual firearm.

As far as the sample size, I can't find that information. The link said that 5 STUDIES were conducted but said nothing about the number of individuals that were in each study or, for that matter, the number of pictures that were involved. Even worse, nothing whatsoever was mentioned about the ACCURACY of the people that were holding the toy or the ball. Interesting that they left out that tidbit of information as I would see that as the most important piece of information overall.


In the end, the study is meaningless in the manner that it was presented. We need more actual information of the study itself.

 

[editec]

While I actually would not be surprised to learn that the results of this study could be right, I do not believe that this test PROVES anything.

As has already been noted by many of you here, the sample group of this study was waay too small to have any CONFIDENCE in its finding.