Comments on: Sorry but that’s bullshit

By: SayUncle » Another alleged gun study

SayUncle » Another alleged gun study — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:12:18 +0000

[...] David Hemenway (an anti-gun hack who asserted that folks who carried guns were more likely to indulge in road rage (despite the fact that there were no notable increases in instances of road rage after states passed concealed carry laws); and refused to release his data) is at it again. This time, the hack asserts that if guns in homes cause homicides. Well, that’s not what he says specifically but that’s the impression that he wants to leave you with. Turns out, he’s wrong as usual. Jeff has the full report. He also took the exact same data and came to an entirely different conclusion, noting that Hemenway’s use of controls was just a way to get the desired result. [...]

By: SayUncle » That’s a lot of turd polish

SayUncle » That’s a lot of turd polish — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:56:09 +0000

[...] What’s that? Hemenway sounds familiar to you? Of course it does. He’s the anti-gun Harvard hack who asserted that folks who carried guns were more likely to indulge in road rage. This despite the fact that there were no notable increases in instances of road rage after states passed concealed carry laws. And, of course, Hemenway refused to release his data. He also has provided some rather questionable numbers to the press. [...]

By: SayUncle » Reuters and numbers

SayUncle » Reuters and numbers — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:03:04 +0000

[...] And Reuters used the number provided to them by anti-gun “researcher” David Hemenway. You remember him? He said guns cause road rage. [...]

By: SayUncle »

SayUncle » — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:57:46 +0000

[...] [...]

By: _Jon

_Jon — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:54:33 +0000

I’d have to see the study data too.

And – although this isn’t related to the study – calling the cops and reporting someone brandishing a weapon in a road rage incident is _very quickly_ followed up on by the local police here in Detroit. As in – 8am the next day you have two uniformed officers at your front door asking to interview you about the details of your complaint. And they are very insistent that you show up and testify against the dumb-ass that waived his illegal handgun at you and your friends after they find him, search his car and arrest him.

Don’t ask me how I know. But I seem to have some element of “luck” at pissing off people when I’m driving. heh. (8 mile isn’t just a dividing line of north Detroit – it’s also a good race track. Did I mention “Don’t ask me how I know”?) heh.

(I’ve never been the one to waive the gun. But when it gets waived at me, I don’t hesitate to make the call. Some people are just too stupid for their own good. I mean, really – if you had an illegal handgun in your car and some punk pissed you off, would you keep it in your car the next morning after you waived it at the punk? Well, this moron did.)

By: SayUncle » More on guns and road rage (or the lack of)

SayUncle » More on guns and road rage (or the lack of) — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:02:36 +0000

[...] John Lott has an update on the study that tries to intimate that drivers with guns in their car are more dangerous and notes that Hemenway refuses to provide his data. [...]

By: Janine

Janine — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:02:19 +0000

Thanks. I’ve requested a copy. I’ll let you know if he responds and what the study looks like.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:34:54 +0000

Janine, haven't found the study but here's the guy's webpage. You may be able to get a copy from him. He has quite the anti-gun r�sum�.

By: Janine

Janine — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:27:00 +0000

Anyone have a copy of the actual study? I’m in a psych MA program and would love to rip this apart in a paper for my scientific methodology class.

Janine

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:00:48 +0000

That would be 30 “extra” people in para #2

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:59:55 +0000

Without commenting on the relevance of the study cited, I�m not sure that the study intended to make the point that the gun motorists who carry guns in their cars were likely to actually use them, but rather it talked about the temperament of those who carry guns in their cars vs those who don�t. Statistically, motorists who carry guns in their cars are a vastly smaller group (I�m guessing here), and it seems that a few extra hot heads have the ability to skew the data.

I making this up here but stay with me, out of the 2400 if only say 10% or 240 people carried guns in their cars, then it would only take 30 people admitting to be hot-heads to get the results cited in the study. What you would have to do in order to make the study more relevant is to interview 2400 gun toters vs 2400 non-gun toters to �even the score� then I would bet you would get results closer to the 8 to 1 ratio.

I mean if you were doing a Six Sigma style analysis this study would be the kind of thing that would identify an assumption (gun toters are more hot headed then non-gun toters), and then you would have to do a follow up with two groups consisting of an identical demographic spread where the only difference being the gun variable.

Now I don�t know the methodology nor do I know what kind of care the study took in eliminating the other variables (did the sample of gun toters include an over sampling of Mafia Wise guys, or did the sample of non-gun toters over sample Amish people?), but from the story it seems that this study really can�t make any definitive claims about the average temperament of those who carry guns. On the other hand citing the lack of increase in gun crime in CCW states can�t make any definitive claims about the average temperament of those who carry guns either.

Anecdotally I have know people who carried guns who range from very even tempered, to those I will not keep company with do to their hot temper. Sort of like � well people in general.