Gun-Toting Motorists

I caught this at SayUncle and I'm tending to strongly agree with him, this is Bullshit.

GUN lobbyists like to repeat the quote often attributed to American writer Robert Heinlein, that "an armed society is a polite society". But this is certainly not true for motorists.

A survey of 2400 drivers carried out by David Hemenway and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that motorists who carry guns in their cars are far more likely to indulge in road rage - driving aggressively or making obscene gestures - than motorists without guns. Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns (Accident Analysis and Prevention, DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014).

Yet in some states it is easier than ever to own a gun and carry it a car. In the past two decades 23 states have eased restrictions on carrying guns, says researcher Mary Vriniotis. Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

"Our findings indicate that the people driving around with guns in their cars are not among the most responsible and best-behaved people on the road," says Vriniotis. "In the interests of injury and violence prevention, it probably makes more sense to tighten rather than relax restrictions on gun carrying in motor vehicles."

Sorry, but this doesn't pass. I'd really like to see the actual report and some peer review, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. I'll keep looking.

This argument is the same as the Video-game argument. You remember, "video games make kids more aggressive and more violent." Not that it couldn't possibly be that you have the effect as the cause. Could it be that aggressive drivers may be more likely to seek out the right to carry?

This doesn't mean by any fair stretch that gun carrying causes vehicular aggression.

I've found a couple of writings by Hemenway, and they don't exactly read like a non-partisan researcher. Here is a link to a review of Death by Barrel. Then there is the Harvard Injury Control Research Center where apparently he does a lot of research of guns and suicide with some side research on homicide and accidents. And then there is the Public Health Method of Gun Control. Oh that is the Public Health Approach to Addressing Gun Violence. I seem to have garbled it a bit.

Oh, and look, he's a grantee at the Soros Open Society Institute. No question of where his gun control views lie. Oh and make sure you look and see his credentials are in Economics. That makes for a clear and reasonable understanding of the topic, I'm certain.

I'm going to keep looking for the study. I don't think there is any reason to buy this guys book. I think it's abundantly clear that this isn't exactly a disinterested study.

UPDATE:
I could only find a place to purchase the study. I'm going to guess that this will just be convinient for those who wish to pay the price. So much for open debate.

I've been reading the review of "Death by the Barrel" and the commentary is pretty sorry. Here's a great start:

"Why manufacture guns that go off when you drop them?" asks professor of health policy David Hemenway '66, Ph.D. '74. "Kids play with guns. We put childproof safety caps on aspirin bottles because if kids take too many aspirin, they get sick. You could blame the parents for gun accidents but, as with aspirin, manufacturers could help. It's very easy to make childproof guns."

Let's see, the function of a aspirin bottle will not be substantially effected by altering the cap. Changing the gun to make it "child-proof" will also ensure that it is difficult to use in an emergency. Let's see you run to the medicine cabinet and open that bottle of aspirin while being attacked. You think you'll get that bottle opened? Tell me that this is a reasonable expectation. Of course, you COULD hold parents responsible for failure to safely store and use guns.

Logic like this pervades Hemenway's new book, Private Guns, Public Health (University of Michigan Press), which takes an original approach to an old problem by applying a scientific perspective to firearms. Hemenway, who directs the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the School of Public Health

Yeah, that's what I suspected. Poor logic. And scientific method has been used many times, but if you have an ax to grind, that method itself gets distorted.

The ways in which people die by guns would not make a good television cop show. Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol. "We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in 'self-defense,' it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

Hemenway has collected stories of self-defense gun use by simply asking those who pulled guns what happened. A typical story might be: "We were in the park drinking. Drinking led to arguing. We ran to our cars and got our guns." Or: "I was sitting on my porch. A neighbor came up and we got into a fight. He threw a beer at me. I went inside and got my gun." Hemenway has sent verbatim accounts of such incidents to criminal-court judges, asking if the "self-defense" gun use described was legal. "Most of the time," he says, "the answer was no."

Hmm. So what would you suggest to the woman who is being raped? Just submit and it will end? How about the person trying to kill you? Of course criminals have their weapon prepared at the start of the assault. But then, lying down and letting them kill you is just bloody stupid. I'd also challenge the "stories" that Hemenway collected. Didn't exactly seek those people's stories who weren't drinking or fighting. Amazing that the "typical" story comes from people who were ready to discuss the incident. Those that don't want to discuss it likely would have very different stories.

Some civil lawsuits have targeted gun manufacturers, seeking damages for the death and disability resulting from the use of firearms. In one sense, such plaintiffs are in the bizarre position of suing manufacturers for making products that perform as advertised. Yet there may be parallels to the legal assault on tobacco, another product that can be lethal when used as directed. "For decades, there were no plaintiff victories beyond the appellate level" in the tobacco litigation, Hemenway notes. "Reasonable suits might allege things that the manufacturers could do to make guns safer."

So the logic here is that lawsuits are reasonable when manufacturers don't make guns that have every illusion of safety tacked onto them. This logic is astounding. A gun isn't made to be safe, it's made to kill. What amount of safety could you add to the device where litigation, by this standard, could be prevented? Maybe if you welded the barrel shut.

You can read the rest if you want, but I see no real research in this. Just gathering of stories from the willing tale tellers and not real science.

UPDATE II:
SayUncle has a link to a John Lott's Website on topic. Apparently Hemenway is unwilling to provide his data for review.

SayUncle also says he has the Hemenway report and is willing to share. I've asked for a copy.

Oh, and Geek with a .45 and Clayton Cramer have some good commentary as well.