The contingent of gun owners who claim a 'self-defense' motive start out tending to believe the world is a more dangerous place than most people perceive it as, and an odd feature of the 'self-defense' crew is that once they have the gun, they not only continue to feel more endangered than most people do, they tend to believe the danger they face is increasing daily.

Presumably it's a random group of people, mixed male female. If it's like most general psych studies, they're mostly young adults age 18-25.

The findings were that for this group, to hold a gun is to be more likely to perceive the other person's holding a gun and is more likely to be a threat. It's in that order. And a key word is "hold", not "have ownership of."

This is the opposite of assuming that others are a threat and therefore to be more likely to perceive a gun in the other's hand and therefore to hold a gun.

This tracks well with the expressed views of many gun owners about the dangers they face from 'armed thugs'. Such gun owners begin as people over-rating the dangers of the world, and acquiring what they claim is protection against these dangers does not seem to reduce the danger from 'armed thugs' they feel they face. Owning the gun seems to actually aggravate their sense of being endangered, rather than assuage it.

and whether they had any experience with firearms?with so many bad studies out there hard to tell the good ones from the bad.

if used in the context of the gun control debate.

part at least, results of studies are evaluated. The study also get's evaluated as to methodology when it is submitted to a journal for publication and after its publication by anyone who reads it and forms an opinion as to its relevance.

behavior of those who are experienced with handling guns. Is that what you were thinking of? This could/should be done.

Applicable if limited to those who own firearms.