Sheriff's gun policy makes sense...

yep - that's the answer.

backing up your argument? VPC recently released a report proving that CCW holders kill fewer people than lightning each year. Dunno why I should take your word over theirs.

Reactive much?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you wish for me to write a poem about your ignorant one-liners instead? :P

do you feel better with those ""ignorant" comments?

...may I suggest growing a thicker skin? It's not a personal attack to call your one liner posting earlier ignorant. It's a statement of fact. Want to show me to be wrong? Then make a clear statement of what you believe to be the reality and back it up with evidence. Not really such a hard thing to do, now is it? ;)

Talk tough - act the bully.

no - you are not worth the time.

Calling on somebody to defend their apparent position with evidence is now "bullying?" And if I'm not worth the time, why are you still replying? Oh, and you crying about my "tough talk" doesn't count as evidence. ;)

Here's a few pointers.

According to the VPC, 85 people were killed by a CCW permit holder over the last 2.5 years (yes, the VPC really is so stupid as to provide these numbers in some idiotic attempt to prove a point about how "violent" CCW permit holders are). This averages to 34 a year.

There are, on the low end estimate, approximately 4,000,000 CCW permit holders in the US. You do the math on the actual homicide rate among CCW holders there. You can even feel free to assume that each of those homicides was committed by a separate CCW holder. Then compare that to the population at large. See where I'm getting at?

Perhaps I should re-count it's ammunition (there must be a spent round somewhere); but even so, I have heard no complaints from my other firearms that they have been rudely diddled in an aggressive manner. Anything is possible, but I don't expect to hear barroom blather or "so's yo mama!" coming from the lock box anytime soon.

Yeah, you might be a troll.

Got Stats?

The people who take the good time and trouble to comply with the law in securing a CCW permit are some of the least likely to go around shooting up the town.

A large part of why forty states are now "shall issue" is because heads of local law enforcement agencies have an extensive history of abusing their discretionary powers, granting permits to the rich, famous and/or influential while denying them to people with a legitimate need who happened to be members of ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, or otherwise lacked political clout. In short, arbitrary and capricious use of political power.

the object being to keep "those people" from owning firearms.

Politicians tend to favor the rich, the influential and the famous. Politicians realize which side of the bread is buttered.

I mean, you're absolutely correct that the bulk of gun control legislation was created for illegitimate reasons, namely to prevent "those people" from possessing them, regardless of who "those people" might be: abolitionists and in the Southern states, recent immigrants in the North-East, people with a beef concerning the legitimacy of the present government in western Europe. But in my view, none of that would matter if the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of such measures had been satisfactorily addressed in the interim, and the the measures had a demonstrable positive effect on reducing the availability of firearms to the criminal element.

To compare, I'm a smoker, and there are certain anti-smoking measures I object to (like blanket bans on smoking in bars), but I'm not going to address them by pointing out that the first ever large-scale anti-smoking initiative was set up the Nazi government (even though it was). I'm not going to argue that interstate highways are bad idea because Eisenhower borrowed the idea off the Nazis either, or condemn genetic research on the basis of the abuse of the idea of eugenics in the first half of the previous century.

I'd prefer to debate such issues on their merits in the here and now. The fact is, however, that as far as I can tell, law enforcement's powers of discretion continue to be abused, and such measures do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms.

there is no way they couldn't be in practice, unless a sheriff decided to issue NO permits or issue to ALL applicants (who met the legal requirements).

I post in the Gudgeon to find literate arguments to challenge my opinions on RKBA.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with some well aimed arguments.

You remind me of those who use the "gansta style" of shooting.



You look tough and mean and make a lot of noise, but when push comes to shove you can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Come on man, you take the time to post in the Gungeon. You can present some rational good arguments to support your anti-gun position.

Shit, I could do that and I'm pro-gun.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who have passed the legal requirements to obtain a permit.

While such people are not angels, they come damn close statistically.

But it is also necessary to catch and punish those who carry concealed weapons illegally. All too often, our legal system fails to treat carrying illegal weapons as a serious crime.



If we target those who carry firearms illegally and punish them appropriately, you WILL reduce tragic homicides and as a side effect you may reduce the number of people who apply for concealed carry permits.

Of course, this is only one step to reduce the level of violence in our society. Still, it's a good first step.

I can understand why many people are opposed to civilian ownership of firearms and often "hate" firearms. I can also understand why many people enjoy the shooting sports including target shooting and hunting. Self defense is also a valid reason to own a firearm.

I think both the people who "hate and fear" firearms and those who "love" firearms are after the same basic idea of a safer society.

I didn't think so.

"present study replicates past research showing that exposure to guns
may increase later interpersonal aggression, but further demonstrates that, at least for
males, it does so in part by increasing testosterone levels. Such findings raise many of
the age-old questions about whether the presence of guns in modern society contributes
to violent behavior. While our study is clearly far from definitive, its results suggest that
guns may indeed be having such an effect, partially via changes in the hormone
testosterone."

http://www.sju.edu/academics/centers/ivrp/pdf/guns-testo-aggress.pdf

sure - how about this - guns contribute to increased aggression

As has been shown in this forum very recently, and backed up by the data of the VPC, of all places, in Florida, CCW permit holders are about 8 times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your average citizen.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be shot by a CCW permit holder illegally.

This thread is about legal concealed carry. Citizens who go to the trouble to have the correct paperwork to do this are obviously highly conscientious about obeying the law, rules, and regulations concerning firearms. It should then be no surprise that these people are highly conscientious about law and order in general.

Or am I thinking of another forum?

For starters, when you're studying testosterone levels and "aggressive" behavior in a bunch of males aged 18-22, you should be extremely cautious about extrapolating your results to the general population.

Second, in a comparatively casual experiment like this, you need to control damn hard that your test volunteers--both subjects and controls--aren't cottoning onto your study objectives and messing with your results. All the more so when you're using a proxy behavior for "aggression" that doesn't involve the direct infliction of violence. Students aren't as stupid as all too many researchers seem to think; they're quite capable of figuring out that nobody is actually going to be made to drink that cup of water laced with hot sauce, or that the guy on the other side of the screen isn't really receiving electric shocks. But once they know that you evidently want them to think that their decisions are going to get someone hurt (which would be unethical, and don't think they don't know that) they're going to try to figure out why you would want them to think so.

There was a study done in the early 1960s, also using college students, that concluded that the presence of a firearm increased aggressive behavior. Interestingly, when a subsequent study attempted to replicate the first study's methodology, the researchers had to discard a large number of volunteers who (rightly) called bullshit on the proffered explanation for the presence of a firearm, and the researchers noted in their report that they found it remarkable that the initial study had not suffered from this problem at all; the implication being that the researchers in the initial study had failed to make an adequate effort to screen out those volunteers who suspected there was more to the experiment than the researchers were letting on.

It's far from implausible that the study subjects, upon being given an airsoft gun to handle and disassemble, would have have twigged that what was actually being measured was some physiological and psychological response to being exposed to a firearm--albeit it an ersatz one--decided to screw with the measurements, and that the elevated testosterone levels were the result of fight-or-flight response at the thought of being rumbled. Familiarity with any of the research team's personal agendas might have aided in this deduction. I'm speculating here, but it's no less plausible than the researchers' hypotheses. Given the general attitude about firearms in institutions of tertiary education, it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that if you're given a gun--even a fake one--in an experiment, it has to be to measure your reaction to being exposed specifically to firearm-like objects.

Third, airsoft gun. No matter how the authors try to equate it to an actual firearm, it is not, and every one of the study subjects knew it.

This study doesn't even rate an Ig Nobel; those are given out for actual achievements.

The study CLEARLY expresses the need for further research with a broader sample.

Then you want to deny the results because of flaws found in other research - therefore these conclusion (which you obviously disagree with) cannot possibly be valid.

I'm not dismissing this study because a particular flaw occurred in a different study; I'm pointing out that a flaw occurred in a study with a very similar hypothesis and methodology, and because there's no evidence that the authors of this study even acknowledged, let alone made an effort to eliminate, that particular error, we have to doubt the validity of their findings.

And spare me the lame attempt to paint me "guilty by association." You don't know what my position is on global warming, or evolution, or the supposed link between vaccines and autism (though my use of the word "supposed" rather gives it away). I like to think of myself as a pragmatist; I base my position on the available evidence, rather than letting my ideology determine which evidence I choose to believe.

And to be blunt, the fact that you are willing to consider for even a second that that this obviously bullshit study might have a smidgen of an iota of a scintilla of scientific validity tells me that you are prepared to let ideology inform what evidence you're willing to accept as valid.

This study doesn't deserve to have resources wasted on further research. The proposed mechanism isn't particularly plausible to begin with, and the test itself didn't even examine the actual hypothesis, relying instead on proxies for both the actual firearm and the hypothesized resulting aggressive behavior. And given that the St. Joseph's University Institute for Violence Research and Prevention web page (http://www.sju.edu/academics/centers/ivrp/) contains direct links to Brady Campaign materials, and makes mention of the Institute organizing a candlelight vigil for homicide victims, I hardly think we need to look for scientific objectivity there.

Want to try again?

The study focused on males - do the finding apply to females. Does prior experience with guns moderate the results. The study was based on an anonymous behavior. Would the results be different if not anonymous. The research clearly demonstrated that the guns caused a rise in testosterone levels in the males - and in aggressive behavior. That part was definitive.

Those results support prior research.

I guess you could challenge the legitimacy of the research. It was conducted at Knox College.

"Knox College is a nationally ranked, private, residential liberal arts college of 1,400 undergraduate students located in Galesburg, Illinois."
"Knox College is one of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation for Fulbright Scholar grants awarded to faculty during 2009-2010"

The study fails to distinguish among the many different situations of gun ownership and carrying of gun. The biggest distinction that it fails to make is between LEGAL and ILLEGAL possesion.

they clearly stated that it applied to a very specific sample. But . . . it did demonstrate elevated levels for that sample.

The study also said prior-ownership was not considered.

Ok - so the findings need expansion - continued research is needed.

That does not discount their findings.

I don't think the "findings" as in the information they gathered is all that much in question. It's the conclusions drawn FROM that information that's being questioned. It's the relevance of that information to the topic at hand that's being questioned.

The information, as has been demonstrated, would not appear to be relevant, and would certainly not appear to support the conclusions drawn from it, and THAT's the point people have been trying to make.

with males of a certain age.

And that is not relevant.

Unbelievable.

Since a shouting match with me has the potential to become deadly if the other guy goes violent, I walk away from the start. I know the danger, even if he doesn't, so I have the greater responsibility.

Carrying a gun LEGALLY isn't as simple as sticking one in your pocket. Carrying one ILLEGALLY is often begging for trouble.

The problem with all the studies that I have seen is that they don't differentiate between LEGAL or ILLEGAL gun possession.

I wish I felt all gun owners felt the same way.

It is a required part of of the classes we take. However, please do not conflate "gun owners" with "CCWers". CCWers carry their gun on their person in public, but concealed. Mere gun owners don't. (AK & VT excepted for concealed, some other states excepted for open carry.)

In most states, to carry concealed, the CCWer has to have an FBI stamp of approval.

You produce some shitty, two-bit study (most term papers I've written were longer than that) as if it somehow proves your point. When it gets shredded, you try to defend it by pointing out that the authors said more research was called for, while two-facedly continuing to present the findings as valid in other sub-threads. Well, I got news for you, "Dr" Dan: when the authors of a study write in their conclusions that more research is called for, it almost invariably means that the findings were too weak to reject the null, but the authors are too enamored of their pet hypothesis to consign it to the trash heap where it belongs. Instead, they hope someone with more brains and/or more funding will vindicate what they themselves could not.

You can't invoke the "more research is called for" defense without ipso facto acknowledging that the study under discussion has failed to produce any definitive results. Definitive results by definition do not require further study.

Moreover, anyone with at least a basic understanding of the scientific method--or failing that, soneone who paid attention during Statistics 101--would understand that this study by no means indicates that "guns increase the level of testosterone which in turn increases aggression with males of a certain age." At best, this study indicates a correlation between exposure to a plastic airsoft pistol and an increase in testosterone level, but correlation does not imply causation. We know this study made no effort to identify confounders, let alone control for or (better yet) eliminate them. This failure reduces the entire study to an eight-page post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#noncausa).

most decent research studies indicate areas where further research is warranted. And yes - that "Dr" is legitimate - to include research at the Ph.D. level. Do you acknowledge that cancer research has been successful to a point????? If so - then do you believe we know everything we need to know about cancer? Of course not - "further research is necessary". Good Lord.

Definitive results were produced and spelled out - to include limitations. You are simply too blinded by your own beliefs to recognize you might be wrong.

I'm actually just smart enough. I'm just smart enough to know when another person is more knowledgeable about a certain area than I am, and to defer to such a person's opinion in that particular area. In the course of my life, I've associated with special forces soldiers, war crimes investigators, military intelligence types, criminal prosecutors and aspiring criminal prosecutors, university professors, computer software engineers, specialist MDs, and I'm just smart enough to know when I'm out of my depth.

The fact that I don't display humility to you doesn't mean I'm too arrogant to display humility. In your case it just means I think your opinion isn't worth respecting. Does that adequately clarify the distinction?

And to perfectly frank, it's not like anything you've said has been particularly demonstrative of your massive intellect, or your honesty.

You know one of things that makes me just smart enough? It's the ability to identify what you're not saying from what you are. The fact that you've performed "research at the Ph.D. level" does not ipso facto make you a Ph.D. And why would would say you had performed "research at the Ph.D. level" rather than simply stating that you had a Ph.D., unless you did not actually have a Ph.D.?


I will freely admit that I'm no expert on cancer, and I will happily defer to any oncologist on that particular subject. However, having been through basic training in the Dutch armed forces at age 22, I do have some personal experience with observing the reactions of "males of a certain age" when exposed to firearms. Real firearms, as in FN FAL rifles, Uzi sub-machine guns, Browning Hi-Power and Glock 17 pistols, FN MAG machine guns and Stinger surface-to-air missiles, rather than poxy airsoft pistols. And as a trainee squad leader, I've been in a position to observe aggressiveness in those same males to a much better extent than Ms Klinesmith.

You know how I and my platoon-mates felt about our issued firearms (FN FAL rifles)? We thought they were a pain in the ass, along with other piece of anatomy you'd care to mention (the shoulders in partcular). Twelve-plus pounds of steel, wood and plastic to haul around the training ground, and if you made the mistake of actually firing the bloody thing, especially if you fired blanks, it'd cost you one to two hours on Thursday evening to clean the bugger, which you could be spending much more pleasantly showering, then hoisting beers and playing Trivial Pursuit in the enlisted club.

Yeah, funny that. After four days straight of hauling our guns around the training ground, what we most wanted to do was not put increased amounts of hot sauce in some other guy's cup of water, but rather, grab a cup of coffee and read the week's newspapers, or drink beer and play Trivial Pursuit.

I do hold a Ph.D. in a particular area of technology - one I worked hard for - four years to include two completing a research project. Holding a terminal degree was not the subject, however, so I did not mention it in that context. I do now because you, through your "just enough wisdom", have decided to state unquestionably, that I do not.

I still believe that you are completely "full of yourself". You are probably quite intelligent - but are insecure to the point of continually having to prove it in the most bellicose manner. I also spent quite a bit of time in the military - and have seen your type quite often. You hated being enlisted - didn't you? (I really expect you to deny that - but we know differently, don't we.) Knowing there were officers without your intelligence - yet you needed to follow their orders - you hate(d) that. Yeah - I know your type. Needing to continually prove your intelligence.

Well - there are gaps.

"I still believe that you are completely "full of yourself". You are probably quite intelligent - but are insecure to the point of continually having to prove it in the most bellicose manner."

Says the person who continues to tout the merits of one of the most fundamentally flawed studies that has ever graced this forum.

"Yeah - I know your type. Needing to continually prove your intelligence."

Says the man espousing his Ph.D. in a "particular area of technology" and also his apparent degree in human psychology given your apparent ability to "read" people so well from an internet forum.

Seriously, you couldn't project harder if you tried.

I still find it odd that you would say you'd done "research at the Ph.D. level," rather than just saying you have a Ph.D. Research in technology, however, is a rather different field from social sciences, or even medical science; when human test subjects are involved, certain uncertainties are introduced, which is for example why medical science had to develop the randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial (preferably double-blinded) to eliminate bias both on the part of the test subject, and of the researcher.

And actually I rather enjoyed my time in the army. You may very well be right that I wouldn't have enjoyed being in the US armed forces, but I was actually in the Dutch army. It's one of the places where I was happy to defer to most people I worked with because they were obviously more knowledgeable about certain matters than I was. Also, it was still a mainly conscript force at the time (I was a conscript myself), and the career types were used to having draftees with above-average intelligence, and appreciating the skills they brought to the job. The main people I had trouble with were certain junior career NCOs.

And no, I don't think I'm "insecure to the point of continually having to prove <my intelligence> in the most bellicose manner"; I just don't appreciate being underestimated. Whatever "gaps" you may perceive in my knowledge do not make this airsoft-and-hot-sauce study a decent piece of research.

Remove yourself from the particularly field of technology for a couple of years - and it has passed you by. Anyway - I work in industry - one of the big 3-letter corporations - so I never use a "Dr" title at work, or even lay claim to my degree. My job is now totally statistical in nature with no responsibilities with respect to my prior area of study. I adjunct at a couple of Universities - but teaching graduate statistics rather than the technology that took such a hunk of my life.

I had guessed military in the U.K. - missed it by a few miles. I could tell, however, that yours was not a U.S. military background.

I did learn from this thread. I learned from GreenStormCloud that there are gun owners that, due to concealed carry, accept a larger responsibility in the context of potemtial conflict situations - hence they have a tendency to walk away rather that "participate". I was actually delighted to hear that - quite different from the attitudes displayed by most gun-owners with which I have had past contact.

from a fight. Any good martial arts school teaches its students the same thing.

this looks fairly standard.

"This section should be included in a report when the results and conclusions indicate that further work must be done or when the writer needs to discuss several possible options to best remedy a problem. The writer should not introduce new ideas in the recommendations section, but rely on the evidence presented in the results and conclusions sections. Via the recommendations section, the writer is able to demonstrate that he or she fully understands the importance and implications of his or her research by suggesting ways in which it may be further developed."

http://www.phd-dissertations.com/recommendations.html

". . . ways in which it may be further developed." Further research - get it?????

You're attempting to say that because they stated "more research is needed" in their conclusion that their conclusions are somehow more legitimate. I'm sorry, but this is a stupid-ass rationalization.

If I did a study that consisted entirely of questioning some people at a few booths in a conspiracy theory convention, then concluded that the Moon landings were a hoax, I'd be full of shit. Adding in that I thought "more research is necessary" wouldn't give my research any more legitimacy, but it IS commonly used as an out for bad researchers who are trying to APPEAR more legitimate.

So what you don't seem to understand, and what people have been trying to explain to you, is that it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER that they called for further research. Their initial research was SO BAD that it's almost comical, for reasons that have been pointed out by people on this forums multiple times.

You want a piece of advice? Drop this study like a bad habit and never attempt to use it again to prove your point. Then examine your point closely and critically and see if it can stand even the most basic logic tests available.

consider it dropped - nothing other than supportive studies and comments are obviously welcome here.

You ARE like a climate change denier. You walk in here with a bogus, bull shit study that a 4th grader could rip apart using basic logic skills, and you expect it to be taken seriously. Typical climate-change denier MO. The funny thing is that you don't realize your on the "denier" side of the issue. :P

We've got no problem with people bringing studies forward and disagreeing with us. We do have a problem with people not being able to deal with their studies being shown to be bullshit when a little logic and reason are applied to it. You fit that bill, it would seem.

Read many of the threads here. You will quickly notice a pattern. Those of us who are pro-gun argue from facts and hard data using logic. The antis tend to use emotional appeals, personal attacks, and insults. My compliments to you that you haven't done that.

Euromutt does an excellent job on Hellerman and similar studies. His analysis are detailed and so far no anti has rebutted them. They just come back with insults.

benEzra is tops on assault weapon ban info and explaining the difference in the types of guns. Euromutt is great there too.

My primary concern is with concealed carry and the use of guns to prevent or stop attacks from violent felons.

paulsy is great on police matters.

And all of us gunnies have thoughts on other aspects of guns in the U.S, and other guns specialties too.

All of us are pretty up on gun law.

So please hang around and engage us in conversation.

You're single-handedly doing more to show the irrationality of the anti-gun movement than any of us here ever could. :D

As for my assertions, I believe that many, if not most gun-owners are cowards
who pack guns because deep down inside, they have MAJOR social issues and even
mental illnesses, that make them prone to paranoid delusions, to one degree or
another.

First, you don't clearly define what you mean by "gun control" but, assuming you mean the sort of gun control the Brady Campaign supports, then you're wrong. Democrats HAVEN'T always been for that. In fact, it's not even a given now. People like you are losing ground, slowly but surely.

The rest of your post stinks of you projecting your own issues on others. So good luck with all those major social issues and mental illness. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. :)

study the list of ratings for members of congress in 2006.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3492

Also plenty of Democrats own firearms and support RKBA.







Source Gallop poll...February 16, 2006 http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

Or take Bill Richardson,who was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election as an example.

William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III (born November 15, 1947) is a Democratic politician and the current Governor of New Mexico. Prior to being elected governor, Richardson served in the Clinton administration as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Energy Secretary. Richardson has also served as a U.S. Congressman, chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson




Basically, the Democratic Party is a BIG tent.

As to your personal views about the psychology and motivations of gun owners, you have every right to form and express such views.

I personally believe that stereotyping is never a good idea and is often is an indication of an elitist attitude.

Try very hard.

what other items/activities did the study test? What about watching football? Does it increase testosterone? What about driving fast cars, drinking, weight lifting, having sex, watching porn? Should all activities which raise testosterone be banned or subject to control? I don't see any relevance at all...none..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6949048.ece

"It is popularly known as the selfish hormone, which courses through male veins to promote egotistical and antisocial behaviour. Yet research has suggested that testosterone’s bad reputation is largely undeserved.

Far from always increasing aggression and greed, the male hormone can actually encourage decency and fair play, scientists have discovered."


I've got more, awaiting permission to quote or paraphrase some folks.

the sample was given a chance to add hot sauce to some water that they thought someone was going to drink. Those handling the guns added more hot sauce than the others (I hope I did justice to what they did - I did not go back and reread the study. The conclusion drawn was that aggression was higher with that group.

So the study did (attempt to) address the aggression issue further than simply stating testosterone levels increased.

Adding hot sauce to someone's water isn't a criminal act. Starting a fight is. Men who have trouble controlling their agressive tendencies tend to also get arrested and have convictions and criminal records. Such people are then denied the right to legally own a gun.

Very few of us on this forum have any difficulty in taking guns away from those for whom it is already illegal for them to have a gun. We object to taking guns away from people who have demonstrated responsibility in the conduct of their lives. Legal gun owners rarely commit a gun crime.

I am sure that you can easily compile a long list of things that increase male testosterone levels. Driving a car. Driving an 18 wheeler. Notice the two trucks in the picture, and tell me what you think of the testosterone levels of the drivers.
Truck A


Truck B


Besides the cosmetics, the green truck gets better fuel economy and is just as powerful. The owner of the truck with the squarish radiator is losing a lot of fuel efficiency due to increased air resistance. Since he will drive about 120,000 miles in one year, that means he is paying a lot of money to have that look.

My point is that many thing effect our testosterone levels, and some men handle it responsibly and some don't. Right should not be denied to those who have demonstrated responsibility because some are irresponsible.

all of the things that could raise the testosterone levels. Only to demonstrate that level could go up with guns. And that was demonstrated with the sample.

Of course adding hot sauce is not against the law. However, there is some need for common sense in studies like this. Adding hot sauce is simply an indication of added aggression. They certainly would not want to measure - or have as a part of this research - anything injurious or anything against the law. This actions suited their purposes. It should be noted that the researchers went to extra lengths to insure the sample was calm before they left.

Again - the study's sample was limited. Additional research is necessary. However, the hypotheses were validated.

There are a lot of suppositions in that "study". It has many gapping holes, I wouldn't use it to insulate my house.

"Seems a very small sample size to read anything conclusive from, plus the age range puts them squarely at a development level of maximum agression and hormonal flux. Heck, at that age, thinking about a boulder was usually sufficient to alter my mood. And, it was not detailed what the female was wearing during each interaction. If she had a low cut blouse when dealing with the "gun" subjects, and wore a muu-muu for the "non-gun" subjects, that would be sufficient to skew the subjects response."

Waiting for permission to quote some folks from another web board.

There was no actual control group, i.e., people given no object, and tested for a base line.

That alone completely invalidates anything about this "study".

and since tesosterone is essentially one of the dominating factors in male behavior, it is by extension a bias against men.

it is very true. testosterone is not the evil hormone that people believe it is.

people here would get pilloried if they made jokes about women doing something bad, and then commenting on their estrogen levels, but it's a-ok to associate testosterone to "dumb jocks" or boorish behavior, etc.

it's silly, it's not scientific, and it's bigoted.

it does have a powerful influence on drives, though. for example, women bodybuilders who take exogenous testosterone find their personality changes to some extent. they find themselves acting more "male".

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946632,00.html?iid=tsmodule

"
The popular belief that testosterone contributes to aggressive behavior in humans may be just that — a belief — according to a new study in the journal Nature. The paper suggests that the hormone may in fact lead to fair, and more altruistic, behavior in some situations, causing aggression only when people believe they are under its influence.

Authors of the new study theorize that the actual effects of testosterone, a hormone produced by the male testes and female ovaries that is linked to brain development and sexual behavior, may be somewhat neutral in nature, leading to what researchers call "status-seeking behavior." Under certain conditions, status-seeking could lead to increased aggression — in prison populations, for instance, where studies have shown that inmates in high-security prisons have elevated levels of the hormone — when fighting seems the only way to the top."

Got it from someone on another board.

There's increasing evidence that testosterone increases one's appetite for taking risks (which goes some way to explaining why teenage boys can be such idiots), but that in turn could plausibly be explained by "status-seeking behavior." If your peer group grants status on the basis of the risks you're willing to take, then it would logically follow that a drive to seek status will lead to engage in risky behavior.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding people strike fear into the hearts of violent criminals.

Sorry, sorry, just succumbing to the nasty old joke that if Northern and Southern California ever separated, they'd have to fight a war to determine which one would have to take Fresno.

She sounds like a hell of a sheriff.

Do you think I'm too old to have her children?

willing to learn how to use them properly and knowing the relevant laws + fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them = better, safer society.