TexasCHLforum.com

Jusme

earlwb wrote:Some of these studies do seem to show an increase in aggressiveness with a firearm present. The recent TV series "Through the WormHole" with Morgan Freeman had a episode discussing some of this. The Episode 4 series 8 "Is gun crime a virus"? I think that it seems to affect those people with a liberal mindset much more than those with a conservative mindset. It is almost like a trigger got pulled with aggressiveness if a liberal sees a gun. I would like to see studies done with liberals separate from conservatives and maybe even in more detail, such as with race and different religious affiliations based on liberal versus conservative too. I think that would be most enlightening. Unfortunately I think that most of these studies are funded by the anti-2a billionaires looking to increase their power over people. We don't know if any studies were suppressed because the ones with the money didn't like the results.

One thought on open carry is that the firearm, being present, can easily result in it being considered "aggravated assault", depending on the circumstances. If two people get into a argument and one has a gun shown, it could quickly wind up being an aggravated assault even if the owner never touches the gun. Or the person touches the gun in a menacing manner.

Not to be overly argumentative, but I believe your perception is incorrect. If two people get into an argument and one has a cane, that he/she neither raises in a threatening manner or threatens the protagonist, with, could they be charged with aggravated assault? The mere presents of a gun is not, grounds for such a charge, because if so, every LEO in the country would be in fear of being charged.
I have no doubt that there are those who " feel" intimidated by the sight of a gun, but for aggravated assault charges to be applied, feelings are not enough. The complainant must also be able articulate a threat, even if it is only verbal. In your scenario, a 6'-5" man could be charged with Agravated assault if he argues with a 4'-11" woman, because his size may intimidate her.

Jusme

TexasTornado wrote:Please note, this effect is ONLY documented when subjects are already in a state of agitation. It has not been found to apply when just having normal conversations or when not already otherwise in an agitated/angered state.

Personally the reporter's opinions and interjections are completely irrelevant to me, it was just the first article I found on the topics presented in class. The relevant information in my opinion is the findings of the studies themselves and the idea that violence, once initiated, may escalate more quickly with a pistol visible.

I think that the time frames, that these tests were conducted, is telling. In the mid 60's race riots, police brutality against minorities, was prevalent, or at least featured greatly on the nightly news. I would assume these tests were performed at colleges and universities, where the attitude towards the only known openly armed people, the police, was acrimonious at best. The next set was done right after the Vietnam war ended, where attitudes toward the soldiers sent to fight, was very poor, for the most part, again because of news reports. As I said, there is no data, on the people involved in the studies,, including their perceptions, or experiences during that time.
The other studies listed, like the one stating that people carrying guns in their vehicles, are more aggressive, was based on a telephone sampling, again with no true indication, nor verification of honesty among the respondents.
I am not a psychologist, nor even a scientist, but I am always more suspicious, of studies, that only seem to focus, on a particular item, and especially guns, without a more comprehensive psychological breakdown, of the test subjects. JMHO

Jusme

Like any "study" where the conclusion ids already cemented, testing can be skewed to be sure that the desired result is met. It could be "proven" with the right parameters, and testing procedures, that pigs are aerodynamic, and should be the best choice to ride for aerial tours.

Jusme

TexasTornado wrote:People oft debate that we should OC based on the notion that an exposed weapon will deter acts of violence, but how accurate are the assumptions we make about OC?

Sudies in Social Psychology strongly suggest that when people are agitated, the presence of a weapon object is correlated with more aggressive behavior than non weapon objects such as tennis rackets; this phenomenon has been coined as "The Weapons Effect" and is well documented both in laboratory and field experiments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge ... ons-effect

What are your thoughts based on this research?

Poppycock!

Without knowing a person's proclivity towards, aggression, anger, violence, etc. beforehand, introducing certain visual stimuli, and trying to draw conclusions, is not noteworthy. The respondents, may have been war veterans, who were simply more stimulated by guns, or they may have had bad experiences, with people, in their past who misused guns. Random tests, without a full mental/emotional history on each individual, has been proven to be not viable. The very fact that they are quoting tests from the mid 60's, and 70's should indicate that no further testing was done, or that any further testing with more advanced parameters, was inconclusive. The very fact that the reporter, stated, that guns kill more people than spiders and snakes, indicates, that he believes inanimate objects are responsible for deaths. This is simply a result, from a preconceived agenda. JMHO

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 4 matches

Re: Interesting Psychology: Open Carry & The Weapons Effect

Re: Interesting Psychology: Open Carry & The Weapons Effect

Re: Interesting Psychology: Open Carry & The Weapons Effect

Re: Interesting Psychology: Open Carry & The Weapons Effect