This is a new argument to me- and it seems that the anti-gun lobby must be getting desperate if this is what they are reduced to. I guess they have to find some way to respond to the fact that more people legally carrying guns results in less violent crime.
A study carried out by the Harvard School of Public Health has discovered- from a sample of 2,400 drivers- that motorists who carry guns are more likely to indulge in road rage than those whom are not armed-
"Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns"
Of course the conclusion reached by this desperate state of affairs is-
"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."
So a 7% difference between armed and unarmed in "road rage" (definition- self-admittedly driving aggressively and making rude gestures but not attacking other drivers, or shooting them). I guess guns must be causing this wide gap in behaviour- but what on earth makes those 16% of unarmed people act like asses when they are behind the wheels of their cars?
I like the way the researcher extrapolates from being an aggressive driver and making rude gestures to "injury and violence prevention". Gee, he couldn't have any bias against a free and armed citizenry could he?
What makes this even more irritating is that it was the top story of the New Scientist newletter. Surely they couldn't have an agenda too?