"Holding a gun may make you think others are too"

I think that guy had a bad case of I want to be a cop syndrome. He will do time for it and he might deserve it.
When I had seen your title I thought that when I hold my snub nose and look at the moon is there anyone else who is also holding a snub looking at the moon as well?

Ah Grasshopper,

The evil object (i.e. gun) causes a persons bad behavior. The individual is not responsible for his or her bad actions.

I think that guy had a bad case of I want to be a cop syndrome.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is one of those stories I hate to hear not only because an innocent person died, but it makes CCWers look like a bunch of racist wannabe cops.

Well I always think everybody is armed. Keeps me looking for a threat, as long as Im looking in my mind I think I wont be surprised. But as for the whole carring a gun makes you think others are also carring. IDK. I think people who carry may be more vigilant in some aspects to see if someone is carring ie looking for the tale-tale signs of touching the gun under the clothes, fanny packs, large over shirts. Stuff like that.

I don't think everyone is armed, just because I am. There are a whole lot more folks living in Ohio than just the CHL holders.
I believe that George Zimmerman saw whatever he wanted to see. Records show that he has called the police 46 times in the past year (between 1/11 and 2/12). 46 times! Talk about the boy who cried wolf! He probably has a Bat-Phone, cape, and a utility belt.
The 911 recordings of this shooting are fairly telling. There are so many sad parts to this story.
But perhaps Zimmerman will become the poster-child for WHAT NOT TO DO.
IMO: He needs to become 'the defendant'.

.

There have been studies that show, studies usually come up with results which the studiers want.

"A study shows" is never enough evidence for me. It is too easy to fudge results and there are too many agenda driven people.

My wife took a film-making course 30+ years ago. On the first day of class, a loud shot rang out, and amid the commotion, a person ran out of the classroom.

The teacher called the class to order, and asked everyone if the fleeing person had been holding a handgun. About half the class said they saw the handgun.

The teacher had filmed the entire incident and replayed it for the class. The fleeing person had been armed with a banana.

Obviously, no one in that classroom had a firearm. And chances are, being a classroom full of prospective film-makers at Boston College, none of them even owned a gun.

Studies like the one being foisted by AP are a joke -- and it's a shame that someone's actually getting paid to conduct them.


.

when you first take karate; everyone else on the street is a potential black belt.

Another way to think about it. In my book if you have an arm then you are armed (and most people have two arms).

Having performed research in a university myself and reading this report it is amusing to see the results being used to push an obvious agenda. Anyone versed in the scientific method knows that the parameters of a study need to be carefully controlled (there is lttle mention of that) and most importantly the study needs to be replicated by others and then if similar results are obtained there is only a certain degree of probability that the premise is correct. It is unfortunate that most people just make broad assumptions that because "a study was performed that showed..." that what it purports is fact.

Crtical thinking skills are sorely lacking in our society.

Heck, through my own research I found that statistics are wrong 13.5% of the time. (think about it, it'll come to ya, ha,ha!)

HEAVY METAL 1 said:

Heck, through my own research I found that statistics are wrong 13.5% of the time. (think about it, it'll come to ya, ha,ha!)

Click to expand...

...I won't believe that until you show me at least three corresponding studies...








.

I think the study is irrelevant noise

"Context for Fla. shooting? Study finds holding gun makes you likely to think others have guns", Associated Press, 20 Mar 2012.

In a telephone interview, Brockmole stressed he had no inside information on the Feb. 26 shooting of 17-year-old Martin, who was shot and killed in a gated community in Sanford, a suburb of Orlando.

Click to expand...

Uh, no Zimmerman did not claim Martin had a gun too, so this is just noise. Zimmerman was on the phone to 911 during the incident and ignored 911 advice that police had been dispatched and that he should not pursue Martin who was accused only of acting suspicious. Martin's girl friend was talking to Martin as he walked:

Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for?' and the man said, 'What are you doing here?' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing and somebody push Trayvon, because the headset just fell.

Click to expand...

Trayvon Martin (unarmed) inflicted two head wounds on the neighborhood watch leader George Zimmerman. (ADDED: Zimmerman was not part of the Neighborhood Watch program, which advises against patrolling your neighbor armed and advises observe-and-report only.) Zimmerman shot once and killed Martin. ABC News:

Police said Zimmerman, who was found bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, told authorities he yelled out for help before shooting Martin.

Click to expand...

Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was standing over him: after the pleading one shot was fired. Some witnesses reverse the identity of who was standing, who was down, and claimed two shots were fired, so this case is a mess. The "new study" is irrelevant to understanding this case and is just more clamor and noisy distraction.

That article is another Washington Post smoke screen designed to blame the gun for the reckless actions of irrespnsible people.

As mentioned by previous posters Zimmerman has a bad case of the cop wannabes. The police gave him the benefit of the doubt because they knew him. He should had simply watched Martin from his vehicle and let uniformed police officers confront him.

What if Martin had been a young looking plain clothed cop. Zimmerman would be dead, hospitalized or in jail right now.

When introducing people to firearms and CCW for the first time I always emphasize very strongly to them that you are not a cop. Carrying a gun is for the protection of your life and, depending upon the situation, other innocent life. It's not your job to investigate crimes nor to confront people for just looking suspicious.

Stupid article, written by even more stupid person, jmho, these people will only see what they want. I absolutely don't think anyone else is carrying just because i am. In fact I carry most of the time and even my wife doesn't know unless she asks. Most of the ccl holders I know do a good job of concealment.

If you read only what the media says about this case, it appears that he had a bad case of policeman envy. He put himself in to a position of having to use his firearm by provoking the kid. Apparantly the kid was too much for him to handle..and then used his firearm to thwart off any future attacks. No matter how this case comes out...it seems obvious that he put himself into a position that he should have no business being in. Call the police and let them do their job. I'm sure there are a lot of details we don't know..but the media will have a field day with this one. There are so many CWP classes that do NOT stress one VERY important rule. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PERMIT, DOES NOT GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THROW YOURSELF IN TO A SITUATION THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE IN IF YOU WERE NOT CARRYING. Over in the Tampa area..in the low income area close to down town, I wouldn't be caught dead in that area at night..by myself. If I decided to go there cuz' I felt empowered due to a side arm...then I am basically LOOKINg for a problem.

That study is trivial and non-novel to anyone familiar with the psychological concept of priming.

Sent from Tapatalk

Can't we just call the guy a murderous racist and put him on trial for first degree murder? Let's also add disturbing the peace, battery, assault, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, illegal discharge of a firearm in public, and brandishing of a weapon. If this guy gets away with his crime, then it's an embarrassment to society as a whole.

Basic rule of CC

chrt396:

There are so many CWP classes that do NOT stress one VERY important rule. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PERMIT, DOES NOT GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THROW YOURSELF IN TO A SITUATION THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE IN IF YOU WERE NOT CARRYING.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
This is one more reason why "In the Gravest Extreme" should be required reading for every Concealed Carry class, because Massad Ayoob states this in no uncertain terms. It was certainly stressed by the instructors in the classes I've taken!

^^ Tennessee handgun permit class (required to get a permit) stresses that same point.

I know a lot of the claims about this incident have been proven false (the most outrageous claim was that Zimmerman fired once, Martin called out for help, and Zimmerman fired a second time after Martin was down. Only one shot was fired after Zimmerman called out for help after Martin hit him twice drawing blood).

However, pursuing and challenging someone on the street for appearing to be suspicious, after 911 has advised you to step down officers are on the way to investigate, was totally unnecessary.

Crtical thinking skills are sorely lacking in our society. I have to agree with you there HM1

Critical thinking does not exist in the media.


The only thing I am relatively sure of in this situation is an older(28) white male saw a young black male walking down the street. He called the police. They told him not to follow him and he did anyway. After that it is anyone's guess.


And an edit:According to his family he is hispanic.

Sounds like ignorance at it's finest to me.

How many of you trashing the study actually searched for it and read it?

Here's where you can read it - http://www.nd.edu/~jbrockm1/WittBrockmole_inPress_JEPHPP.pdf

The study is actually very well designed, and, despite having a small sample size, produces repeated (the study actually consists of 5 separate experiments) and consistent statistically significant results showing that holding a gun leads one to be more likely to perceive an individual holding an object as holding a gun.

THIS IS NOT SURPRISING

What is somewhat surprising is that the presence of a gun in the room, brought to the participant's attention very clearly, did not produce any difference in perception of object held on the screen. So clearly there's a cognitive effect produced by actually being in control of the object that produces a response bias greatly exceeding any cognitive effect produced by an object just being on ones mind.

And while I personally generally find media interpretation of primary literature to be deplorable, the interpretation here is really not that bad (despite the purpose of it being written clearly seems to be to fit an agenda). They do, however, leave out the finding that holding a shoe increased response bias to perceiving a shoe was the object being held.

It would not be fair to extrapolate the results of this study to apply to carrying (not holding) a firearm because that is a situation that is not touched on in any of the experiments. I don't believe the article intentionally suggests this though - only in one sentence in the article is poor language choice used to represent the findings of the study ("being armed" rather than "holding a gun" being the variable in question).

Please think critically. Reacting against a study without reading it because it doesn't fit your agenda doesn't jive well with calling out the journalist for framing the study to fit his agenda.

Edit: The argument that a study with a new finding shouldn't be taken as gospel is a good one, but not when it is said with intention strictly to discount the study's findings. Yes, there should be larger scale follow up studies, potentially in more realistic situations (although that is difficult with this topic). That doesn't mean this study's findings bring no (or even minimal) value to the table