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