Study: If you hold a gun, you imagine others with guns

Mike-O

Mike-O

Active member


A fresh study might bring some perspective to the recent shooting of a black teenager that shocked the United States. The study shows that holding a weapon in your hand makes you see a weapon in another person's hand as well.

Researchers from Notre Dame University surveyd this phenomenon in many test series.

The test subjects held either a gun or a softball in their hand and looked at pictures of people walking towards them while carrying something in their hands. The set was changed many times, for example changing the race or clothing of the person coming towards them, sometimes even with ski masks on.

The test subjects had to say if the people coming towards them were holding a gun or some neutral object, such as a cell phone or a flask, and describe how they would react to this person in real life.

The results showed that the test subjects' views for the oncoming people were guided by the object held in their hands. If they were holding a gun, they more often thought that the other person was holding a gun as well, and described that they were ready to defend themselves.

If they were holding the ball, most subjects thought the others only had a neutral object in their hands.

The phenomenon could only be triggered if the subjects were actually holding the weapon in their grip, and not by for example having it in their view on a table before them.

I think this is a pretty interesting psychological phenomenon, and not too far off to be compared to with mirroring one's own world views to those around them. A liar often thinks people around him are lying as well, and ignorantly happy people often see the world in a brighter light than those struggling with harsh realities of the world we live in.

Being armed and holding a weapon might empower many people, but also create this kind of reaction of a mix of fear and doubt for others around them. The whole study will be published in the next issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology, anxious to check it out.

 
Awesome, a "study" that cites no numbers, statistics, sample sizes, or indeed any actual data at all. Even though the actual "study" hasn't been published, obviously it is a good idea to post a report on the study that clearly shows a particular point of view.

What about the idea that if one is holding a gun in one's hand, one is most likely in an area where such an action would be warranted? Thus it stands to reason that a person rapidly approaching in a hostile manner would indeed be holding a gun, not a juicebox. It is a fair assumption that our troops being sent to Iran are trained to identify possible bulges on a person's body as explosives, firearms, or other weapons, not teddy bears. Seeing a shiny object in a battle zone, my immediate thought would be "weapon" not "bling necklace."
 
^Ok that post was retarded.

But someone should link the thread that's chalk full of empirical evidence and statistical data that shines a positive light on gun deregulation before this gets too crazy.
 
anyone else notice the baby that just gets chucked in the ground in the background?

also interesting study. I think some people are just fucked in the head though. they need to be taught proper gun etiquette when they are young. My dad taught me proper gun etiquette. some of his views I think re a little off but he doesn't like the idea of pointing anything that looks like a gun to people. Whether is a real gun toy gun something that could be misconceived as a gun. It is part of the reason as a Child I never got to play paintball that often. As much as I hated it when I was younger I understand it now.

Pointless story is pointless?
 
Are you fucking kidding me? You're such a dipshit. You're bitching and moaning about something that is actually interesting and relevant to recent tragedy and you think it's stupid that this thread was made.

Go look at the other threads in NSG and tell me this is stupid. And just because someone doesn't support gun control doesn't mean they're shoving their view down your throat by posting something gun related. You fucking derelict.
 
I agree man, these political "shitstorm" threads are basically the only reason I come on NS anymore. Contrary to popular belief you get some pretty decent banter.

I know that contradicts my last post, what I kind of meant to say up there is that we've had this discussion before, as recently as last week if I remember correctly.
 
Almost, but just missed the point. Actually, holding a gun in one's hand makes one think that one is in dangerous situation where the use of the gun might be warranted. The probability of being in a hostile situation is irrelevant, especially in a controlled test environment. What is relevant is the psycholgy involved leading to misinterpreting potential threats.

Also lol'd at the automatic defence of US troops there, nothing was said about soldiers or military use of firearms in the op. . . (and anyway, this research would probably be more applicable to police work and gun carry laws than war situations i would guess)
 
There should be a separate forum called the Mike-O forum where you can put all your long and 'interesting' threads
 
I was going to make a thread about crying during movies, but I saw you already had that covered.

iFlip, this has nothing to do with war, or soldiers per se. A study is a study, no need for quotation marks.
 
Well for most people, having a fun in there hand isn't normal compared to an apple. Idk if the study actually shows anything because my guess is that most people get nervouse when tere holding a gun which makes them jump to quicker conclusions.. Just my opinion , and mike-o I don't give a fuck about my grammatical errors, I'm on mobile
 
Haha well played.

Interesting study. Would like to hear more about it please post some information. Funny btw how people are bitching. Heaven forbid a newschooler sparks an intelligent conversation or doesn't come on here to talk about the new jiberish.
 
In response to those who replied to me...I was using analogy to make a point. This is a loaded study. It is trying to show that guns are bad, and that they promote negative values and lead to negative consequences. As a responsible gun owner I take umbridge to the idea that whenever I have a gun in my hand I will "see" guns in the hands of others.

I put it to you that if I have a gun in my hand, I have reason to have it there. Things are not as black and white as this study makes them out to be. Before I consider taking up arms, I will have a legitimate reason to do so. As such, when I have the gun in my hand I *may* default to the idea that others have guns. This is a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but I am trying.
 
Bro wtf are you talking about? It is a scientific study, read the journal article it was published in (idk where it is) before you claim stupid shit like that. Calling the study bias just based on what was posted in the OP is ignorant as fuck.
 
Calling me "ignorant as fuck" is probably not the most intelligent move. In regard to telling me to read the journal article...You did not even read the entirety of the OP. The journal article is not released yet. I did do additional research, and this article is being tied in with the Trayvon Martin case, to present a negative front against guns.

The way in which this article is presented is most certainly biased, and to disagree with that would be "ignorant as fuck."

FYI, there is a more complete version of the article found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-case-study_n_1368524.html a place clearly known for presenting a fair and non-biased view (sarcasm btw).
 
Calling the study bias was prob not the most intelligent move given if it hasn't even been released yet... Also yes clearly the article in the OP is bias, but to claim that the study is also bias just based on one persons interpretation of it (article in the OP) is a pretty dumb conclusion.
 
Calling the study bias was prob not the most intelligent move given if it hasn't even been released yet... Also yes clearly the article in the OP is bias, but to claim that the study is also bias just based on one persons interpretation of it (article in the OP) is a pretty dumb conclusion.
 
I don't understand why European members on this site are so overly obsessed with gun laws. If your pro gun control you live in the right place (Europe) and if you cherish your right to keep and bear arms America is a great place to live. Why do you guys care what's going on here. America overwhelming loves it's 2 nd amendment and we don't need outside advise.
 
He's calling the huffington post bias and if you disagree with that your in denial they are Brady campaign dick suckers and are anti gun to the core. So until someone posts this study" that can't seem to be found this is just anti gun rhetoric. When the study is provided then we can have a real discussion
 
its only scientific if its peer reviewed.

in other news, the sky is blue because the blueness of the water on earth reflects to the sky. this is obviously because the earth is 70% water.
 
No he said "study", hence the "loaded study" in his first sentence. Also if you read my last post you would know I already said the article was clearly biased..

^ and I just assumed it was peer reviewed since it was from a University.
 
Considering that, as mentioned, we have no actual data, sample size or details in our grimy hands just yet, it's hard to play these results in any real direction, so you can't say anything about "most people" getting nervous with weapons when we have no idea who and what these subjects' backgrounds with weapon handling were, nor can anyone say that there's a clear cause and correlation without at least knowing exactly how this study went down.

It's an interesting phenomenon and worthy of a study, and the article I translated is completely neutral. Anyway, how does being "on mobile" affect someone's ability to write coherent text?
 
I guess you could be right that when carrying a gun your sitution is more likely to be dangerous than not. But the study is not concerned with how likely it is that an oncomer is armed, it is saying that should they prove to be unarmed, holding a gun may turn a non-threatening situation into a legitimate one for gun use in your head.

As a gun owner, you just admitted that your judgement "may" be distorted in this way. Unfortunately the study proves that it will be. This information should scare you, and make you think carefully about how you go about carrying your gun, not force a defensive reaction to a study whose aim is to prevent you ever accidentally misusing your firearm. No one denies that there will be times when a gun may be necessary, and i'm not trying to attack you personally, i am sure you are a responsable gun carrier. The study is looking at the times when we make errors, and what caused us to make them.

 
Your biggest problem is you just come off like an idiot, not that you are, but what you have written in this thread is completely nonsensical.
 
Hey i got a really good idea, seeing as everyone hates each other, lets let everyone buy guns!!!11!!!!!!!!1!11one!!

oh wait...
 
Looks like a Goliath from starcraft

images


 
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOLY ISHT HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top