Salon Article Says Handling Guns Increases Testosterone, Aggressiveness

[txradioguy]

IN A RECENT PIECE THAT EQUATES GUN OWNERSHIP TO CAR OWNERSHIP, SALON IMPLIES THAT SIMPLY HANDLING A GUN CAUSES MEN TO GO ON 'INTOXICATING' POWER TRIPS

Anti-gunners have attacked guns — and gun owners — in many ways over the years. Some attacks might have some legitimacy, but most are pretty far out there. In a recent article, however, Salon might have designed the most unique anti-gun argument ever heard. The writer decided to make the claim that men become more aggressive by simply holding a gun.

The article reads:

With a gun in his hand, a man can look around a room, a building, or a public area and specifically identify who will instantaneously die and whom he will allow to live. It’s a power that traditionally has only been held by doctors, priests, police and soldiers.

“The power over life and death is greater and more intoxicating than any other power; it’s one of the reasons why some men are specifically drawn to these professions and historically have tried to regulate them to be male-only.

“If you are not male and have never carried a gun in public, it’s only an imaginary experiment, but science shows that simply handling a gun alters men’s levels of testosterone and measurably increases their aggressive behavior.”

Basically, this article claims that male gun owners have more testosterone, and this raises every time a man touches a gun. It also states that holding a gun makes a man more aggressive; i.e. more likely to commit a violent crime, such as assault and murder.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2019/06/salon-guns-increase-testosterone/?fbclid=IwAR1LvIC-4yHfKYor2upLCIN9NNDpelvWktFdkrkvDNqwcV-qNH-SHpHMfkk

[jmyrlefuller]

With a gun in his hand, a man can look around a room, a building, or a public area and specifically identify who will instantaneously die and whom he will allow to live. It’s a power that traditionally has only been held by doctors, priests, police and soldiers.

Wait... what?

[jmyrlefuller]

Another head-scratcher from the article:

Additionally, the author somehow equates implementing car registration and reduced vehicles deaths to gun registration.

“In 1920 you could buy and drive a car without a driver’s license in most states. We figured out the downsides of such a libertarian policy, and regulated cars; the result was a rapid reduction in deaths and morbidity.”

Except that wasn't true.

Deaths and morbidity actually went UP over the course of the first half of the 20th century. Why? Because cars got faster, and there were more of them. A handful of those old Tin Lizzies puttering down roads that today would never be considered drivable posed a much lower hazard than the countless hot rods driving down the built-for-speed expressways. There's an old film out there called Last Clear Chance that talks about this phenomenon very clearly. Any decline in per-capita death/morbidity was more due to improvement in the road system than any insurance mandates.