Yeah, yeah, I know. I need to stand in the corner, 'cause I knew the difference between a confederate, particularly with a little 'c', and Johnny Reb. But I still suspect the .303 he was talking about was a .303 British. He even referred to the "calibre."TexasTornado wrote:treadlightly wrote:Ok, here's the proof of bad science. Note this:
The writer is an idiot. The confederacy didn't have any rifles chambered in .303 British, which is what I assume he's talking about.In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle.
An accurately portrayed confederate would likely have an Enfield pattern rifle. I think those were the most common.
In any case, by dragging the Confederacy (kindly doff your hats) into this I proclaim my trigger has been pulled. I need my safe space now.
A confederate in an experiment is someone, disguised as a participant or non involved party, who is working for/with the experimenter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Confederacy or the Bloody Red Coats.
On a serious note, everything we do affects the situations in which we act. I understand that, but it should be easier to normalize the presence of guns in peaceful settings than to pacify those who wish us harm, and that also saves us the burden of bending to the effective will of hooligans, to wit, to disarm because someone else might cause us harm.
I also fully understand we probably agree on most topics pertinent to this forum. No disrespect to you was intended.
Thanks for posting a link to the article.