Does the way we write affect which hand most people write with?

I was wondering whether there are more left handed people in places where they write 'backwards' (from an English person's viewpoint) eg. places where Arabic or Hebrew was the main language.

In languages such as English, French, Italian etc. that go from left to right on the page, and have the spine of the book on the left hand side most people seem to be right handed and lefties often have more difficulties eg. writing in small note books etc.

So I was wondering whether left handers were more common in places where they write in the opposite direction, as it would be easier for them to do it that way.

A bit of a naïve hypothesis, to be honest: any written form, whether left-to-right or right-to-left; whether horizontal or vertical, will evolve logically in accordance with its proponents. If that vanguard are right-handed, then the 'definitive' form of a script will lend itself intrinsically to such predisposition: the symbols and sigils and whatnot, having been originated and pioneered predominantly by right-handed individuals, will seem inherently counter-intuitive to a left-handed scribe. In short; if a language is to be written right-to-left, then its expression will be adapted in favour of a right-handed person performing the given act: in the case of the Roman alphabet, 'R' becomes 'Я'; 'd' becomes 'b', and so forth. I rather doubt that traditional Chinese script, being the legacy of right-handed forebears, should prove any less difficult than English for one who is left-handed to accustom themselves to.

in the case of the Roman alphabet, 'R' becomes 'Я'; 'd' becomes 'b', and so forth.

It seems to me that by saying that 'If that vanguard are right-handed, then the 'definitive' form of a script will lend itself intrinsically to such predisposition', then in reverse if they are left-handed the script would lend itself to such a predisposition. Therefore it would seem sensible that there would be more left-handers in Arabic countries since the script, as we see it, would lend itself to let handedness.

I'm not saying that lefthanders have a real problem writing the roman alphabet. It's only a thought not a fully worked out hypothesis, I was just wondering whether what the proportion of lefthanders to right was in such countries.

So you're saying that, in cultures where they write in Hebrew or Arabic, natural selection would favour those who are left handed? Interesting, I'll give you that, but it doesn't seem that likely.

Of course; predicated on the assumption that right-to-left script must be, by virtue of that characteristic alone, inherently more intuitive to those who are left-handed. Which, presumably, it isn't: given that the relevant characters are inevitably adapted to suit being written from right to left right-handedly; and hence that, as you have probably noticed, 'right-to-left' alphabets tend toward much greater abstraction and ornamentation than their Roman (or 'Latin') counterparts.

Unless handedness was liked to reproductive success (which as far as we know, it isn't), then natural selection couldn't possibily have anything to do with it.

I think the idea was that handedness is environmentally determined and so direction of writing might have a strong effect. It is known however to have a genetic component.

Left-handedness actually correlates with the amount of violence in a society, supporting the hypothesis that left-handers have an advantage in combat against the right-handed majority. However there is presumably some kind of advantage afforded by the right-handed which keeps them in the majority. What exactly is disputed.

Automatic rifles haven't really been around long enough to make a difference in evolutionary time-scales. Not to mention handedness is observed in cultures which don't have them, right back to before the Bronze Age. And of course automatic rifles are built right-handed because most people are right-handed, not the other way around.