what gun violence problem?

[Tgace]

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, a 39% reduction. Why the public hasn't noticed:

http://www.policeone.com/news/6224631-Reports-show-gun-homicides-down-since-1990s/

 

[crushing]

It's my understanding that we are living in one of the least violent times in human history. If people knew this, would it still be as easy to get them to live in a state of fear and give up their rights?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence

 

[Tgace]

http://tgace.com/2009/03/26/a-brief-history-of-violence/

 

[Tgace]

I believe the perception of violence has a lot to do with Tversky’s availability heuristic. The availability heuristic is a cognitive illusion that makes us think an event is likely to occur just because we can easily recall similar events happening before. So, people might think that we are more violent today just because it’s easy to remember the mass shooting that was reported in the news last night.

Our 24 hr news cycle and political pandering leads us all to believe that there are various "problems" when the math shows that they are not really serious statistical issues IMO.

 

[billc]

The media holds a large part of the blame for why it isn't more widely known. The profession is filled with people who support gun control and so there is a natural bias to reporting guns as a threat, rather than the fact that violence is declining, and that guns save more lives than they take. If the media reported the truth vs. the anti-gun agenda they support, people wouldn't be as ignorant about the statistics.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Violence and sensitivity to it.

In Flint shootings and assaults and robberies are not covered unless there is a unique story line to it.

While 45 minutes north in Saginaw or Bay City, if there is a single gun shoot it is reported.



The people in Flint are so numb to the violence that they are not even aware that it is not being reported. Some notice but not the masses. While those in the other area(s) are up in alarm about the violence.
So this can be as I am trying to say, and Tom also stated, a perception issue. The media is covering one area and not the other. It is also perception in that people level of violence in one area is numb to it. So they see or feel less and it also affects their perception of that violence. They are used to it.


Now personally I think fear also is another point to consider. People do not know or understand firearms, so they fear the item. Knowledge is understanding. If they understood how they worked many would not be as fearful. Of course there would still be comments about control and other changes, which is a different discussion.

 

[Drasken]

It's always a matter of perception. The media is mostly to blame, I mean do they report good things? Sure but it is mixed in with all the bad. Why do they do this? If they report how much better things are today, and continue to report that instead of focusing on how bad everything is people wouldn't watch the news on the edge of their seat.
Also people are determined to see the negative. Why do you think every generation seems so sure that their generation will see the end of the world?

 

[billc]

WASHINGTON — Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their 1993 peak, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress' battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms.
[SIZE=-1] A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.
Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's growing population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.
Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.



[/SIZE]

Well, with this information...that gun deaths are down 39% since 1993 while more people own guns...does that answer the question that some here have about allowing people to own and carry guns...? Most of the violence in America is in large, liberal/democrat controlled cities with large gang populations and very strict gun control laws...does that help answer questions about allowing regular, law abiding citizens to own and carry weapons?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But just because gun control and severe restrictions have failed every time they've been imposed, doesn't mean we should stop trying to impose them. We just need to keep failing until we succeed.

 

[Big Don]

But just because gun control and severe restrictions have failed every time they've been imposed, doesn't mean we should stop trying to impose them. We just need to keep failing until we succeed.

The drugs for all cheerleaders always point at prohibition... Shouldn't gun lovers do the same?

 

[pgsmith]

But just because gun control and severe restrictions have failed every time they've been imposed, doesn't mean we should stop trying to impose them. We just need to keep failing until we succeed.

That's pretty funny Bob! Until I thought about it and realized just how much of our society seems to labor under this theory. As long as people have the perception that something is being done, it doesn't really matter whether anything is actually being accomplished or not. (TSA and public education come to mind)


Now I'm depressed!