People React to Changes rather than Absolute Levels
Dear Editor,
People are poor judges of absolute levels but keen observers of change - a somewhat weakened element of our more animalist past, where observing change in the immediate environment was critical to survival. Hence, it matters little to people that, while there may be a local increase in violence in recent years, that the overall regional or national rates are down over a period of decades. It's difficult to appreciate, whilst being mugged, that your situation may be part of an aberrant peak on a declining trendline.
The authors jump too quickly in assuming that fears, founded or unfounded, "...may increase people’s concerns about safety and encourage them to adopt protective behaviours, such as carrying weapons, with the unintended effect of increasing rates of violent injury." Protective behaviors include a wide range or responses, such as altering time & place of travels, increasing situational awareness, increasing home and business security, etc. In the hierarchy of protective behaviors, from avoidance to self-defense (fighting), resort to the latter marks a failure in the former precautions against systematic crime but may be a valid response to random crime. When burglaries are up, locks, cameras and dogs can help address such systematic crime. But when gang violence spills beyond intra-gang participants to include the public, prudent and sensible precautions may include attitudinal and physical preparation for self-defense. This manner of thinking has been assessed by some as a "uniquely American" way of thought and behavior, but the dismissal of self-defense as a valid response to violence may be the more rare reaction by a subset of a limited number of societies today.
Crime data, both violent and property, have been trending down in the USA for decades, while the gun stock has risen steadily to 423 million firearms in civilian hands in 2019. Gun control advocates argue that, with a declining crime and violence rates, it's the NRA in collusion with gun manufacturers that are pumping up false-fears to increase gun sales. At the same time, a increase in crime and violence has been attributed to the rise in number of guns. So crime and violence are dropping - you don't need a gun. But more guns has led to an increase in crime and violence - you shouldn't have a gun.
So yes, it's hard to find accurate numbers on crime and violence when levels are both increasing a and decreasing to suit those who hope to restrict access to, and use of, weapons for self-defense.
Rapid Response:
People React to Changes rather than Absolute Levels
Dear Editor,
People are poor judges of absolute levels but keen observers of change - a somewhat weakened element of our more animalist past, where observing change in the immediate environment was critical to survival. Hence, it matters little to people that, while there may be a local increase in violence in recent years, that the overall regional or national rates are down over a period of decades. It's difficult to appreciate, whilst being mugged, that your situation may be part of an aberrant peak on a declining trendline.
The authors jump too quickly in assuming that fears, founded or unfounded, "...may increase people’s concerns about safety and encourage them to adopt protective behaviours, such as carrying weapons, with the unintended effect of increasing rates of violent injury." Protective behaviors include a wide range or responses, such as altering time & place of travels, increasing situational awareness, increasing home and business security, etc. In the hierarchy of protective behaviors, from avoidance to self-defense (fighting), resort to the latter marks a failure in the former precautions against systematic crime but may be a valid response to random crime. When burglaries are up, locks, cameras and dogs can help address such systematic crime. But when gang violence spills beyond intra-gang participants to include the public, prudent and sensible precautions may include attitudinal and physical preparation for self-defense. This manner of thinking has been assessed by some as a "uniquely American" way of thought and behavior, but the dismissal of self-defense as a valid response to violence may be the more rare reaction by a subset of a limited number of societies today.
Crime data, both violent and property, have been trending down in the USA for decades, while the gun stock has risen steadily to 423 million firearms in civilian hands in 2019. Gun control advocates argue that, with a declining crime and violence rates, it's the NRA in collusion with gun manufacturers that are pumping up false-fears to increase gun sales. At the same time, a increase in crime and violence has been attributed to the rise in number of guns. So crime and violence are dropping - you don't need a gun. But more guns has led to an increase in crime and violence - you shouldn't have a gun.
So yes, it's hard to find accurate numbers on crime and violence when levels are both increasing a and decreasing to suit those who hope to restrict access to, and use of, weapons for self-defense.
Competing interests: No competing interests