Pelosi Warns Republicans: A Democrat President Could Declare a "National Emergency" on Guns

@Anon066 It’s become a pretty standard term to describe stuff like this, and nobody is being literal.

I don't even mean literally.

@Anon066 In context of crime, it’s just a synonym for something that happens a lot - and what a lot means is subjective. Not the first or the last phenomenon we’ll describe in those terms.

It doesn't just mean happens a lot though, it implies it has increased or is increasing a lot, and statistically that's not true at all.

@Anon066

What's wrong with the use of "epidemic"in this instance? Wouldn't you consider gun violence to be one? Not literally of course.

@Anon066 Homocides overall, no - mass shootings, yes. But I don’t think anything has to be increasing, just subjectively prevalent. We have a car break-in “epidemic” here and few would balk at describing it as such - but they’re down 30% from feb of last year so...

It's not significantly increased or been increasing. Gun violence has consistently went down over the decades, and is mostly isolated in high crime areas.

We certainly need to continue addressing it, but cherrypicking incredibly rare instances like school shootings to label it an epidemic is not productive at all. It's like when the right points out it's a really cold day so global warming is bullshit.

@QuixoticSoul that's simply not true, mass shootings aren't spiking. It's purely the fact every single instance is plastered everywhere so we're aware of all of them.

That's not to say we shouldn't attempt to combat them of course. But I think the first thing that needs to be done is stop giving them so much media attention. By making these shooters famous we're just incentivizing more of them.

And the problem with calling it an epidemic is it gives a false sense of danger. That's harmful. The odds of getting shot in a school are astronomically low, but because of the narrative we've had kids all over the country scared to go to school. That's insane. Unintended consequences are very important to consider, we have to fight these issues without creating more issues.

@Anon066
It’s getting worse, basically the only violent crime that’s going up and not down.

But something getting worse is not even a requirement for a phenomenon to be called an epidemic.

I won’t disagree that perceived dangers are overblown.

@Anon066

Does it have to be increasing to be an epidemic in this context?
Isn't the use of the word here meant to signify that it is a widespread, serious problem?

P.S. i'd appreciate it if you would link me in your responses, otherwise i have no idea that you've responded. Thanks👍

That's deaths, not instances though, and when the ample size is so small doesn't mean much.

And I'm not a big fan of mother jone's inclusion criteria, although it is better than most that just define them as any shooting with 4+ victims or whatever. I like Duwe's criteria better if you wanna look him up.

In any case mass shootings are a drop in the bucket of gun fatalities, and while obviously fighing them i's good putting such focus on them isn't. We need to try work on preventing all gun crime, not just the instances that're easiest to politicize.

And like I said changing how the media treats them should be the first step in my opinion.

This study obviously can't determine causation but the results aren't surprising at all.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204722

@Pikachu let me know if that last comment didn't answer your question

@Anon066 The number of instances is also growing, but more moderately. I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that the situation is getting worse.

It’s s sensationalized crime, no doubt - but I think this is an odd hill to choose to die on 🤷‍♂️

@Anon066


I guess i still don't know why you're objecting the use of epidemic.

The fact is that mass shootings in america are a way bigger problem than they are in other developed nations. Why shouldn't it be called an epidemic?

I think that study is very interesting. The idea that the exposure of these kinds of incidents leads to more similar incidents.
But i don't see why that makes it wrong to call it an epidemic. Isn't it one?

And to be fair, hasn't she said that the mass shootings are a manifestation of the gun violence epidemic and not the only thing that should be considered an epidemic?

But the attention it's getting is likely a large part of why it's getting worse, and like I said the way is portrayed as common, including calling it an epidemic, is having unintende consequences that make it a much bigger issue than it is.

There were kids all over the country staying home from school after parkland they were so scared. Mass shootings are a terribly tragic thing but they affect a very small amount of people directly. Sensationalizing them in this way has affected millions more in a profoundly negative way.

This isn't only an issue on this topic either, the media does it with everything. While the western world is objectively safer than any time in human history (excluding iirc the early 50s) we have a generation of people thinking it's far more dangerous than it is. This is likely a big chunk of the mental health decline in young people, and I would call that an epidemic. When you sensationalize and focus on every awful thing that happens like the media and social media it's gonna have very negative consequences.

@Anon066


While i don't disagree with that, i don't see how it is incorrect to call it an epidemic.
Even if the attention and even the label itself could be part of the cause, how does that make it any less of a valid characterization?

@Pikachu you keep responding as I'm responding so I don't see your response until I send mine lol. I think I answered it now.

I think it's just the fact it makes people think it's much more common than it is. I'd be more in favor of "relative epidemic" but really I'd just rather not use that word because of his people are gonna interpret it.

I'm not a fan of any comparison to other western countries because there are way too many variables to consider, and I'm not sure about her other statements. I'm very into societal/cultural issues bit not really strictly politics so I don't pay attention to most shit politicians say.

@Pikachu even accurate depictions can be harmful due to how people interpret them. So even if I agreed it was an epidemic I wouldn't want the media using that term with how the public would hear it.

I have no issue with it being used in the scientific literature for example. My concern is due to public perception.

@Anon066

Well not approving of the term being used is different than saying it was used inappropriately.
Fair?

@Pikachu yes, but I'm still not sure I agree with it being accurate lol. I haven't deeply researched stats in about a year.

@Anon066

Well ask yourself if gun violence is a widespread (apparently on the rise, according to QuixoticSoul's graph) and serious problem in america.
If the answer is no then i'd be interested to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
If the answer is yes then you should consider that perhaps "epidemic" is an appropriate consideration.

Gun violence overall yes. But epidemic certainly doesn't apply to that, because it's been decreasing for a long time. It's still a large issue though and one that I think doesn't get really any productive attention. I'm fully in favor of discussing it as a serious problem.

Mass shootings may be an epidemic, and if so I'm in favor of the term used academically but not with the general public for reasons stated above.

I think that summarizes it well lol.
@Pikachu

@Anon066

Well fair enough