The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent positively or negatively that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that theyre about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport. This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch. However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.
I disagree. I believe in gun control not because I can imagine myself in Sandy Hook, Comlumbine, Virginia Tech, or any other mass shooting scene... I believe in gun control because I believe guns cost more lives than they save, and those few they do save could have been saved through other means (anyone for taser proliferation?). The fallacy of misleading vividness is more aptly demonstrated by those who insist they need to maintain an arsenal in order to protect themselves from imaginary dangers.
Imaginary dangers? You don't watch the news much do you? I have been a victim of violent crime so don't even tell me it's imaginary.
I watch the news plenty, and given the population of the country, "violent crime" that requires LETHAL FORCE to be deterred is so rare per capita as to be negligible. When it does occur, it's often at the hands of an armed offender. The constant fear of armed intrusion by gangs of armed thugs, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED officials suddenly waging war on constituents, invasion by a mystery foreign invader who can only be defeated by uncle Jebediah's collection of shotguns, zombie apocolypse... Whatever it is that motivates you to maintain a device that makes you four times more likely to die of a gunshot wound... It's just stupid.
Tasers? I have seen first hand, a person on cocaine get hit by 2 security gaurds with tasers and it had no affect on him, he just pulled them off like they were mosquitos. He then hospitalized one of the security gaurds until FINALLY the police arrived. And about you saying as far as chance of being a victim, if you read OP he was in fact a victim, as was I. I was attacked by three people with a knife and a metal pipe in an attempt to rob me (even though I had nothing of value). One of these individuals was being initiated into a gang come to find out. So don't talk about chances are it will never happen, to people who it actually did happen to.
If violent crime is so rare, then why are we talking about gun control? I believe this subject is being debated is because you want to put an end to violent gun crime in America. You can't have it both ways, either gun crime is a problem, and one should have the right to lawfully defend themselves, or it's not a problem, so why talk about gun control.
All bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and no facts. I know three people in which a gun would have prevented a violent crime from happening to them. The threat is not imaginary and is very real.
Here is a fact... Canadians have access to all the same weapons as Americans... but Canada has not had a mass murder shooting since the 80's if my information is correct. How many mass killings have happened in America since the 80's? So in essence I agree with the premise of your argument about knee-jerk emotional response. But none the less I find it interesting that we Americans are far more violent on average then our Northern friends.
A person on enough drugs will ignore almost any wound that isn't a direct kill shot. Are you saying that those security guards (or a nearby good samaritan) should have imposed an immediate death penalty? How does that fit into the BoR? I am not sure how old you are, but I take it that you survived your encounter with violent crime. I also take it that you didn't have a gun on you. So, if you'd had a gun at the time, guns as a whole would have protected you from ONE whole incident that you could have survived without the gun anyway. In return, you would have increased the chances of someone in your family being killed.... Interesting. - - - Updated - - - Yup, and a taser would probably have prevented them as well....
People are killed by firearms without a criminal incident, gun crime is the visible tip of the iceburg.
I couldn't agree with you more. It proves the point that the focus should not be on guns but rather our cultural problems.
Yes. . .so what? It is obvious that the "fallacy of misleading vividness" is as present in YOUR way of thinking about danger than it is in everyone's way of thinking of REAL massacres like Newtown, etc. .. What makes YOU so special? You got hit once, and now you think that it can happen to you anytime you leave your house. . .and that you need to "defend" yourself from the "vividness" of your recollection of the assault against you. Well, in the case of a mass shooting, EVERYONE with a heart experience that "fallacy," and reasonable people want to do everything in their power to prevent a repetition of such massacre (especially when it happens to children!). What makes you think that YOUR way to "protect" yourself from another "potential" attack is any better than others' way to prevent more gun fire death by LOWERING the likelihood that people with guns will either attack innocent people, or will react to a "vivid fallacy" by shooting other innocent people?
