Originally Posted by Patchman
I'm just curious, Dr Rockso, about the interpretations of the percentages. As per your post, in 1987, 16.85 % of LEOs were assaulted. In 2009, 10.30 % were assaulted. So in academia, what percentage of a population being assaulted is considered "reasonable?"
I mean, for example, if in 1987, 16.85 % of the Asian population in the U.S. were assaulted, and by 2009, only 10.30 % of Asians were assaulted, would that be considered OK? A great improvement? Why are they even complaining?
In the same time frame, 1987 to 2009, what percentage of America were victims of assaults?
Of course I'd like the number of assaults to be zero, and I'm in no way suggesting that LEOs don't get assaulted at much higher rates than the general population. What I am saying, though, is that the perception given by media articles is that the problem has escalated to an all-time high, which, as far as I can tell, just isn't supported by reality.
If you ask an average person what the current crime rate is relative to what it was 10 years ago, they'll almost invariably tell you that it's higher despite the fact that just isn't true. There's a strong bias toward sensationalism in the media that just causes people to constantly think that things are awful, and rarely are these sorts of things actually put into context.
An unfortunate side effect of media sensationalism (despite the fact that it makes people believe things that aren't so) is that, especially in regards to perceptions surrounding crime and law enforcement, it tends to give politicians a big incentive to look like they're "doing something". As gun owners, that doesn't typically end well for us.