Sniper danger put in context

Washington Times ^ | 10/23/02 | Ellen Sorokin

[kattracks]

The Washington-area sniper has slain at least nine persons in 21 days, averaging one kill about every two days.

Those figures have shaken the metropolitan region's 4.65 million residents, but statistics indicate more likely dangers lurk on neighborhood streets and sidewalks.

[Lucas1]

Well there is a lot of truth in that article. Hard to convince people living in that area of that though.

[Cobra64]

Mr. Fischoff said. Those who argue that the risk of being hit by sniper is lower than that of being struck by lightning are wrong, he said.

Okay... how about an autombobile accident, cancer, drowning? Come on. Are Americans cowards; needing to shivver in our shoes? sheesh. I worked in a steel mill for 15 years and had more anguish than so many lackeys swimming in emotional turmoil; hiding in behind their blinds.

[tdscpa]

Yes. Anyone could die at any time from an accident or from natural causes. Therefore, why should we care about a sniper. He has killed fewer people than died in accidents since he started shooting people. No big deal. Just ignore him.

[LibWhacker]

The problem with arguments like this one is they could use exactly the same reasoning if hundreds of snipers were loose across the country . . . Relax. Don't worry. Your chances of slipping on a banana peel, or getting electrocuted by the toaster, or getting hit by a bus are greater those of getting popped by a sniper. There now, don't you feel better?

[Freedom4US]

Well, that might be true, "statistically" speaking. It pains me when so-called experts explain why everything is really hunky-dory, when it ain't. None of those people have worked a day in their life anywya, don't live there, and most probably have never been on the wrong end of a gun and/or in any case aren't going for walks in Maryland/Virginia right now. We cannot afford to live in a war-zone. This is an extremely serious problem at the moment, both for the immediate danger (slaughter, lets not mince words) and the prospects for larger, more widespread incidents.

[MTCJK]

Yes. Anyone could die at any time from an accident or from natural causes. Therefore, why should we care about a sniper. He has killed fewer people than died in accidents since he started shooting people. No big deal. Just ignore him.

That actually could be the one thing that would work, crazy as it may seem

[Cold Heat]

That was not the point of the article.

The point was the emphasis being placed on the killings.

Try this mental exercise................Pretend the killings were done with a knife.

Now what would you say about closing the schools and damn near shutting down the area because of fear!

[AlaskaErik]

I wonder how many people he has saved. With so few people out these days I would imagine there are fewer people dying in car accidents, workplace accidents, from other murders and otherwise not dying because they are out of harm's way. In 1990 and 1991 the military lost fewer people from all causes because so many were in Kuwait. That's even counting wartime casualties. So the end result might be even fewer people dying in the DC area, even when counting his victims, then would otherwise be dying.

[Congressman Billybob]

Unfortunately, American perception of risks are driven by the media. Polls have shown that people think there are about twice as many police on the streets as there actually are -- due to cop shows on TV. People think that police draw and use their guns about ten times as often as they actually do, again because of TV.

People think that traveling in planes is far more dangerous than it really is, again because of TV. Airline crashes (not counting 9/11, which was deliberate) are thoroughly covered. The larger numbers of "routine" deaths in automobile accidents are not covered nationally.

The reason is the lack of resources in TV news. They have only a few crews, which are only assigned to the bloodiest, most horrifying and least common of events. Seeing only a selected fraction of reality on TV gives the viewers a false understanding of the truth.

The point of this article is not "death doesn't matter." It is that death comes in many forms, most commonly in ways that the national press does not bother to cover. Preventable heart attacks, strokes, and (sometimes preventable) cancer are the biggest killers of Americans. When was the last time you saw a major news story on any of those? But that's not a "man bites dog" kind of story.

Even when you see live coverage of a real event on TV, the press may still be lying to you. They lie to you by not including the context. They lie to you by leaving the reality of America on the cutting room floor as they live by the maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads."

Congressman Billybob

This column is based on the fine work by FReepers in a thread on FR. Click for "Ballistics and Bullsh*t"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[jimtorr]

At last, a freeper who understands! I was just struggling, trying to articulate what you have already said so clearly.

The actual chances of being shot by the sniper are so vanishingly small, and yet lots of people up towards Baltimore are letting fear rule their lives right now. The constant "all sniper, all the time" "news" coverage is what is driving fear, I think.

[bvw]

Because at least 12 persons in the metropolitan area have been shot by the sniper and nine have died, there is about a 1-in-357,692 chance of being shot by the sniper and a 1-in-465,000 chance of being killed by the gunman, based on the number of shootings and the total population.

That gives a total affected population 4.3 million. I believe that may be an big underestimate of the total population of the area the sniper has operated or might operate in given his excusions to the Richmond area. A bit over seven million people live in Virginia, a bit over five million in Maryland, a bit over a half million in DC. Roughly thirteen million -- perhaps eight to ten million in the snipers known excusion range.