Perception of a problem IS a problem

This question was prompted by another question here about America not being safe. I've heard in several situations (economics, trust in government, and so on) that if something is perceived to be a problem, it needs to be addressed, even if it is not an actual problem.

As related to America not being safe, people feel like they might be a victim of a crime at any moment, but crime rates have actually dropped. Despite that fact, many would argue that since there is a perception of lack of safety, it must be addressed, even if it is not a valid concern.

Is this simply an appeal to emotion, or is something else going on?

The difference is what problem is being addressed . For example, if we are trying to address the problem of rising crime (assuming crime statistics show a downward trend), we are addressing the wrong problem. If we are addressing the problem of perception, that is the correct problem to address. The fallacy is committed by those who confuse perception with reality. Addressing a problem, whether it be one of perception or one backed up by data, is not fallacious.

Another nuance here: just because crime may be decreasing nationally on average, it could be increasing in select communities (which it is). People have a right to be concerned about that problem, but must recognized the problem for one of localized crime increase and not on a national level.

One more nuance: even if crime is decreasing, this does not mean it is still not a problem that concerns people. However, the problem needs to be correctly framed as one of an "unacceptable level of crime," and not one of "increasing crime."