@Oconnor


The chances of you dying in an automobile accident is relatively low on any given day. So why don't you ditch your seat belt? Even the chance of you being ticketed for not wearing one is low, right?

Home invasion robbery? What's the chance of you being a victim? So good ahead: leave your doors unlocked at night.

Next time you walk across the street with a green walk sign, don't you bother to look to see if traffic has cleared the intersection. After all, the chance that someone runs a red light and doesn't see you and also hits you and also kills you is small, too, right?


What about hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunami?

Those causes of death would be very low on the list as well.

But we prepare because a hurricane like Katrina killed about 2000 people. Because a 160 were killed in Joplin by a tornado. Because some 3000 people were killed in the San Francisco earthquake and fires.

Furthermore, by focusing solely on deaths, you present a distorted picture of the true risk of terrorism.

Almost 3000 people were killed on 9/11, But an additional 6000 were injured. The lives of next of kin were changed forever. Not to mention the future health of the people in the area and first-responders.

According to some estimates the financial toll to the American economy was probably $2 trillion. And that's not even including the cost of the eventual war to go after Al-Qaeda.

Finally, any proper analysis of risk would focus on the potential death, injuries and damage to property and the economy from an event.

Run some numbers yourself and tell us what YOU estimate the death, destruction and costs would be of a dirty bomb or small nuke going off in an American city.

@Beckyromero: "The chances of you dying in an auto accident IS relatively low on any given day:"
I do wear me seat belt, though, because it's still a leading cause of death. That means basically that my chances of dying on any given day are low but IF I die, it'll likely be from a car crash. However, I don't wear a rope to tether me should I fall off a cliff or a suit of armor in case something should fall on me. There is a gradient of reason.

"Home invasion robbery? "
The overwhelming majority of home invasion cases are actually drug- or revenge-related cases in which the parties are associated. So no, I don't worry about home invasion. Again, I lock my doors at night but I don't sit up with floodlights and a rifle. Appropriate response to a given scenario is what I'm interested in.

And one more time, yes, I watch for traffic at the intersection.
What I don't do is avoid the intersection altogether, summon authorities to stand post and take an overpass three blocks away. Appropriate response to appropriate threat.

Yes, terrorism is a chance. But it's so low on the list that I should definitely protect myself from bees before running out to buy assault rifles to fight the bad guys.

"Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunami?"
We prepare proportionately. If we were serious, New Orleans wouldn't exist; a city on the water that lies below sea level is insane. So we weigh the risk. And yes, these events take lives, but again, they're remote and small in comparison to actual daily danger. Great drama does not equal actual threat.

"Almost 3000 people were killed on 9/11, But an additional 6000 were injured. The lives of next of kin were changed forever:"
True, and it altered a nation. It should never be repeated. By worldwide figures, we are lucky and relatively violence-free from terrorism. Large number of casualties to be sure, but still a relatively isolated event. In a given year, 11,208 deaths from firearms occur, far more than the total count of modern international terrorism on US soil. How committed are you to reducing the risk of gun deaths?

"According to some estimates the financial toll to the American economy was probably $2 trillion:"
Or $100 billion, depending on the source you cite. That's money we choose to spend, and we all know spending is absolutely no index of actual importance or relevance. If that were true, aliens would think we value video gaming more than planning for our children's futures.

"Finally, any proper analysis of risk would focus on the potential death, injuries and damage to property and the economy from an event:"
They do, and even with all that, terrorism as a threat ranks exceedingly low on the list. There are 7+ billion people on the planet, 300+ million in the US alone. We're talking right now about US casualties in fractions of percentages. YES, one death of an innocent from terrorism is too many, but I'm not willing to fundamentally shift my perspective and lifestyle in response to it. I'll read travel advisories, but I won't deny myself or family an experience of the world. I'll be situationally aware but I won't startle every time someone claps his hands. I'll accept the reality and problem of the rise of terrorism but I won't fall asleep at night frightened of it.

"Run some numbers yourself and tell us what YOU estimate the death, destruction and costs would be of a dirty bomb or small nuke going off in an American city:"
I can run the numbers of a cataclysmic extinction event due to a meteor hit, but it makes it no more a threat than if the number was 1.

@Oconnor

If you like warm weather, try Aleppo. I understand temps will hover around the 100 mark into next week (not counting any occasional flare-ups due to minor things such as bombs dropping all around you).

Or maybe you'd like Teheran? Perhaps Obama can even give you a side job during your next trip there the next time the government needs to fly in $400 million for the ayatollahs.


Did I say I can't sleep? Most Americans who didn't have loved ones in harms way probably slept normally during 1942-45. Did that mean they weren't concerned about what was happening in the world?

There are ways of fighting terrorism without destroying our civil liberties. But it sometimes means making hard choices and/or financial commitments.

The second you agree to register for a major internet site or service, every detail needed is readily available to thousands at the click of a mouse. More than that, nearly any piece of information I want on someone I can discover in the Internet, often with only a name and the slightest of information.

What do I care that the US government is aggregating bulk data about my emails? And they've been doing it for about 60 years, so I don't know why anyone's surprised.

i think you are comparing apples and oranges. not wanting to be spyed on does not mean you don't want to fight terrorism. i feel that snooping should only occurr when there is some basis for belief those being spyed on are terrorists.

Dear oconnor, you can quote the stats all day long, they have not changed that much in the past 50 years but that does not change the fact that we have never been less safe. There is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world just about every day and sometimes it's here. The stats are not going to help you when some terrorist decides to mow down you and your friends in a nightclub, or decides to mow you and 15 of your coworkers while you're just trying to do your job. And they won't help you when the next attack happens either. But go ahead and keep your head in the sand (it wont' keep them from chopping it off), just remember to keep it there the next time some white nut job shoots up a school. Stats, remember.

Leading causes of death in the US:
•Heart disease: 614,348
• Cancer: 591,699
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
• Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
• Diabetes: 76,488
• Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

Terrorism? Not even close.

"Stats all day long" is another way of saying "I base my logic on fact and research."

Terrorism is not anywhere even remotely close to something anyone here should worry about consistently and all our are home-grown. No one's coming for guns, no one's erasing amendments, no one's knocking at our door.

Look, you only have to die once. Living in fear is dying over and over every day.

I would place a million dollar bet on the table that neither you or I are going to leave this world at a terrorist's hand.

@beckyromero I'm honored to have an intelligent person like you commenting in my thread. This is what I expected. Healthy debate from different points of view. Tq

@PissAndVinegar

Over here we call that "fly-over country." All our States that Obama flies over on his way to political fundraisers on the East and West coasts.

True. It also takes the bulk of America NOT agreeing to give up its own freedom. To wit, the Patriot Act.

Back when Bush was president and they were snooping only on international calls from terrorist sympathizing countries, I didn't have a problem with it per se but then the Bush administration wasn't going after their political enemies. This administration, dumb as it is, has not only expanded the surveillance but has used it to get revenge against
"enemies of the state" ( the dumbocrats political enemies) just like the bozo said he would do. Funny, how the new left just ignores that but then they do have a long standing habit of ignoring the huge log in their own eye while whining about the splinter in yours. You see in right here every day.

No at this point. Otherwise how would they fight against terrorism?

I have nothing to hide and I have NO problems with this

@Oconnor thx for the statistics and in-depth answers

I'm confused about everything.

Good point ned

They're slowly taking our rights and some people are actually happy about it. Morons.

@PissandVinegar where do you actually live uh?