Do you feel angry at your government for snooping into your private lives?
Or do you feel justified for fighting terrorism??
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
@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.
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.