Mr Khan said:
famousringo said:
Oh, I just found this little gem:
Said Ronald Bailey in a piece published in September of 2011, "a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
Just imagine the launch of multiple wars, ongoing drone strikes and special ops, intrusive and abusive TSA screenings, and a communications surveillance program that's the envy of every dictator outside of China, all done to protect Americans from lightning strikes.
Get on board people. You should have nothing to hide if you're not a golfer. You're either with us, or you're with the weather.
|
Devil's advocate here, but couldn't the overzealous spying programs be what makes those odds so good?
|
The whole premise is wrong, success of terrorism isn't measured by chances to be killed. AFAIK similar argument was made after Sandy Hook, smth like faulty car seats kill more kids on daily basis. Plain demagogy.
But truth be told, terrorist threat is low in the States. Always has been low and likely to stay that way, while in the rest of the world it's ramping up since the beginning of "war on terrorism", which makes it as successful as "war on drugs" I guess.
