
You are much more likely to be killed by mundane things than terrorism (2013) - Fice
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html
======
bordercases
The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not
worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage
as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do
nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken
because everything will be OK.

That seems to be a poor stance to take against one's adversaries. It puts them
in a better position over you that improves the likelihood of another attack
occurring. The current rate is associated with our current amount of
"security". Surely lowering the vigilance and thus lowering the security would
just make matters worse!

~~~
losvedir
> _is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing_

When "doing something" is worse than "doing nothing", then yes we should do
nothing. Off the top of my head, the things we've done because of 9/11:

* Create DHS

* Begin TSA security theater

* Start illegal NSA metadata collection program

* Afghanistan + Iraq ("not related", but had support from misinformed public) wars.

A good thing I can think of: more secure cockpit doors. On balance, yeah, I
wish we had done nothing after 9/11\. On the other hand it's not _impossible_
for good actions as a result, but we have a pretty bad track record of it.

The importance of putting the _actual_ consequences in perspective is to let
you at least consider that maybe we don't have to do anything sometimes. It's
like the 80/20 rule or anything with diminishing marginal returns: to actually
achieve flat out 100% safety and security is going to be an extremely
expensive endeavor both in monetary terms and in how our society and ideals
have to change.

~~~
jamesrcole
_> When "doing something" is worse than "doing nothing", then yes we should do
nothing. Off the top of my head, the things we've done because of 9/11:_

Your comment presents a false dichotomy between the particular responses they
took and doing nothing.

It ignores the possibilities of other courses of action, by implying that if
the particular responses they took were poor then the best option therefore
must be to do nothing.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's not a false dichotomy when every single thing people propose to do is
like that - wastes money and/or kills innocent people.

BTW. GP forgot to add - terrorizing Pakistan. US drone strikes themselves
killed about as many civilians as 9/11 attacks.

~~~
jamesrcole
The person I was replying to was talking about things that were actually done
not every possible option, so it was a false dichotomy.

I dispute your claim that every possible option other than doing nothing would
be worse than doing nothing. What's your justification for that claim?

------
nirmel
Despite these facts, the availability heuristic
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic))
ensures that our perception of probabilities is proportional to how dramatic
(and thus memorable) an event is and not to how likely it is.

~~~
raus22
Fearmongering is the best/easiest tool to create the feeling of us against
them so you don't have to think about the problems that are way worse
(probabilistically speaking). And it is good TV( AKA availability heuristics
enabler )

~~~
Guthur
...and it's well understood and used throughout history.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country." Hermann Goering

------
random_moonwalk
Surely this is a sketchy way of inferring future likelihood of being killed in
a terrorist attack? The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon
could be gigantic, while the number killed by a single car accident, say, is
limited to a relatively small number.

~~~
Zigurd
> _The number of lives claimed by a single biological weapon could be
> gigantic_

Terrorists have never used WMDs, except for two incidents caused by one group,
the Aum cult in Japan. And all that showed was that WMDs are hard to make and
hard to use. They would have killed more people with a cheap improvised bomb.

~~~
jpgvm
It is at this time we should be thankful that intelligence is inversely
proportional to ones desire to blow ones self up.

------
jsutton
If you live in a city like New York City, your chances of being killed by
terrorism is surely more than someone living in Provo, Utah. I wonder how the
statistics would look when taking location into account.

~~~
nitrogen
_Way_ more people have died in New York City from non-terrorism causes than
from terrorism.

NYS Leading causes of death in 2012:
[http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/le...](http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/docs/leading_causes_of_death_nys_2012.pdf#page4)

NYC causes of death in 2001:
[http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/ta...](http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2001/table33c.htm)
\-- "Malignant Neoplasms"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplasm#Malignant_neoplasms))
alone killed 4x more people than terrorists that year.

------
codingdave
Yes, we are much more likely to be killed by something else. But the presence
of terrorism is not replacing those other ways to die, but being added on top
of them. And it also adds, as the name implies... terror. And trauma for
survivors, anger for the victims families, decreases trust amongst different
peoples, and strengthens conflicts in our world.

So these statistics are true... yet I'm still pretty sure terrorism is a
problem worth our time and efforts to fight, even if it will not personally
kill me.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Of course terrorism is worth our time and efforts to fight it! Even better,
it's incredibly cheap and easy to fight - you just have to stop doing
terrorists work for them by going insane about attacks! Ignore them (while
treating attackers themselves as you would treat any other organized crime
group - with solid police work leading to capture, trial and sentencing), and
they'll go away.

~~~
gluelogic
I do understand your point with these posts, but I'm not sure that the best
response to a terrorist attack is to do absolutely nothing.

~~~
pjc50
The best respone to a terrorist attack is to treat it as normal crime: take
basic precautions beforehand, leave the police to investigate and arrest
afterwards, and everyone else get on with their lives.

The UK's response to terrorism in Northern Ireland was very much more
_localised_ and stiff-upper-lip than it seems to be in response to Islamist
terrorism. Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white
supremacist terrorists. Even spree killings have become normalised with
"there's nothing we can do", due to reluctance to question the 2nd amendment.
Not to mention that if the US wants to get involved with fighting murderous
extremists that threaten stability, the Mexican cartels are much closer and
just as dangerous.

Getting involved in the Syrian civil war is instead just going to turn into a
proxy war against the Russians, like 70s Afghanstan.

~~~
chongli
_Similarly in the US nobody gets in a panic about the numerous white
supremacist terrorists_

That has more to do with cognitive dissonance and tacit approval than
calculated strategy. White supremacy is the dominant culture in the US.
Violent acts are continually explained away as "isolated incidents" by the
"mentally ill", a convenient escape from the hard job of inward reflection and
decolonization.

------
ps4fanboy
Do not get me wrong, I also think its silly to be afraid of dying from
terrorism, but those "mundane" ways of dying are the result of things that
provide utility and benefit to their lives or are the result of old age. What
is the comparison with someone who dies from Terrorists? They arent exactly
blowing up nursing homes.

Prevalence of coronary heart disease by age and sex.
[https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-
public/@wcm/@sop/@smd...](https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-
public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf)

------
njharman
Duh.

Very few people die from terrorists, or mass-murderers, or even guns in
general (even in war more people die of disease and starvation than guns. And
artillery kills more soldiers (at least in 20th cent)).

Lung disease, heart disease, obesity are the killers of humanity.

------
vixen99
On present records, the statement is a truism but totally irrelevant when it
comes to determining measures we should take to protect ourselves from a group
like ISIS given their apocalyptic ambitions and relative wealth. We might also
factor in the very shocking, and to most of us unintelligible, fact of its
attraction for thousands of young people across the world.

