Don't Be Terrorized - You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder

Reason ^ | August 11, 2006 | Ronald Bailey

[neverdem]

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe Meanwhile, he's trying to scare the rest of us. It's too bad this is in USATODAY.

[MikeA]

USA Today must be supporting Hillary if they're willing to slam Gore.

The only thing that's terrorizing me are the lines at the airport. I canceled a flight next week because I have no patience for the lines. I'll stay close to home or take a little road trip and fly when the summer crowds are gone.

[Pondman88]

Ya but...who says humans are rational????

Quite the opposite.

[frogjerk]

So do these numbers comfort you? If not, that's a problem. Already, security measures--pervasive ID checkpoints, metal detectors, and phalanxes of security guards--increasingly clot the pathways of our public lives. It's easy to overreact when an atrocity takes place

Accroding to this moron we all overreacted to 9/11.

[frogjerk]

However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter--because it doesn't really matter.

No, not at all...what a dummy.

[frogjerk]

For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more.

Here is the problem with this stupid article. What are the chances that someone you love and care about is in one of these malls? Or that innocent fellow Americans are being slaughtered? Don't worry, it's not you who is being killed...

This is stupid reasoning that people are only worrying about themselves, which is absolutely selfish liberalism. Does this guy care if his family is blown up on a plane or is he just worried about #1?

[kaehurowing]

"Don't Be Terrorized - You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder"

Not if the Democrats get control of the country!

[tallhappy]

Once again Reason proves idiots of the first sort write for it.

[BigBobber]

This is idiotic "bizarro world" logic. If you work really hard to try to prevent something from happening, and it doesn't happen, then you wasted your effort on prevention because there was no risk in the first place.

[L.N. Smithee]

However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter—because it doesn't really matter. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

Mmmmmph...Grumble...(stifling profane rant)

Yeah, pal. Clicking your heels and saying, "There's no place like home" works, too. How did a worthless, meaningless, brain-dead throwaway end line like this escape the editor of a publication called Reason?

[w1andsodidwe]

According to this moron we all overreacted to 9/11.

That seems to be the democratic liberal line. Don't face realtity. Just stick your head in the sand, elect Hillary and other dems, and everhything will go away.

While I am not scared, I believe that these people mean to destroy us if we don't stop them.

[Kokojmudd]

This clown missed the mark completely. Should have written about what really terrorizes Americans ---Pit bull type dogs!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The notion that people don't judge risk well is well founded. However, the rest of this article is crap.

We have a basis for calculating the odds of getting killed in a car accident, crossing the street, etc. Every insurance company does the actuarial calculations involved to set their rates.

We have no way of predicting how many deaths could result from terrorism. The article doesn't mention biological weapons, dirty nuclear bombs, or even nuclear bombs -- all of which could be acquired by terrorists if (or even if) we remain vigilant, and press the war on terror.

The risks from terrorism could be several times greater than the risks of death from all of the other reasons cited -- we simply have no way of knowing. Where's the "precautionary principle" when we need it?

[frogjerk]

This is idiotic "bizarro world" logic. If you work really hard to try to prevent something from happening, and it doesn't happen, then you wasted your effort on prevention because there was no risk in the first place.

But this is "Reason"...they are smart...-sarc

[weegee]

After September 11th, the odds dramatically increased as the number of people dying in a single incident magnified.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"all of which could be acquired by terrorists if (or even if) we remain vigilant ..."

Should have said: "all of which could be actuired by terrorists of we don't remain vigilant (or maybe even if we do) ..."

[clintonh8r]

What a farking idiot this guy is. If I die in a traffice accident it isn't going to destroy our economy, moron!

[eastforker]

Well, okay, but, does that mean I have to ship back the 500 rounds of 7.62 I just received from UPS today???

[neverdem]

How did a worthless, meaningless, brain-dead throwaway end line like this escape the editor of a publication called Reason?

I don't know, but I thought it was a useful lead to the article about Gore's hypocrisy in the link in comment# 1.

[L.N. Smithee]

Accroding to this moron we all overreacted to 9/11.

This is reminiscent of the scene in The World According To Garp when a small plane crashes in to a house Garp and his wife are considering purchasing. Garp immediately says he will buy the house because the chances of another plane crashing into a rebuilt home were astronomical.

The big diff is that 3000 other people died in an unimaginably horrific way, whether they were incinerated or pulverized. This guy suggesting we shouldn't worry about something like that happening again because it is unlikely it will happen to any of us individually borders on evil.