2 ms·
>It isn't. Depending on whose numbers you use, the statistic is either actually true or sufficiently close that disputing the difference is pedantry. Sensation
by Nadya 11y ago
>It isn't. Depending on whose numbers you use, the statistic is either actually true or sufficiently close that disputing the difference is pedantry.
Sensationalism in this case is saying that 0.00003% > 0.0000009% and expecting people to care. Both scenarios are so absurdly rare as to be disregarded, even if many people are more afraid of terrorists than the police and statistics say it should be the other way around.
The following is also true [0]:
"More likely to trip down stairs and die than be killed by a shark!"
Well.. I'm not about to avoid taking the stairs. Nor am I going to stop being afraid of shark attacks. I know they are both rare and often rarely fatal, at least here in the US [1], but that doesn't mean I'll be less scared of them.
[0] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack
E:
Some words.
- pelario 11y agoAgain, it does matter: when to reduce the 0.000000009 the government is increasing the already many times larger 0.000003, it does matter.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> Both scenarios are so absurdly rare as to be disregarded That's the point. The comparison is interesting because it puts the GWoT in the correct context. It's something to point to when some absurd overreaction to terrorism is proposed -- the police are literally more likely to kill you than the terrorists. Spending less money militarizing the police will make us more safe. Even if the difference in safety is negligible, it takes the safety argument off the table. And the safety argument is the only thing justifying the civil liberties violations and the billions of tax dollars they're wasting.