>at least it's move toward trying to intelligently identify risks. If we were looking to intelligently identify risks we would be spending more money on car cr

>at least it's move toward trying to intelligently identify risks. If we were looking to intelligently identify risks we would be spending more money on car crashes, "ordinary" murders, tornadoes, earthquakes and other things that kill so many people that we've grown inured to it. But people are more interested in a magic bullet to stop us from losing 3,000 people in another fell swoop. Which is really a pretty small number given how many untimely deaths we have every year. (Looking at it from a yearly basis, we lose maybe 300 people a year to domestic terrorism. Not a good thing, to be sure, but we have bigger issues.)