4 ms·

Without some notion of absolute numbers, the comparison is pointless. Last I heard, both of those causes of death are almost negligible compared to things like

by azakai 13y ago

Without some notion of absolute numbers, the comparison is pointless. Last I heard, both of those causes of death are almost negligible compared to things like heart disease, cancer, and car accidents. So I have some doubt about this statement by the author > The point of the quote is to focus people on sources of mortality society-wide, because this focus can guide public policy efforts at reducing death. With that said, yes, people are irrationally afraid of death by terrorism. But comparing that to their chance of death by cop is not illustrative. Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant.

baddox 13y ago
I think using the example of police officers is apt, because police officers can be thought of as a countermeasure to terrorists (and other lawbreakers). I don't think this article really lets the argument take form, but I think it's important to note that the actions which are supposedly intended to combat terrorism are themselves more harmful than terrorism itself.
- jasallen 13y ago
  Since police are also there to combat murderers, gang members, drunk drivers, etc, your statement does not even begin to become valid unless police numbers are put against terrorists plus all those other groups. It's total nonsense.
  - baddox 13y ago
    No one is arguing that this is the only or the most important comparison that can be made. It's just one of many comparisons. That doesn't make it useless. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that cops are a much larger threat than terrorists, and I think the comparison can be used to make a much larger point about the utility of counterterrorism measures.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant. Not really. The increases in LEA capabilities and militarized tactics took a massive leap post 9/11 largely based on the idea of preventing terrorism. If those impacts are now causing more harm than the thing they are intended to prevent, then there is a clear problem and highlighting it shows that such a response is wrongheaded. The other causes of death in this case are not relevant at all to the point, however the broader approach would advocate that the more frequent causes of death should be addressed before other less probable causes of death.
danenania 13y ago
It's relevant because a vastly expanded police presence has been erected in response to terrorism, but police are statistically more dangerous to the population than terrorists. If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse, we need to deal with the root of the problem: an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy that costs more that we can afford, makes us insecure, and benefits only a tiny elite.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse Terrorism is a political tool. There is no willingness for it to stop. On the contrary. Both the aggressor and the victim will politically benefit from it. The "victim" will push for more State Power and more population control, and the aggressor will use any act of retaliation to recruit more people on their side.
kvb 13y ago
It's not just that. What's the probability that 100K people are killed by terrorists vs. police next year? With fat tails, the number of people killed in the recent past isn't an accurate summary of the true statistics.
- jeremysmyth 13y ago
  Vanishingly small. That's entirely the point.
ricardobeat 13y ago
> Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant. The source for this article, which is linked in the third paragraph, does exactly that: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-no... I find it odd that killings by cops are acceptable. We shouldn't settle for anything less than zero when offenders are unarmed.

by azakai 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

I think using the example of police officers is apt, because police officers can be thought of as a countermeasure to terrorists (and other lawbreakers). I don't think this article really lets the argument take form, but I think it's important to note that the actions which are supposedly intended to combat terrorism are themselves more harmful than terrorism itself.

jasallen 13y ago
Since police are also there to combat murderers, gang members, drunk drivers, etc, your statement does not even begin to become valid unless police numbers are put against terrorists plus all those other groups. It's total nonsense.
- baddox 13y ago
  No one is arguing that this is the only or the most important comparison that can be made. It's just one of many comparisons. That doesn't make it useless. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that cops are a much larger threat than terrorists, and I think the comparison can be used to make a much larger point about the utility of counterterrorism measures.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant. Not really. The increases in LEA capabilities and militarized tactics took a massive leap post 9/11 largely based on the idea of preventing terrorism. If those impacts are now causing more harm than the thing they are intended to prevent, then there is a clear problem and highlighting it shows that such a response is wrongheaded. The other causes of death in this case are not relevant at all to the point, however the broader approach would advocate that the more frequent causes of death should be addressed before other less probable causes of death.

danenania 13y ago

It's relevant because a vastly expanded police presence has been erected in response to terrorism, but police are statistically more dangerous to the population than terrorists. If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse, we need to deal with the root of the problem: an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy that costs more that we can afford, makes us insecure, and benefits only a tiny elite.

ekianjo 13y ago
> If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse Terrorism is a political tool. There is no willingness for it to stop. On the contrary. Both the aggressor and the victim will politically benefit from it. The "victim" will push for more State Power and more population control, and the aggressor will use any act of retaliation to recruit more people on their side.

kvb 13y ago

It's not just that. What's the probability that 100K people are killed by terrorists vs. police next year? With fat tails, the number of people killed in the recent past isn't an accurate summary of the true statistics.

jeremysmyth 13y ago
Vanishingly small. That's entirely the point.

ricardobeat 13y ago

> Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant. The source for this article, which is linked in the third paragraph, does exactly that: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-no... I find it odd that killings by cops are acceptable. We shouldn't settle for anything less than zero when offenders are unarmed.