Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: aa1986
...
However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning. ....
I had a car struck by lightning. I suppose I could have been standing there at the time. Risks are only insignificant until you're the one that comes up on the short end of the odds.
Regardless, it's an extremely poor analogy, imo, to compare terrorism to lightning strikes. I can't defend myself from a lightning strike. I can carry some degree of protection and defense from a potential hostage taker in my pocket, and often do.
All people should have the basic, fundamental, right of effective self defense. Whether they choose to avail themselves of it is a personal decision only the right holder can make.
It is not a poor analogy but if you think it is, pick anything else to compare it to.
The fact is you have a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed by terrorism. Killed by lightning is 1 in 126,158. Killed by a dog 1 is 126,158.
Now compare the amount of money being spent, the civil liberties that have been infringed and the unnecessary fear that has been created, and it's clearly out of proportion to the actual risk.
Indeed the terrorists objective, by definition of the word, is to create terror which is a feeling not just physical results.
It's just logic. But of course, people think with emotion and act and vote accordingly. And some politicians know that looking like tough leaders will get them votes, book sales and relevance with voters and other politicians.
In your case, you are prepared to prevent yourself from becoming a hostage, but perhaps not as prepared to be attacked by a dog, which is more of a risk to you.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
...
However, the actual risk to any individual in numerical terms is insignificant and has been so for a long time. You're more likely to be hit by lightning. ....
I had a car struck by lightning. I suppose I could have been standing there at the time. Risks are only insignificant until you're the one that comes up on the short end of the odds.
Regardless, it's an extremely poor analogy, imo, to compare terrorism to lightning strikes. I can't defend myself from a lightning strike. I can carry some degree of protection and defense from a potential hostage taker in my pocket, and often do.
All people should have the basic, fundamental, right of effective self defense. Whether they choose to avail themselves of it is a personal decision only the right holder can make.
It is not a poor analogy but if you think it is, pick anything else to compare it to.
The fact is you have a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed by terrorism. Killed by lightning is 1 in 126,158. Killed by a dog 1 is 126,158.
Now compare the amount of money being spent, the civil liberties that have been infringed and the unnecessary fear that has been created, and it's clearly out of proportion to the actual risk.
Indeed the terrorists objective, by definition of the word, is to create terror which is a feeling not just physical results.
It's just logic. But of course, people think with emotion and act and vote accordingly. And some politicians know that looking like tough leaders will get them votes, book sales and relevance with voters and other politicians.
In your case, you are prepared to prevent yourself from becoming a hostage, but perhaps not as prepared to be attacked by a dog, which is more of a risk to you.