The article made it clear to me that this statistic is itself likely to be baseless fear-mongering that "manipulates our emotions and sells papers/gets clicks." So you ought to take a look at why you're taken in by a story like that but sneer at stories about terrorism. — Thorongil
No, because those statistics are probably bullshit. Again, the article, if you chose to read it, helpfully presents both sides and the "government murders 30k" narrative was pretty well deflated as hyperbolic nonsense. — Thorongil
Err, the statistics are most certainly not "baseless fear-mongering". Unless you think the Office of National Statistics are into that sort of thing (they are "the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and its recognised national statistical institute" and the government cites them regularly on their own website). No one except you is disputing the numbers. You might want to dispute the causes of those numbers, but I apologise for siding with the opinion of researchers, who do this stuff for a living, over yourself and the Conservative government who has a vested interest in denying any responsibility for the numbers (they've literally blamed every other group except themselves for the NHS crisis, so this most recent denial is very predictable and very telling). As the article says, "they examined other possible explanations for the deaths, including data inaccuracies, whether there had been a major epidemic or “environmental shocks” such as wars or natural disasters." If, after your evidently thorough analysis of their methodology and expertise in their field, you have some additional insight into why this research is bullshit, the authors, the peer-reviewers, the media, the government, the general public, and myself would like to hear it.
All that aside, the validity of this particular research is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I don't need that study to be correct to point out that there are more dangerous things in society than terrorism that we don't equally proportion our attitudes to, or direct our attention or public funding in massive disproportion towards. Quibbling over the study is all beside the point. (Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my narrative as "government murders 30k". It shows not only that you don't understand my argument (or are at best taking the least charitable interpretation of it, so thanks), but also that you don't know how quotation marks work.)
With regards to the Douglas Murray video: he says that terrorism-death statistics are misleading because they conveniently start counting, for example, the day after 9/11. At no point did I cite statistics that conveniently began 24 hours after 9/11.
Here's a chart showing the number of deaths in western Europe and the US going all the way back to 1970 (
Source). There are many interesting points in this graph, not least the presence of the Oklahoma city bombing. Let's have the article spell my argument out for you in case you still aren't getting it:
"
Even in 2001, the likelihood of an American in the United States being killed in a terrorist attack was less than one in 100,000; in the decade up to 2013 that fell to one in 56m. The chance of being the victim in 2013 of an ordinary homicide in the United States was one in 20,000. Barack Obama was correct when he said earlier this year that the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than that of being killed by terrorists. Baths are a one-in-a-million risk. Even if the terrorism deaths in San Bernardino and Orlando were doubled to give an annual death toll, the risk would still be about one in 2.5m." (This except is from
this version of the article, which is more concise than the other and subtitled "Putting the recent horrors in perspective". The same excerpt has been slightly reworded in the longer one)
As for Murray's other point; "If there were a movement deliberately making dangerous toasters, or deliberately mis-wiring lawn mowers to make sure they kill their owners, I'd want to know about it. And so would you. And that's what we're dealing with; movements that actively want to do this so of course there's a disproportionate emphasis on that, because that's what matters."
These points aren't an argument against anything I've said, it's just a restatement of your position, which I've argued against since as lacking objectivity. If anything, my argument is a direct counter to both yours and DM's claims, and I could similarly accuse DM of letting the fear of terrorism get the better of him.
Looking at the numbers, I'm actually beginning to understand even less why we should be more concerned about terrorist intentions and the resulting deaths over non-terrorist related deaths. Can you explain what makes intentions matter more than the
actual relative ineffectiveness of terrorism when compared with other, more dangerous causes of death that we aren't even comparably concerned about in our day to day lives? Somehow, you think intentions make up the
several-dozen thousand-fold difference
and then some. How? What is it about it being deliberate that matters so much? Surely all deaths of normal citizens are equally bad.
In 2001, when compared to 2013, you were more than 5 times more likely to die from homicide than a terrorist attack (I couldn't find the regular homicide rate for 2001). So another question is, why is the latter a bigger problem than the former, even though homicides are just as intentional as terrorist murders?
I'd also like to hear which side of the gun ownership/2nd amendment debate you fall on, just in case you're secretly a massive hypocrite across these two issues.
Here's some more evidence in case you wish to trot out Douglas Murray again to make your case for you: "Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015." (
Source).
A choice quote: "Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year."
Wow, an unnecessary and rank smear against conservatives. — Thorongil
If you took that as a smear, that says more about how you view conservatives than about how I do. I don't derive any moral judgement from that. It's a fairly well known fact that conservative minds have a more in-group/out-group mentality (this is why nationalism and tribalism occur more on the right, and the lefts 'openness to experience' renders them less sceptical of out-group individuals). That, coupled with a high degree of risk-aversion (due to a desire for stability, which can often be at the expense of those at the bottom if tradition is threatened) and a perceived high-risk threat coming from predominantly foreign, or at least minority, enemy (terrorists), results in a degree of unwarranted hysteria if you don't look at, or choose to ignore, the numbers. The medias role in whipping up hysteria shouldn't need to be spelled out.
There is literally article after article after article (I've come across even more while researching for this post) of cool-headed risk-analysis that implores people to regain some perspective when thinking about the risk of terrorism to them and their families. But you choose to overlook all that just because terrorists have bad intentions?