Using Reason: Cops Are More Dangerous Than Terrorists

I like to think that when I'm faced with a situation, that I can use reason to find the best answer. I hope you, good reader, are of the same mind. After all, if something is illogical or doesn't make sense, then shouldn't we make an effort to understand and adjust?

For example, the chances of getting killed on a flight are rare. Compare that with driving. I know we can quote all sorts of statistics, but for the most part is safer to fly than drive. So if your chances of getting killed on a flight are rare, then getting killed on an airplane by terrorist must be extremely rare. This article clears it up a bit better than I can.:

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.

So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

Aiyana Jones was killed in a raid on the wrong house.

It's easy to think about it in these terms, but what about putting in more perspective? I don't know of anyone that has encountered a terrorist, do you? I was in Iraq an I was at arms length from suspects, possibly terrorists. I guess if you've been in combat, you're more likely to encounter one. On the other hand, I'm very likely to run across a cop. How likely am I to be killed by a cop versus a terrorist?  Let's see, according to this article,

• You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

• You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

• You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

• You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

• You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

Considering the amount of money being poured into homeland security, TSA, and extra regulations, are we really getting any safer? Is the cost/benefit really there? Perhaps it's time to take a step back and reexamine what we're doing. Perhaps it's time to stop reacting with emotion and think about more effective, less intrusive, and realistic security measures.