Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Chance of being killed in terror attack almost 1 in a million Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.cato.org/blog/european-t...being-murdered

    Look at the rates for the UK. This is even higher than the risk is now due to the IRA threat having largely de lined over the years. The chance of someone dying in a terror attack here in the U.K. is almost 1 in a million. It's almost certain that you won't be killed by a terrorist.

    There are far more common threats to your life, like car accidents and other accidents, even plain murder, so why are so many resources going to prevent terror when they could be used more effectively by aiming to prevent more common causes of deaths? Surely our aim should be to save lives. If that were the case, why are we wasting countless resources on the war against ISIS and in arming highly advanced counter terror police when we could use the money to perhaps improve the NHS and increase capacity in hospitals, which could save many more lives.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    So nothing to worry much about, let's dismantle the security apparatus and spend the money on fighting cancer. Even if tomorrow they go on to kill a few hundred, that is still statistically acceptable. Are you one of them or just a sympathizer?
    • Offline

      20
      > We won't let them change our way of life

      > Starts a collosal espionage campaign against their own people, have heavily armed police patrolling the streets, talk about imprisoning people for saying or watching bad things

      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by desaf1)
      The chance of someone dying in a terror attack here in the U.K. is almost 1 in a million. It's almost certain that you won't be killed by a terrorist.
      The odds of you dying in a plane crash are 1in 11 million.

      Doesn't stop people being afraid of flying.

      Doesn't stop aircraft companies spending billions to make planes safer.



      Poor analogy
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      Small consolation prize for the victims, I suppose. To know that they truly are one in a million
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by desaf1)
      https://www.cato.org/blog/european-t...being-murdered

      Look at the rates for the UK. This is even higher than the risk is now due to the IRA threat having largely de lined over the years. The chance of someone dying in a terror attack here in the U.K. is almost 1 in a million. It's almost certain that you won't be killed by a terrorist.

      There are far more common threats to your life, like car accidents and other accidents, even plain murder, so why are so many resources going to prevent terror when they could be used more effectively by aiming to prevent more common causes of deaths? Surely our aim should be to save lives. If that were the case, why are we wasting countless resources on the war against ISIS and in arming highly advanced counter terror police when we could use the money to perhaps improve the NHS and increase capacity in hospitals, which could save many more lives.
      The risk of dying in a plane crash is miniscule, so why bother spending any money on those things that help prevent planes from crashing?

      Try again.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drewski)
      The odds of you dying in a plane crash are 1in 11 million.

      Doesn't stop aircraft companies spending billions to make planes safer.

      Poor analogy
      Oh, FFS. Really?
      That was mine!
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by desaf1)
      why are we wasting countless resources on the war against ISIS
      Hold on! An hour ago you were bemoaning that you weren't getting enough credit for opposing ISIS.
      Now you are saying that we shouldn't bother fighting them?

      You do sound awfully confused.
      • Very Important Poster
      Online

      19
      (Original post by desaf1)
      https://www.cato.org/blog/european-t...being-murdered

      Look at the rates for the UK. This is even higher than the risk is now due to the IRA threat having largely de lined over the years. The chance of someone dying in a terror attack here in the U.K. is almost 1 in a million. It's almost certain that you won't be killed by a terrorist.

      There are far more common threats to your life, like car accidents and other accidents, even plain murder, so why are so many resources going to prevent terror when they could be used more effectively by aiming to prevent more common causes of deaths? Surely our aim should be to save lives. If that were the case, why are we wasting countless resources on the war against ISIS and in arming highly advanced counter terror police when we could use the money to perhaps improve the NHS and increase capacity in hospitals, which could save many more lives.
      Because people find some risks more readily acceptable than others. A lot of the resources are spent preventing terrorism and without it then hundreds of plots would come to fruition and many more people would die? Would you like bombings to be a weekly occurrence? Looking at headline figures is misleading from the overall problem.

      What we do know is that there are thousands of terrorists who wish harm on this country and would like to inflict mass casualties if given the opportunity. That cant be ignored. Its more than just loss of life its also about way of life.

      I agree about the current chances and relative risk.
      I do not agree with your conclusion.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      Oh, FFS. Really?
      That was mine!
      I'm bored at work.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      ya'll i feel like a lot of people are ignoring what this really means and just wanna say "BWUH MY MILITARY BUDGET"
      at the end of the day the threat of dying from a terrorist attack is not high. the op isnt saying "as such, we need no international security, the police force can **** off, the military can be disbanded, and theresa may can suck my huge, bumpy, hairy ****", op is saying "the national fear around terrorism is far too high for the reality of how common dying from terrorists attacks actually are"
      youre right, we do have a low chance to die in aeroplanes. which is why the news isnt covered every single day with "SUSPICIOUS NOISE FROM AEROPLANE, MILLIONS FLEE IN FEAR, BILLS PROPOSED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO BAN ALL AEROPLANES, ALL AEROPLANES WHO WEAR METAL SHEETING ARE CLEARLY HIDING THE SOURCE OF SUSPICIOUS NOISES SO ALL AEROPLANES MUST BE BANNED FROM WEARING ANY METAL SHEETING"
      yet, for some reason, we spend every single day saying "oh boy, look, i think a terrorist attack is going to happen because of my totally justified profiling of an individual i have never met, thus supporting my theory that every single person i see is not only a terrorist, but wants to kill me the moment i turn around"
      the public terror over dying in a terrorist attack is both justified, but grossly overestimated. there are thousands and thousands of people dying from liver failure each year, but may isnt passing bills to let her spy on Big Beer and to monitor any youth who show any interest in fermenting their own yeast.
      this isnt saying "terrorism isnt common, ergo doesnt exist" it is saying "terrorism isnt common, and as such we should be focusing on more common killers whilst still keeping measures in place to protect us from terrorism"
      but that doesnt fit with the agenda of half of u does it
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by priincee)
      this isnt saying "terrorism isnt common, ergo doesnt exist" it is saying "terrorism isnt common, and as such we should be focusing on more common killers whilst still keeping measures in place to protect us from terrorism"
      but that doesnt fit with the agenda of half of u does it
      But why are you perpetuating the notion that it's one or the other?

      Why not, as we are doing, do both?

      It's simply that one is higher profile and gains more attention.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drewski)
      But why are you perpetuating the notion that it's one or the other?

      Why not, as we are doing, do both?

      It's simply that one is higher profile and gains more attention.
      i didnt say it had to be "one or the other", in fact if u actually read my full post you would see that i said we should keep all measures in place to keep terrorists in check but lmao i hope ur enjoying ur afternoon stretches
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by priincee)
      i didnt say it had to be "one or the other", in fact if u actually read my full post you would see that i said we should keep all measures in place to keep terrorists in check but lmao i hope ur enjoying ur afternoon stretches
      So your entire post was a waste of time?

      Good to know.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Drewski)
      So your entire post was a waste of time?

      Good to know.
      im sorry, what? you said that i said it had to be one or the other, i showed you that i didnt, and now my post is a waste of time?
      lmao have fun in your "my opinion is right and always right" bubble, let me know when you want to have a constructive conversation
      • TSR Support Team
      • Very Important Poster
      • Clearing and Applications Advisor
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      I'm not sure why things like this are always posed as either or questions. We can invest in combating terror attacks, and still all the other things you mentioned on top of that.

      Posted from TSR Mobile
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by desaf1)
      why are we wasting countless resources on the war against ISIS
      We are not going to dismantle our security apparatus to give you and your violent mates an easier target.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by priincee)
      ya'll i feel like a lot of people are ignoring what this really means and just wanna say "BWUH MY MILITARY BUDGET"
      at the end of the day the threat of dying from a terrorist attack is not high. the op isnt saying "as such, we need no international security, the police force can **** off, the military can be disbanded, and theresa may can suck my huge, bumpy, hairy ****", op is saying "the national fear around terrorism is far too high for the reality of how common dying from terrorists attacks actually are"
      youre right, we do have a low chance to die in aeroplanes. which is why the news isnt covered every single day with "SUSPICIOUS NOISE FROM AEROPLANE, MILLIONS FLEE IN FEAR, BILLS PROPOSED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO BAN ALL AEROPLANES, ALL AEROPLANES WHO WEAR METAL SHEETING ARE CLEARLY HIDING THE SOURCE OF SUSPICIOUS NOISES SO ALL AEROPLANES MUST BE BANNED FROM WEARING ANY METAL SHEETING"
      yet, for some reason, we spend every single day saying "oh boy, look, i think a terrorist attack is going to happen because of my totally justified profiling of an individual i have never met, thus supporting my theory that every single person i see is not only a terrorist, but wants to kill me the moment i turn around"
      the public terror over dying in a terrorist attack is both justified, but grossly overestimated. there are thousands and thousands of people dying from liver failure each year, but may isnt passing bills to let her spy on Big Beer and to monitor any youth who show any interest in fermenting their own yeast.
      this isnt saying "terrorism isnt common, ergo doesnt exist" it is saying "terrorism isnt common, and as such we should be focusing on more common killers whilst still keeping measures in place to protect us from terrorism"
      but that doesnt fit with the agenda of half of u does it
      The majority of people spend very little time worrying about, or even thinking about terrorism. However, there are people whose job is to think about it. And what they say is often considered newsworthy.

      The reason that those rare cases of successful or thwarted attacks are so extensively covered is because of the impact they have. They are out of the ordinary and often disturbing. Over 1000 people die every day in the UK. If one of them is a 90 year old dying from heart failure, we never hear about it. If it is a 30 year old celebrity dying from a rare form of cancer, it will be in the news and a charity may be started in their name, or whatever. To complain about the media and public treating them differently is nigh on meaningless. It is how things are. It's like moaning that British public are more affected by 23 British people being blown up in Manchester than they are by 23 Syrian people being blown up in Raqqa. What do you seriously expect?

      And to imply that being hacked to death by religious fanatics is no more noteworthy thatn dying in a car crash is both naive and a bit distasteful.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by desaf1)
      The chance of someone dying in a terror attack here in the U.K. is almost 1 in a million. It's almost certain that you won't be killed by a terrorist... So why are so many resources going to prevent terror when they could be used more effectively by aiming to prevent more common causes of deaths?
      But you are forgetting that the money that is put into preventing terrorism actually....prevents terrorism. So what you are saying is that after our tax money has been put to use in tackling the issue of terrorism, the chance of being killed by a terrorist is 1 in a million. Is that not a sign that it is actually working in preventing terrorist attacks?

      It is a bit like saying "infant mortality rates are only x in a million, so why do we spend so much money on preventing infant mortatlity?" Which is to miss the point that the money is being used effectively and is the reason why infant mortality rates are low in the first place.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Epicurean)
      But you are forgetting that the money that is put into preventing terrorism actually....prevents terrorism. So what you are saying is that after our tax money has been put to use in tackling the issue of terrorism, the chance of being killed by a terrorist is 1 in a million. Is that not a sign that it is actually working in preventing terrorist attacks?

      It is a bit like saying "infant mortality rates are only x in a million, so why do we spend so much money on preventing infant mortatlity?" Which is to miss the point that the money is being used effectively and is the reason why infant mortality rates are low in the first place.
      Ah, but you are forgetting that Muslims are only radicalised by the government's attempts to prevent radicalisation, by anti-terrorism measures, and of course, by criticism of the ideology used to radicalise the terrorists. So if we just stopped trying to prevent terrorism, there would be no terrorism to prevent.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.