Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Whether the risk is getting run over by a car by a drunk driver or being run over by a terrorist shouldn't matter and yet one would receive way more attention than the other. You don't choose either of those scenarios yet people fear terrorism more. It's not rational.
We should be rationally assessing risk, then devoting resources in the most effective way to reduce risk.
|
I understand what you're saying. But we
are irrational. And any government that doesn't take its citizens' fears and anxieties into account isn't going to last long.
More than a dozen children under 16 are killed in auto collisions in Alberta every year. If, instead, a dozen children in the province were strangled to death by strangers and tossed in dumpsters every year, it's safe to say there would be mass outrage. Any government or police organization that didn't show it was taking serious measures to address the murders would come under withering fire. That's human nature.
The UK has now seen three major terrorist attacks in 10 weeks. Police say they have broken up 5 more imminent attacks so far this year. They've made 12 arrests so far in connection with this attack, so like the Manchester bombing it's not a lone wolf attack. Police have 3,000 radicals in the UK under surveillance, and 20,000 more who they have reason to believe are connected to jihadi terrorism, but who they don't have the resources to monitor.
The attacks we see carried out are bursts of steam erupting from an enormous cauldron, as authorities desperately try to hold down the lid. This issue isn't going away. It could get far worse. And anyone who thinks multiple mass-murderous rampages a year in cities - even ones as cosmopolitan as London and Paris - won't undermine the confidence and change the behaviour of residents and visitors is kidding themselves.