A little info for the "Anything to keep us safe" crowd
 

# of traffic accident deaths in 2009: 33,963
Do you support banning motor vehicles?

# of contruction fatalities in 2009: 816
Do you support banning construction?

# of manufacturing fatalities in 2009: 304
Do you support banning of manufacturing?

# of firearms murders in US in 2009: 9146
Do you support banning of all firearms?

# of knife/cutting murders in US in 2009: 1825
Do you support banning of knives?

# of blunt object murders in the US in 2009: 611
Do you support banning of all blunt objects?

# of personal weapons (hands, feet, fists, etc) murders in US in 2009: 801
Do you support the removal of hands and feet?

# of drowning murders in US in 2009: 8
Do you support the banning of water?

# of US deaths from aviation terrorism in the US in 2009: 0

If you really want to be "safe" you should never leave home. In fact, please do so the rest of us that understand risk/reward is a part of life can move about freely.

*Figures sourced from Bureau of Labor Statistics, CDC, and FBI

This is what i have been saying and pointing out to the congress critters. your 1,000-20,000 times more likely to die in a car wreck then to die in a plane crash as a result of a act of terrorism. More people die on the roads each month then were killed in the events of 9/11 this is each and every month. NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) statistics are published from 1994-2009

Taking it one step further. the economic damage from those car wrecks (property losses, medical/legal bills, lost productivty (days from work, manufacturing), etc from those wrecks each month is between 5-10 times greater then the economic damage/losses then the events of 9/11

So why do we waster 8+ Billion a year on a 1 in Centillion chance?


Im a paramedic i see the best and the worst of the human condition, these statistics reinforce that. Anyone that disagrees with me is more then welcome to do a ride out with me and see it first hand.

Scubatooth, thank you for validating my point.

I'm thinking we may need to print out a list of these kinds of statistics and keep them with us to rebut the Chicken Littles.

I think a better method is asking a Ma or Pa Kettle if they are sure that their kid will be felt up, hand in pants type method.

Where did you get this info? It substantiate a gut feeling that I have, but have never had much success in finding such stats.

I've always said that the government needs to do more to protect us from the deadly scourge of DHMO. :(

Careful there. This might end up on the TSA blog under the CBS survey - TSA will take credit for preventing all terrorist incidents in 2009. :rolleyes:

You are more likely to die in a car accident, but how do you know that the measures currently in place aren't what contributed to the 0 terrorism deaths? you could take away the metal detectors, the scanners, the X-ray machines and the TSA then all the sudden anyone can take a gun or knife on a plane, or even a bomb. A metal detector didn't catch the bomb in the guys underwear, sure the bomb was stupid and didn't do much but what if it had worked? The body scanners would have caught it, using the millimeter wave technology is always preferred over the x ray emitters. Sure we've got the CIA FBI and all the 3 letter agencies you can think of trying to keep people from blowing up planes, but without layers of security it becomes easy for any type of crazy to get on a plane with some sort of weapon.

If the underwear bomber would have had a detonator large enough to actually detonate his bomb he would have set off the metal detector. The bomb setup he had could not go off, it could only burn. Much to his chagrin.

And when you start taking away layers of security you can get a detonator through, or a simple fuse and use a match to light it

The Government Accountability Office does not agree with your belief that the Nude-O-Scopes would have caught the underpants bomber.

Do you support layers of security at malls or large shopping centers? What about subway stations? It would be easy for any type of crazy to go to one of those places with a weapon or bomb. How many terrorist attacks have there been at these places without security?

While I strongly agree with the sentiment of the OP, I must point out that the Fort Hood shooting occurred during 2009 and involved fatalities. It's fairly easy to argue that the motivation was terrorism.

I would suggest amending the statement to "# of deaths from aviation terrorism," which covers the main point.

Good point. Will do.

I don't think anybody is arguing there should be zero security. What we're saying is that the security should be reality-based.

Personally, I have absolutely, utterly zero on any sort of criminal-record dossier; I'm 40 years old and I've only had one speeding ticket in my entire life (never been arrested). Why should a person such as myself - who works hard to obey the law and play by the rules - be subject to exactly the same screening as some guy with an arrest record or a known tendency to consort with criminals?

It's sort of a basic fairness thing, especially when we're talking about my submitting to nude photographs or intimate touching on the part of government personnel.