[1001101]

In terms of risk, you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning, drowning in the tub, being buried alive, [1] killed by cows, hot tap water, falling down the stairs, dogs, vending machines, bees, texing and driving, swing sets, wind, football, roller coasters, lawn mowers, your bed, [2] being crushed by furniture, or being shot by a toddler.

But by all means, let's spend trillions of dollars (not being hyperbolic here), and take away everyone's constitutional rights.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c...

[chroma]

The NBC article gets its data from a CATO institute report.[1] In it, they touch upon the problem with extrapolating from previous data: they note that 9/11 accounted for 98% of all foreign terrorist fatalities in the past 40 years. Terror attacks obey a power law where extremely rare events account for most of the deaths. Considering the weaponry that exists today, it's fortunate we haven't had anything worse than 9/11.

Moreover, you're not accounting for the US response to terror attacks. I think we can both agree that the reaction to 9/11 was far more harmful than the attack itself. So if you want to reduce total harm, reducing the likelihood of terror attacks seems like a good idea. If that means collecting 0.1% of phone records and (under judicial oversight) occasionally checking if foreign terrorists are in those call logs... well I'm willing to make that trade-off.

1. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_...

[mtempm]

Thought crime (goes against the wishes of those in power) to say it but its true: reign in the military and CIA, stop bombing and meddling in other countries, close the borders and use the budget to fund a mission to Proxima Centauri.

Anyways did you know 3 buildingd in NYC fells on 9/11? Look into that.