[dougdonohoe]

I can't help but think of what the 17 families in Parkland, Florida would think of this article. Especially this quote:

“This is a defense against instantaneous, violent death, which you will find was avoided, but anything that sort of maims or injures or mangles you or whatever is still fair game.”

[burnte]

On the macro scale, he's right. On the human scale, however, your number could be up any second. When I get into debates with people about security and the erosion of rights under the guise of security, I'll eventually say, "You can only be so safe. In the end a determined killer WILL kill someone, even if it's only by biting them to death. There WILL be successful terror attacks. There WILL be random attacks of violence, the question is, how much freedom do I want to lose before I realize that there will always be danger in the world?" That makes people feel I'm a nihilist or something, but it's the truth. I enjoy living, I Want safety for people, but we can't wrap the world in Nerf. Life is a trap no one gets out of alive. If you're alive today, you're lucky nothing killed you along the way, enjoy it while you can. With stuff like the Florida school shooting, we should absolutely do something about guns and gun culture because it's needlessly killing kids. But making me take off y belt at the airport isn't saving anyone, or worse, saying the TSA /customs/the gov't in general should have the right to my passwords to get into my computer because "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" is absolutely terrifying and wrong.

[lopmotr]

Presumably they'll agree if they're being rational since it perfectly fits the situation. They may have emotional injuries but not instantaneous death.

Don't forget also, that dying in a bridge collapse is just as bad as dying in a common car crash, which happens every single day in America. Those non-newsworthy people have families too.