Maybe the low kill count by terrorist were due to stronger stance by current administration? Was that ever considered that new policies may have mitigated such risks?
The new administration hasn't even been in effect for a year yet. If new policies could have influenced the annual average by a measurable degree, then the average isn't based on a large enough sample size to be remotely meaningful. Bonus points where, if you look at the picture, the date that's covered up by the watermark on the bottom is January 29, 2017. No matter how desperately you want to fellate Trump, surely not even you are not going to suggest that he was able to appreciably influence the year's statistics in nine days. Plus, as Zang said, it's 2001-2011.
So yes, it's been considered, and no, Trump has had no impact on those statistics.
mooreandrew58 posted...
how many people died at one time in 9/11. when has a lawnmower ever killed that many in such a short period of time.
Extreme isolated incidents often get left out of average statistics because of how much of an outlier they are. Nothing like 9/11 had happened before, and nothing like 9/11 has happened since, so letting it inflate averages to inform public perception about the risk posed by Islamic terrorism would be misleading. Especially where airport security has already been dramatically heightened since 9/11 (the reasonableness and effectiveness of which can certainly be questioned, but that's another matter) to prevent anything like it from happening again, meaning the risk is much lower than including 9/11 in the average would suggest.
It's like not counting a hypothetical freak accident where a guy loses control of a ride-on lawnmower and plows into a crowd, killing 150 people. Those would be lawnmower-related deaths, but being such a rare, isolated incident, letting it inflate the annual stats would exaggerate the actual risk posed by lawnmowers.
mooreandrew58 posted...
i'm also not saying we should never let immigrants in just because "omg possible terrorists" but i'm also saying we shouldn't say f*** it not s*** we can do about it. I prefer immigrants to be checked for any possibility of being a criminal before they are allowed in.
The thing is, nobody's saying that immigrants shouldn't be vetted. Plenty of people (the president included), however, are saying that the risk of terrorism is too great to allow any Muslim immigrants in at all. That's clearly false to anyone that looks at the stats on the matter, because the risk just isn't high enough to justify such an extreme measure.
once again your missing my fucking point. my only point being that these comparisons are stupid and one should have no bearing on how we consider dealing with the other. ---
Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!"