«

»

Sep 22

New Infographic on the “Risk of Terrorism”

The fail-safe excuse any government official will give to you as a justification for their horrific treatment of peaceful people is “terrorism”.  The cowards in government can stand behind that word, which works as some kind of 'accountability shield'.  They strip you of your rights, your dignity, your clothes (TSA body scanners), and even your life… but it's okay… because when it comes to “terrorism”, better safe than sorry, right?  Well, here are a few facts about your actual risk of death by terrorism, that I put in an easy to read infograph.
Turns out you're more likely to be killed by the people you pay to protect you from terrorists. 
8 times more likely.

You can download a high resolution version of this infograph here.

zp8497586rq

12 comments

3 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Brandon

    Sources?

    1. Meg McLain

      it’s at the bottom.

  2. Moe Loubani

    Interesting, I’d love to see an infographic of the same thing but add to it how likely a Palestinian is to die of an Israeli attack. I remember doing the math one time and it was like a Palestinian is ~3000 times more likely to die of an Israeli attack (to some people a terrorist attack) than your average American.

    I think an Israeli was about 3 times more likely to die of a Palestinian attack compared to an average Israeli.

  3. Mike Anderson

    Love the relative risks, hate the graphic. Even putting the data on a log-log scale doesn’t reproduce your bar lengths, which seem to have been measured out by the same folks who write President Obama’s budget speeches.

    1. Meg McLain

      then make a better one.

    2. dg

      Plus, I always thought that it is much more likely that you die in car accident then in plane crash. Acoording to this, car travel is 10 times safer then travelling by plane? I believe that new survey is needed as well as new graphic.

      1. Meg McLain

        actually, you just need to re-read the graphic, as it is clear you have failed to do that. it does not imply what you claim it does.

        read the WHOLE SENTENCE on the plane section. re-read if you still dont get it. then admit you’re wrong, and possibly apologize? no, that’s asking too much, i know ;)

  4. john

    Would be interesting to see an expansion of this infographic with the annual expenditures to prevent/react to these causes of death. I bet that would be a stark and sobering juxtaposition

  5. Meg McLain

    Like I said, I got my data from a study done by the progressive review. the stats here aren’t “how many people die each year from ____”, but it’s risk factor when compared to terrorism. for instance, the death by airplane stat is vs. death in an airplane due to terrorist hijacking, which both are obviously MUCH lower than dying in a car accident, but they are (some what misleading, i know) a different comparison in data.

  6. Coral

    Agreed, Meg. I posted your infograph on my Facebook and my sister and I had a lengthy debate over the stats. Like Ken said, my sister stated that far more people die in car accidents than plane accidents, so how could this info be correct? I pointed out the airplane crash stats were compared to airplane terrorist attacks and that all the other data collected for general “terrorist attacks” could very well have included not just air attacks, but car bombs, train bombs, and just bombs in general. I explained that every set of data was to be read against itself vs. the statistics it’s being compared to. That this wasn’t something to illustrate the number of deaths per year compared to each other. She flipped her lid and started claiming the data was manipulated to have a certain outcome.

    Now, she’s saying that all of the data is incorrect and she doesn’t buy it because that one item is compared to terrorist attacks differently than all the others. I was trying to point out to her that, even though it may be compared differently, it still has its purpose on the graph and that is to illustrate that we should be more worried about drunk pilots and weather conditions than terrorists on a plane.

  7. Meg McLain

    There will ALWAYS be people to complain about anything you do. Even though you offer it to the world for free; you’ve still managed to let people down somehow *rolls eyes*.

    The best thing i find in these situations is to simply state: “okay, then make it right/better. SHOW ME how it’s done right.”

    I have yet to have anyone take me up on that offer; so I can only conclude that they simply have opinions based on their own ignorance… it’s not like they tried to prove me wrong :P

  8. dokoun

    This is a fantastic rebuttal to the malarkey contained in the image. Thank you so much. Not that I wanted the image to be incorrect; actually the opposite, but one must hold one’s sources up to the light before passing them on as true.

  1. Love the message, hate the graphic « The Home for Wayward Statisticians

    [...] Meg McLain tells a great story about the relative risk of being killed by terrorists in the US.  Unfortunately, she comes up with this baffling graphic which appears to use the sort of number scales beloved of President Obama’s budget speechwriters: [...]

  2. A great relative risk graphic for terrorism-Financial News | Coffee At Joe's

    [...] taking a relative risk assessment approach to our security and surveillance policies and spending. Courtesy of Meg McLain, here’s a vivid graphic representing why that’s a good idea, and why we shouldn't be [...]

  3. A great relative risk graphic for terrorism « Knowledge Problem

    [...] taking a relative risk assessment approach to our security and surveillance policies and spending. Courtesy of Meg McLain, here’s a vivid graphic representing why that’s a good idea, and why we should not be [...]

Comments have been disabled.