The flaw in the rationale here is the idea that historical terrorism statistics are how you should base your concern on future terrorism. We don't know the statistical probabilities going forward, because the capabilities/opportunities/strategies aren't static.
If it's a rando shooting up his office or a night club every other month, that's sad, but ultimately not that meaningful.
But 9/11 was a big deal. Aside from loss of life, it was estimated to have cost as much as 2 trillion dollars depending on how loose you get with the math. (http://www.iags.org/costof911.html)
Larger scale attacks like that, that could disrupt the country in a meaningful way, are cause for concern. I almost like the terrorists having access to guns, because it's small scale. If they are shooting up their office, they're not trying something at a nuclear power plant, or in a packed stadium, or at Disney or with Biological weapons, or etc...
But to sum up in regards to OP question, I would say Terrorism is legitimately a big deal because of the potential damage that could result from it.
If it's a rando shooting up his office or a night club every other month, that's sad, but ultimately not that meaningful.
But 9/11 was a big deal. Aside from loss of life, it was estimated to have cost as much as 2 trillion dollars depending on how loose you get with the math. (http://www.iags.org/costof911.html)
Larger scale attacks like that, that could disrupt the country in a meaningful way, are cause for concern. I almost like the terrorists having access to guns, because it's small scale. If they are shooting up their office, they're not trying something at a nuclear power plant, or in a packed stadium, or at Disney or with Biological weapons, or etc...
But to sum up in regards to OP question, I would say Terrorism is legitimately a big deal because of the potential damage that could result from it.
