The chance of being murdered by a foreign-born terrorist in an attack on US soil is 1 in 3.4 million per year (1982-2018). The chance of being murdered in a mass shooting during that time is 1 in 12.9 million per year (excluding San Bernardino terror). Both are small hazards.
Mass shootings prompt debates over gun control but they only account for a fraction of a percent of all homicides annually. Control advocates have much better arguments for restricting gun ownership than mass shootings (I disagree with them, but they have serious arguments).
To the people affected, the hazard of mass shootings is the only one. I understand that. These tweets will make me no friends but it’s important to realize the scale of this problem. Only then can we actually compare the costs of private gun ownership to the benefits.
I argue in the *same* way when evaluating the costs & benefits of immigration as related to terrorism. If you approve of my comments about the low hazard of mass shootings but disagree with me on foreign-born terror, or vice-versa, you should ask yourself why.
For those interested, I got the mass shooting data from Mother Jones. motherjones.com/politics/2012/…
Also, I excluded San Bernardino from the mass shooting because it was a terror attack. Including San Bernardino increases the chance of dying in a mass shooting to one in 12.7 million per year.
