People don’t evaluate risks based on stats. They do it based on vibes. We do have a disproportionate amount of gun violence for a developed nation but statistically it’s still a very low risk.

I recall pointing this out back during the post 9/11 terror panic. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack were still phenomenally low even after 9/11. It would have taken a relentless stream of constant 9/11 scale attacks to even approach automobile or drug overdose deaths.

This is a good point, so I'd like to provide some additional context.

There were 2,977 victims in the 9/11 attacks. This doesn't come close to cracking the top 10 leading causes of death, which are annual numbers.

The top 2 are Heart Disease at 683K and Cancer at 619K.

For terrorism to be an equivalent threat, 9/11 scale attacks would need to occur ~230 times a year, or just shy of 2 out of every 3 days.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11...

See: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm