In the sturm und drang that has resulted from this tragedy, and the weeks to come of hand wringing about terrorists/crazyfolk/etc across the major news networks, I hope against hope that we can stow our reptilian brains for a brief while… In the 3 hours that have passed since the top comment was made, 205 people in the US have died from heart disease(1), an almost entirely preventable disease. This observation may be construed as heartless, insensitive to the victims, and "if it were your X then it would be different"… but I contend that each time we act like chimps and allow our attention to be drawn to the latest epidemiologically insignificant tragedy we lose as a species. A van distributing a year's supply of aspirin to the fleeing masses would have been more helpful than any ambulance..
I've never quite understood that argument. It's not about it being insensitive, just irrelevant. It seems to have an implicit but completely unsupported premise that every death is equal.
First, there's age: deaths from heart disease tend to happen at old age. In most cultures, death at old age is considered less tragic than the death of an infant or young adult. Also, there's the perceived "naturality" of death: death by natural causes is considered less tragic and less repugnant than murder. And finally there's the fear aspect: a specific murder of A by B for reason X is repugnant but it doesn't necessarily makes other people fear for their lives, while a bombing in a public setting makes people worry that they and their loved ones might be targets too.
I think they're very different arguments. uber is saying that this incident is relatively insignificant, since more people died of heart attack today. Schneier is saying that (i) we overstate the impact/probability of terrorist attacks. Note that this is not the same as merely comparing number of bombing deaths with deaths from natural causes; if this was happening every week, surely it would be considered a worrying development, even if the number of daily bombing deaths was still less than deaths by heart disease or car accidents. And (ii) that we should refuse to be terrorized as that gives power to terrorists.
I think (i) isn't a very solid argument since we can't estimate the probability of future terrorist attacks the same way we can calculate the probability of winning the lottery, or as we can estimate the probability of x deaths by heart attack in the next 5 years. For example, suppose we count the number of bombings against civilians in pre-2nd-intifada Israel. In 1999 there were 2 bombings. In 2000, when the intifada started, 5. In the following 2 years, 40 then 47. I haven't checked, but I suppose the same pattern would hold for pre- and post-invasion Iraq (note that this isn't an argument pro or anti the invasion).
I'm not saying that the same thing is likely to happen in the US, I'm just pointing out a weakness in the argument. Overall, though, I think Schneier has a point.
But still, considering the significance of this bombing, some people are reacting so emotionally, it's almost pathetic. Compared to 9/11, this is nothing, only 3 people died. Even if we ignore predictable deaths that you mentioned, there similarly tragic and unpredictable deaths happening all the time that get much smaller attention.
And when humans first landed on the Moon, think of all the other people (not to mention animals) that landed elsewhere that same day! But the sensationalist media only covered the Moon landing.
I think there is a small bit of difference between you choosing to live your life in such a way that heart disease will be your end, vs someone else deciding to blow your limbs off.
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm