I thought not living in fear was how you beat terrorists.
When you assume that terrorism is an abstract threat, you have the luxury of strategies based on philosophy.
When terrorism is not an abstract threat, however, you realize that it is not defeated with such high-minded concepts.
I have Syrian relatives that have been pinned down between ISIS, warring rebel factions, and the Turkish border (which they cannot cross) for two years now, the murderers being kept at bay by the Kurdish militia, a company of Syrian regulars (who are not supposed to be on the same side as the Kurds) and a company of Russian regulars (who are not supposed to be there at all). Bombs going off in the market and other public places takes place once a month or so; I had a remote relative killed by one last year.
Trust me when I tell you that “not living in fear” is not possible for them, and they would disagree rather strongly that such an approach would be efficacious against the threats they face.
If you were really a “data driven conservative”, maybe you’d realize by now that terrorists are by far not the biggest threat to Americans, and maybe the vetting we already have is good enough.
Obviously, terrorists are not the biggest threat to Americans. Today.
The objective is to prevent them from becoming so; and your logically fallacious reasoning (summarized as: “it’s not a problem because it hasn’t been a problem”) is unconvincing, especially to those of us who, by virtue of actually BEING Muslim and having some on-ground knowledge of how these idiots work, know how effective they are at promoting their toxic ideology and moving it across borders.