Roberta brought this up a few pages back...but to be honest I don't think is really a fair argument as the probability doesn't consider - as David points out - how many people could ultimately be killed if a terrorist is bold enough - or really just lucky enough. Each attack inspires bolder attempts. Additionally, even if the probability of being killed by a drunk driver was low I would still expect the law to regulate the problem - same with terrorism as there is no need to compound the probability of death.
That said, I think Trump's clumsy attempts to deal with the problem aren't going to solve much of anything and will likely make things worse.
I think your response here suggests a lot of people don't understand the point me and the other poster who made the same point are making with these comparisons.
I'm not saying that terrorism isn't something to be vigilant about and to take steps to try to prevent from happening. I'm saying the amount of attention it gets, how afraid people are of it, and how much is done in relation to it, is objectively massively over the top. The table posted is to illustrate that even something like a bath has actually killed more people then terrorism.
And if it's really about saving lives, why hasn't America severely restricted gun ownership to try to bring down the amount of domestic shootings? Or why don't you regulate your food industry better to try to bring down obesity level deaths? And don't get me started and deaths caused by air pollution!
We have to as a species, at least try to stop letting fear and tribal prejudices run the way we do things (not saying this specifically applies to you).