Yessss? That was exactly my point. You had a logic flaw in your argument, even if you reached an apparently reasonable conclusion.

Your broad point is (probably) valid (there are scarier places than the US) but your comparator table is poorly chosen as it is not measuring what you are describing. It's like saying your point is proved because apples and oranges are the same size.

And the important reason why an incorrect comparator matters is because it gives you a false sense of understanding the relationship/ranking.

I intuit that I should be more scared of Afghanistan than the US, but that is subjective not objective.

By using an incorrect comparator you purport to convert a subjective impression into an objective one.: I.e "it is factually the case that the US is less scary than these countries lower down the list", but we don't know that as it hasn't been measured by the list.

There is a particular political group who don't care about facts & truth, I don't like them, and I don't think we collectively should fall into the trap of " it feels truthy"