[joncrocks]

I think what he's saying is that a disproportionate amount of time and money is spent on saving a tiny number of lives.

If your goal as a government is to minimise the number of lives lost that were preventable, then the argument is that there are many more effective ways of doing it other than spending huge amounts on security services.

I presume there's some stat somewhere that says that young drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal traffic accidents. No-one would claim that dying in these accidents is not tragic.

So if you were to raise the legal driving age by a year, you may end up saving lots of lives, and that would be a lot cheaper way of saving lives.

It's not a flawless argument, as one has to balance freedoms with restrictions and the fact that any historic analysis of attacks has to try and unpick the fact that security apparatus was in place in the past. Spending 0 money on security could have unforeseen consequences, and most people would accept that preparing and executing an attack would be easier.