How ready we are to sacrifice many of our freedoms and conveniences to * prevent 200 deaths - especially considering how mindlessly we accept risks that are multiple orders of magnitude higher, like driving cars. It is fascinating.
*try to
*try to
Here is the thing: When driving a car, you have some level of control of your destinity. Take precaution, use the seat belts, children seat, and so on... You know there is risk involved, but that you also can lower that risk.
Worrying that your next train trip, museum visit, or national day celebration will end up fatally, changes your way of life. You have zero control over that. You worry about those dearest to you.
Statistics are rather difficult to come by on this, but assuming the US population incidence is 0.28% [0] of all 735,000 'heart attacks' per year in the US [1], with a mortality rate of 60% (wikipedia says 70% but that number is iffy), that's 1235 random "sudden deaths" per year from just one non-preventable and non-predictable medical condition alone.
So I suspect the more general point, that statistically you are much more likely to be randomly killed by "not terrorism", is probably a valid one.
Terror attacks destabilize societies. Car crashes don't.
The more the media focuses on the terrorists themselves instead of commemorating the victims, the more would-be attackers will want to have their 15 minutes of infamy. The more shocking the reporting the media crafts, the more fearful the citizens become, and thus the more effective terrorism becomes. If terrorist see that they can fundamentally alter the way an entire Western nation functions, they will be encouraged to continue. More groups will pop up and thrive. More people will die.
The question is, how do we actually stop kids from dying? Looking at the big picture and changing the way we respond to attacks is one such way, knee-jerk accusatory reactions are not. Why don't we at least try it?
We could try stopping killing their kids and see if that changes anything.
"If you alter the way these attacks are covered by the media, they will stop being so destabilizing."
"... how do we actually stop kids from dying? Looking at the big picture and changing the way we respond to attacks is one such way."
Stop the morbid coverage -> less fear and panic -> terrorism is less effective -> terrorists have a smaller incentive -> fewer people die
You probably meant something more like "If you alter the way these attacks are covered by the media, they will stop being so frequent."
That said, my intuition (I doubt anyone knows for sure, and the reason varies) is that these attacks are not to be famous, but more so out of revenge ("justice") or frustration.
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-ha...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aclu-tsa-20170207-stor...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/opinions/abend-tsa-screening-f...
Risk assessment is about probabilty and impact. People overweight risk in cases of extreme impact or high probability. We're also bad at identifying root cause.