For an example of this, in GA last year a bill was passed that allowed people with weapons carry licenses (who have to be fingerprinted, background checked, etc.) to carry weapons into unsecured government buildings. Immediately local governments began complaining about now having to install metal detectors and have police officers to screen people for weapons before entering their buildings.

Local government officials said they didn't "feel safe" with the new law, even though by virtue of being an unsecured building, nothing prevented a person with illegal intentions from entering with a weapon before or after the law. The law just exposed the faulty thinking that a "no guns" sticker on the front door would keep bad guys out.

Is that surprising in any way? Not saying it's right kr desirable but we've understood this phenomenon to exist in many contexts.

We buy expensive wines over better cheaper ones for the sake of feeling better. It's a life of interpreted experience not cold logic. Life would be too complicated to think of the actuality of everything.

It's got commonality with say a concept like pervasive direct democracy. Imagine having to make a decision a d vote on every single government act., even if only local. Most people would become exhausted of the process of this indefinite mobilization mindset.

So feeling more secure is easier than actually being statistically more secure. Peace of mind is important.

Look at insurance. You could probably run numbers and find other ways to minimize loss in the event of something catastrophic, but most of us just buy into external public insurance policies.