Imagine my surprise. The government solution to prevent attacks at airports has done nothing but moved the point at airports where crowds gather---that is, it just movies the location of the optimum soft target for terrorists.
Also, of note, but not mentioned in the above video, the airport terrorists in the Istanbul attack entered and attacked through the exit gates where passengers leave the airport. This area was less protected versus the arrival area.
As horrific as these attacks are, in the grand scheme of things the casualties from the attacks are not significant in number. More people die in the United States each year from falling out of bed.
Rather than expanding the police state to battle terrorists, it would make much more sense to leave security up to private actors. If the danger from terrorism grows, where the odds of being attacked dramatically increase, businesses will react to provide greater security.
For now, the likelihood of any individual being caught up in a terrorist attack is infinitesimal and
people just don't want the additional security given the cost that would accompany such additional protection.
It is only the government that will ignore cost-benefit analysis in an attempt to imply the "necessity" of government security. A security that is actually more theater than well thought out security, as we have seen once again at the Istanbul airport.
Government protection is a myth. The so-called security efforts of government do nothing but expand the influence of the police state and the harassing of innocent citizens---a police state that terrorists have no trouble circumventing.
Trust free markets, disband the state.