The point would be, I think, that we're spending more resources, ineffectively, to combat such a low level of terrorist attacks that it is indeed "cheaper", even in human life, to absorb them.
Or do you support sacrificing freedom in the name of ineffective security?
It's like how the anticipated casualties from a dirty bomb are mostly from the panic - not the actual bomb or contamination.
Again something I would agree with, but not coming from the likes of Kerry or Obama.
My most used line when arguing with the "safety over all" people is that "freedom is dangerous". I accept the danger. I accept the chance that I might be blown up on a plane in exchange for no TSA and other security theater. The Obama's and Kerry's though, want us to "absorb" but also want us to accept "safety" over freedom.
Obama has had eight years to dismantle the TSA. He has had eight years to eliminate all the intrusions that Edward Snowden brought to light. He has done none of that. I have to get wiener groped by TSA every other time I fly, but we have no problem letting 10,000 "vetted refugees" into the US from countries where there are no records to vet.