this is fair, but you do have to be careful because as you may or may not know, many parts of the world are literal war zones. So "a few" can become "an explos

this is fair, but you do have to be careful because as you may or may not know, many parts of the world are literal war zones. So "a few" can become "an explosion in London killing 10-30 people, occurring about once a year". Or once a month. Or twice a day. Obviously you do agree that at some point there is a line to draw. so the argument for finding the solution to this early on is not without merit. "a stitch in time saves nine." Maybe two pamphlets sent twice a year to every address in the UK, describing why civilization and a free society is great and explaining why it means not blowing people or yourself up, would solve these people. If that costs £70 million per year but cuts terrorism down by 85%, how many people need to die before you would say, hey that's worth doing: 100 people a year? 500? 1,000? 5,000? 10,000? At that point it costs taxpayers around £7,000 per victim and since fatal victims of terrorism stop paying taxes at that point it is free. I Googled how many people died from Terrorism in the UK. This article from literally yesterday says.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrori... Well, that article says: - 13 people died because of terrorism in the UK between 2010 and 2015. So obviously we are very far from that metric. Actually this kind of supports your assertion. It doesn't mean nothing needs to be done but your point is a lot stronger than I thought! Thanks for the response.