I totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same. But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security. What should be a

I totally accept this, I think I would (re)act the same. But not without being still conflicted: this is kind of a privatisation of security. What should be available and enforced for everyone (security of people and things) is abdicated by the society authorities, and instead of resorting to pressure them to do their job (educate, prevent, accompany, protect), people take the fast/"easier" solution of a private, paid-for solution which promise is still dubious (as it does not completely remove the anxiety but can well fuel it). Private security companies, insurances and tech equipment sellers all have an interest in this. And again, state/communal responsibility is abdicated. Overall, it cost more to the same population to go towards the private solutions, rather than pushing, either for the same equipment/guarantees, but through a common public requirement (because costs would be bundled), either for a voluntary policy in urbanisation, education and prevention (because of the side effects).