There is also the issue of not perhaps what everyone wants, but also what people don't want.

In the UK motorists have on several occasions attacked cameras designed to catch speeders. There argument is not that they are all breaking the law, but merely that they don't like this. Perhaps the unstated addition is that they view the increased possibility of death as acceptable as long as they can drive fast.

If the government were to (for example) legislate so that car manufacturers had to program their cars to never drive over the maximum speed limit this would probably save lives AND be very unpopular.

Guns that require either fingerprint ID to fire or some other security measure would again save lives. Again, unpopular.

Cracking down on alcohol can be done by reducing where it can be inbibed and the price. Again, unpopular.

The government doesn't so much want to save lives as remain elected. Looking at the "bigger picture" is not wanted by most when it means that what they want is affected.

Then there is the issue that to annoy one's sponsors is not a great idea either.

Terror allows the government to give military companies masses of money with the only result the population sees is that nothing happens! Reports of this complex destroyed and a 30% reduction in whatever can be trumpted with no evidence, as a cruise missile strike leaves little to sift over. And no attacks have occurred - that must be the massive increase in spending!