Fundamentally flawed analogy.

If we go further along with your analogy, then the government would make Jack Daniels (picked a random liquor brand, nothing against JD specifically) illegal, while still allowing consumption of all other liquors.

In reality, instead, the government didn’t make Jack Daniels illegal at all, but instead made drunk driving illegal.

Also, I am not sure how your argument about the scale or collectiveness of security threats makes any sense. You can swap “drunk driving” in your argument with literally any other crime (like “murder”), and it would make the same (little) amount of sense.