If they approve a drug that ends up killing or harming people, they will face severe criticism. It's easy for television crews to highlight stories of killed or hurt people. But if the officials keep a good drug off the market, few notice. The deaths that result are the subject of academic papers, not dramatic television. It's hardly surprising, then, that the FDA errs on the side of keeping drugs off the market.
Policy makers are in a similar situation on the issue of guns.
Governor Bill Owens issued a directive prohibiting the sale of guns by police agencies to licensed dealers. By his own admission, this policy will increase the price of guns, thus making it more difficult for the poor to protect themselves against imminent threats. If, because of the policy, some poor people chance going unprotected and are thereby killed by violent criminals, no one will blame Owens' policy. On the other hand, if even one police gun had been used in a crime, Owens would have taken heat from his future political opponents. So Owens, like FDA officials, has the incentive to make decisions that deflect criticism rather than decisions which save the most lives.