The very question is itself is flawed in its premise.
To make an example:
A universal public healthcare system would be a safety measure, a measure which protects lives regardless of station or precondition. A measure which serves the public good of society and minimizes harm.
Yet at the same time it is a measure of freedom for the exact same reasons. It allows people to live their life to the fullest without fear that they'll have to ration two different types of medicine based on cost. By reducing the expansion of contagious disease and by abolishing the in-network system, it enables increased freedom of movement and freedom of association.
It produces, at once, a society that is in equal parts more safe and more free.
And at once a state which increasingly militarizes and valorizes those institutions which are in theory public servants, a "hard" state with extreme no-tolerance policies with the goal of achieving "safety" is infringing on both freedom and safety. It attempts to supplant broad violence with its own and, more often then not, succeeds precisely at simply increasing overall violence failing to do so.
Fortunately for us, the world isn't so idealistic in how it manifests. There isn't safety without freedom and there isn't freedom without safety.
