Do you think more metal detectors and checks for weapons would be helpful when entering hotels and other buildings?

No. We need to carry metal things into buildings. Any hotel that wanted to take inventory of my computers or tools or erotic toys could fuck right off.

The issue needs to be solved at the production and acquisition level. Not the transportation level.

Besides, I go to a lot of heavy metal concerts and I can tell you that metal detectors are security theater. They don’t prevent anything.

Hotels, nah.
I have worked skeet shoots.
There are other lawful organized reasons to check into hotels with firearms too.
There are some things which just suck, and the first idea is not the best for a fix.
I should think a better solve would be to put a security office on every floor of major hotels.
That addresses more issues than just firearms.

I just read Wynn and some others are using wands to scan luggage coming into their hotels.

I may have told this story before, but for the benefit of those who haven’t heard it yet…

On my first trip to Asia my colleague and I were flying internally in Indonesia at one point. We had to fly from Surabaya, at the east end of Java, to Jakarta, at the other end of the island. So, a domestic flight, not “international rules”. In the Indonesian domestic terminal at the time, the main concourse was pretty wide-open to the public, but there were metal detectors to enter each separate gate area. Sounds good… but no one actually manned those detectors 100%.

When I was about to enter my gate area I was behind what I assume was a native Indonesian businessman. (This was in, I think 2003 or ‘04, so definitely post 9/11.) The man pulled a small pocket gun from his hip pocket, put it in the tray for “small metal goods” to pass around the outside of the portal. I noticed that, of course, as I have remembered it to this day. He passed the tray around the portal so that his gun wouldn’t set off the alarm, stepped through the portal – and sounded the alarm anyway – then casually picked up his gun, put it back into his pocket, grabbed his hand luggage and strolled into the boarding area. Meanwhile the alarm was still audibly sounding – and it wasn’t demure, either!

So… I had a quick realization that “this is how it is”, and just walked through the alarmed portal myself, picked up my bag, and also took my seat in the boarding area for the same flight.

Who knows how many people may have been armed on that flight?

On the other hand… when you drive into a first-class hotel or nice shopping mall parking lot at the cities in Java that I visited, you ARE stopped by an iron gate and well-armed guards (with rifles; no pocket pistols for these guys), and they inquire as to the inhabitants of the vehicle – and look at everyone to make whatever assessment they can of the occupants – while another guard or two scan the bottom of the vehicle with long-handled mirrors to check for explosives. And you do not proceed through that gate until the guards say so, and it does not appear to be for show, either.

My point is that security is only as good as the systems, the personnel and the attentiveness and dedication that it’s given. Something like 400 TSA agents in the USA have been convicted of crimes (mostly theft) since 9/11, and zero “terrorists” that we know of have been apprehended. (In any case, any terrorist worth his salt would arrange for simultaneous detonation across multiple airports of “hand luggage” at the screening station – and after that, how many people will volunteer to stand in lines at an airport again?)

“Security theater” like my Indonesian airport does not stop determined attackers. It’s unlikely that hotels could afford to hire and train – and pay for – “effective, 100% on” security personnel to screen all visitors. “More laws” and “stronger laws” do not generally deter murderers.

Think again.

Maybe this needs to become a common occurrence before inconveniencing people on a massive scale. I get it with a plane. You get on and get off.

I have spent a good year of my life living in hotels that were more than 5 stories. This was for work and I would go in and out many of times a day. And I hade to carry tons of cases full of tools. If that shit had to be checked every time I went in to the hotel I would have just slept in a car of stayed in a single story motel.

And if we are going to check hotels we should also check car-parks. Those are tall and you don’t even have to break a window before shooting. And you have a big concrete barrier to hide behind. Metal detector might not be as effective there. Since cars are made of the stuff.

No. Terrorists will just switch to plastic weapons and 3d printers for banned weapons, I would start by having less people hate us.

No. And I would resist the temptation to overreact. Death stalks you at every turn, every day. It can’t be avoided. So live with it.

But guns aren’t illegal. What if they’re checking in to a motel for a gun shown the next few days?

Well, they could offer gun lockers in a back room or something. But really, I do not want hotel staff scanning me upon every entrance. Normally if I am in Vegas I want to party and that means I have some cocaine on me.

Dutchess, just the point I made above.
I still assert floor by floor security offices are a better way to go. There are a lot more issues with hotel security than guns. In fact, compare hotel shooters with rapists, stranglers, kidnappings. Geez. One shooter, we are ready to buy scanners.
A small corner booth, with one or two guys, and one strolling guard per say, each five floors.

Kind of goes against the whole Nevada open carry ethic.

@Patty_Melt :: WTF? Hotel “rapists, stranglers, kidnappings”.. I must be watching the wrong news sources.

So you want two guards per floor. 39 floors just for this hotel alone. I will exempt the first floor. That is 76 guards. Do you want real guards like ex-police/military? Or Paul Blart? Real cops will run you around 30 a hour (most likely way more when you toss in 401K, health, dental). 39*30*24*30*12= .... That is over 10 million a year. Or you could go Paul Blart for 9 a hour that would have been very ineffective in this situation.

Makes more sense than scanning luggage everywhere because of a once ever occurance.
How about thousands of unemployed war vets? They know how to stand a watch, and sure as fuck know what to do if they hear gunshots.
Don’t worry, they aren’t real likely to rat out cokeheads.

How about we get the vets good jobs instead of standing in a hallway waiting for something that will never occur. You know, engineers, welders, electricians, plumbers, and so on.

And lets say that every building over 5 stories needed such protections. It would be a economic diaster and there are not enough bodies to do it. I suppose we could bring in some Mexicans to fill the slots.

No, please. No more security theater.

I like good jobs for everybody who wants one. However, there are lots of unemployed vets trying, and for various reasons, not being hired.
I know many who would jump at hotel security for employment.
People need to stop thinking of security staff as intrusions, and remember the definition of the word security.

How do you feel about the federal government making you wear a seat-belt?

I hated it at first.
One night, a cop came to my door, and asked if I owned a ‘63 Impala. He told me my car was hit, and could I come out to the street.
My huge boom box was no longer in the back seat. I found it wedged under the glove box.
My big ass steal car was dented. The poor woman who lost control on the ice had been driving a compact, which was now half its origonal size. The grill was embedded in the motor, no radiator to be seen.
I suddenly heard crying in her car. In the back seat was a two year old girl, and a two month old infant girl. Both were safely strapped into appropriate carseats, and both were fine. The infant was hungry.
From that moment on, the chilling thought of “what if”, made me a solid lover of safety restraints.

Seat belt rules are decided by states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_States

I am in favor of required safety restraints, no matter who enforces it. Yes, it is state regulated, but federal is okay by me too.

So you are cool with Federally mandated healthcare. Since the argument of states knowing more about cancer is kinda bullshit. Cancer in Alabama is the same as Cancer in New York.

Don’t make assumptions.
I get my healthcare at the VA, so I excuse myself from decisions concerning healthcare for others.
And, I have just been sentenced with cancer. In regards to that, I feel quality of care varies from one facility to the next, and from one doctor to the next.

Until you make an “anger and resentment” detector, or a ” sociopathy” detector it won’t make a difference.
Those are the problems you are actually dealing with

It would be better if we didn’t allow them to take weapons out of gunshops in the first place.

Nobody wants more TSAs. Just give us common sense gun law. Goddamn.

No, metal detectors won’t work unless there is an armed guard next to each detector who is willing to question a potential hotel guest when the detector goes off. And take steps do deal with the issues that arise.

Israeli hotels have metal detectors because society there is used to armed incursions, and because Israeli hotels employ guards to enforce the rules. The US does not have that mentality yet.

Finally, in many states, including mine, there is Open Carry of firearms – people can carry their guns anywhere but schools and airports. In an Open Carry state, like Nevada, the metal detector would be going off every 4 minutes.

There are no “right” answers to the questions of what we can do to protect ourselves more, or to stop killings altogether. You raise the specter of more security and you raise the cost factor, which is unacceptable. There is no “win-win.” Welcome to today’s reality.

It would help some. But it would create lots of problems, and as @kritiper mentioned, increase costs.

I’ve worked venues before, where I pat down the males, and wand the females. But sometimes the owner would let people in the back door…

I was thinking that in the future, it could be wise to have a trained sniper at large outdoor gatherings like the one in LV. Most of the time, they would just be bored, but they could scan the area with binoculars during the event. It’s really fucking sad that this is where we are now,as a society….

If you put security theater on some hotels, copycat snipers will use other hotels.

If you put security theater on all hotels, copycat snipers will use other buildings.

If you put security theater on all buildings (?!?!), copycat snipers will use other places with good views.

There is no way to put security theater on all places with good views.

Are you going to start advocating for gun-detectors everywhere?

I could go many more levels of ridiculous, with everyone who is NOT planning mass murder being abused by TSA-style security and other intrusions wherever they go and whatever they do, meanwhile people wanting to do violence will just have to change their methods a bit.

Trying to prevent all possible attacks is not an effective way to address the problem. I’d say it’s even counter-productive, and a good example of “what you resist, persists”.

Why should we all have to get screened when all that is necessary is banning automatic weapons and the accessories that turn weapons into automatic weapons?

While we’re at it, let’s ban drugs, too.

I have read the OP, but I have only skimmed the thread.

It is pathetic that we are actually having this conversation.

We should not have to protect ourselves from getting shot by increasing surveillance! It should be harder to get guns to shoot us with instead!

^The guns are already in circulation. That’s the biggest problem, to me. And the reason that banning them would be largely ineffective, for stopping violence. Stopping just one would be nice though…

I’m all for making them way harder to get. Especially the more lethal varieties. Last time they did such a ban, it was clearly orchestrated by people ignorant about guns. Lower magazine capacity made some sense. Most outlawed guns though, were just the ones that looked intimidating. Many others were just as deadly, but had wooden stocks instead of pistol grips.

With these guns already out there in staggering numbers, it’s unlikely a ban will the desired effect. The weapons would have to be deemed illegal to own. That just won’t happen, and wouldn’t be realistically enforceable. The federal government would have to go door to door, to collect the weapons. Such a strategy would result in far more incidents of mass shootings. Who knows how many would die trying to disarm people who would otherwise never have had conflict with the government.
Would US troops kill hundreds of their own countrymen to enforce a firearms ban, loosing hundreds of their own in the process? Not realistic. Plus if any such idea was floated, sales of the proposed weapons to be banned would skyrocket. There would be more of those guns on the streets than if there wasn’t a ban. Then there’s the ammo. You should ban that as well.

The logistics of making a certain weapon, all of a sudden illegal, are ridiculous.

@MrGrimm888 We’ll just keep having the conversation because; “it okay to start shooting into a crowd with a semi-automatic gun
.”

@jca Source please on Wynn using metal detector wand.

^No. It’s not ok. I just don’t see banning the weapons totally as a realistic option, for reasons that I stated.

If I could trade all my guns for no more shootings, I would in a second. But I don’t see that as a solution. And a lot of Americans wouldn’t even do that.

Tax 7.62 rounds @ $100 each would be a start.

How about just $100.00 per round?

People can easily manufacture rounds in their garage so $100 a round just means people will injure themselves more often using hand loads. There are some just glaring answers here. Chain of custody for firearms probably the most important, you register and if you sell you and the buyer must transfer ownership just like with a car. If someone buys like 20 firearms it should raise flags. Many will cry registration leads to confiscation and that’s a legitimate concern but there was no restriction on registration in the 2nd amendment.
Limit high capacity magazines to like 10 rounds and make the workarounds such as bump stocks illegal. I fail to understand why anti-gun politics don’t go after that yet suppressors are under scrutiny. It’s still loud as hell and not like the movies. They just keep your hearing from being eviscerated even with protection.
Carry and licensing programs are a joke, everyone who purchases one should have to go through firearms safety and carry permits should require tiered classification where more training equals more carry rights. Also those who have gone through licensing and earned the privilege should not be burdened with the crazy ok here but not there laws we have. They should be uniform and the same everywhere, not just what one city wants. It’s so easy to run afoul of the law unintentionally simply because many laws are nonsense. A big peeve of mine is when people don’t store their guns safely and that it’s basically legal to leave a loaded gun laying out in the open. So many senseless injuries or deaths could be prevented just by using that little bit of common sense. There are a minority of “gun nuts” in the gun owner community that will persist in doing stupid shit. The rest of us who are responsible need to actively shame them.

@Tropical_Willie:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/wynn-las-vegas-encore-begin-checking-bags-with-metal-detectors/

Today, for the first time ever, I went through a metal detector before walking into a bank. It’s in between the double set of doors at the bank entrance. The second set, the inner doors, won’t open until the outside door is closed and you have passed through the detector. My initial thought was, I guess I’m in a bad part of town. It didn’t seem like a very bad area, but I don’t know that city well at all. Maybe that bank has just been robbed more than once? I remember now that the other branch I used to use, if you forgot to remove your sun glasses when you went in, an employee would inevitably ask you to. That branch didn’t have any sort of metal detector though. That other branch I used to use was in a high income area, everything picture perfect. I’m sure many of those sunglasses were Gucci and Chanel.

Metal detectors at hotels seems very impractical. So many entrances, and what if it picks up something metal that isn’t a weapon? Who goes and checks what’s going on?

I was shocked that at NYU hospital there is no check in, or security check. There is a security desk, and security personnel, but people come and go through the doors freely. I walked in with my suitcase, and an addditional bag. I didn’t see them question or stop anyone the ten days I was there. I don’t know if I want a metal detector there? Or, if I want anything there? It’s nice not to be quizzed or scanned when you walk in a building, but still I can see the argument for it in some cases. A metal detector isn’t that big of a deal. I know some schools use them, and I’m fine with that.

“Oh, that’s not a gun in my pants, it’s just the chastity cock-cage my Dom makes me wear. Would you like to see it?”

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There is wisdom and value in this principle.

Security theater is the opposite of this. Having any metal on my person should not be a reason to search my body and suspect me of criminal intent, just because I’m going someplace.

Acting like there’s an imminent attack everywhere and everyone is a suspect at all times is mainly going to add stress to everyone. It’s not going to stop attacks from happening, and I tend to think it’s likely to increase the insanity level, indirectly leading to more craziness and, yes, attacks.

@jca here’s the reason I’m asking about the metal detectors in Casinos It’s not illegal to have a gun in the Casinos in Las Vegas, you can conceal it if you have conceal carry permit.

@Zaku If you read your post a little more carefully you’ll see that it is referring to the government not being allowed to do those things without reasonable cause.
Apparently there IS an imminent attack everywhere. Jesus. Look at the news. Our gun laws did not help that situation ONE LITTLE BIT. He should have never had such weapons in the first place.

@Dutchess_III As an aside gun sales jumped right after the incident; like you would able to protect yourself at 300 yards with a 380 Ruger hand gun with accuracy range of a few dozen feet.

@Dutchess_III It is about the government, of course. Aren’t the proposals in this thread for government policies? Public buildings can and often do have policies against firearms, but you’d have to get everyone to agree to organize their own private metal detectors and security staff. If any buildings didn’t do that, those could be chosen by would-be snipers, and the others would mostly have completely wasted that effort instead of almost-completely wasting that effort.

And also no, the Fourth Amendment does not say “without reasonable cause”, it says “the right… shall not be violated… [without] probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the… persons or things to be seized”. That means you need to have probable cause supported by someone saying something like “Bobby Cletus Smythers has a grenade and is planning to use it on people”. It is the opposite of “attacks have happened and seem to keep happening, so everyone everywhere should be searched in any circumstance remotely in any way like what happened in one of them”.

You are right that are laws didn’t help one little bit. And pretty much no such law is liable to help one little bit. Added security measures, especially of the “metal detect everyone going into buildings” variety, are also unlikely to help. But they are expensive and can be annoying, and I tend to think they compound the problem by the way the shift the thoughts and conversations around security, as if it’s normal and expected and useful to have such measures everywhere, all of which I think are false and tend to move thinking in the direction of more violence, not less.