The costs of operating one meaningfully (and not merely as a means of security theater) are considerable, and grow each year they are used. The machines need to be maintained and regularly calibrated, and the personnel running them must be constantly trained to look for the evolutionary methods that people come up with to smuggle a weapon into an area.

Those costs (e.g., equipment, labor, training, etc.) will undoubtedly be passed on to moviegoers in ticket prices; shoppers in merchandise costs; and venue visitors in their ticket sales. Regardless of what people say, security is never cheap, nor should it be.

 

Practicality

If you consider all of the post 9/11 behavioral changes that have occurred in this country, none has generated more anger or angst than those encountered by the traveling public at airports. TSA has been the centerpoint in those arguments, with travelers frustrated by long lines, invasive screening, the inability to take more than 3 ounces of liquids with them in their carry-on luggage, and having to take their shoes off for screening. All of that is on top of the full-body scans that many people find are far too revealing for their comfort. Let’s also not forget about secondary screening that can mean a full-body pat down.

Now imagine that at the movie theater, the shopping mall or any other place you, your spouse, your date, your family, or anyone around you might visit. Besides having to arrive extra early to get your tickets and popcorn, you now have to add more time to be screened before you take your seats or go about your day.

The result of something like this process would be that sales of movie tickets would plummet considerably, with theaters and adjoining restaurants and shops closing because people would choose not to patronize these places because of those experiences. Furthermore, a nation that finds itself increasingly having its only vibrant interactions via Facebook and the Internet finds itself further and further isolated from real human contact, with people never leaving home because they don’t want to deal with the hassles of secure entry.

Here’s another point to consider: Following the July 7, 2005, London bus and subway system bombings, there were public debates about screening subway commuters in New York City, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere to prevent similar incidents from happening here. Very quickly people came to the conclusion that to screen every passenger would be impractical and that the regular operations of the transportation systems they sought to protect would grind to a complete halt. People were also quick to realize that such a practice would dramatically affect the economy and fabric of life in those areas.

Today, the only thing you will find in New York City, Washington, and other cities are random bag checks of passengers, along with increased patrols and use of various technologies to safeguard and monitor riders.

 

Personal Liberty

While cost and practicality weigh a lot in this debate, the personal liberty issue is the one that probably creates the most emotion. Since 9/11 the debate about personal liberties and infringements upon them has grown. With cameras mounted on many city blocks keeping a watchful eye, new security protocols in place, and a digital world that increasingly finds more about us every day through new algorithms and sells those findings to the highest bidder, we are an overly observed and fatigued people under a microscope peering deeper and deeper into our lives.

America was built upon the precept of having a free and open society. You had the opportunity to be what you wanted to be, to go where you wanted to go, and do what you wanted to do. For as much as we believe that we still have those abilities, many people think we are losing more and more of our freedoms, all in the name of security and protecting the public.

That argument has a lot of merit, but the other side of that dispute has just as much validity when increased threats and risks to public safety through acts of terror, senseless violence, and other means are always out there.

Achieving the perfect balance between individual freedom and public safety/security is a challenge we have not mastered since 9/11. It’s only become more complex as incidents, large and small, humiliating and horrific, befall us as we go about our daily lives.

We relish as Americans to be ability to go out and just do something. It can be a walk in the park. Maybe going to a bookstore. It might even be a late night movie on opening night. We see no risks in doing any of those things, but through misfortune or tragic fate, any of those things could be the last thing any of us does in our lives for reasons that are as sudden as they are tragic.

The challenge we will always face in the free society of America is how much intrusion and infringement we want to our daily lives. Some people would welcome the addition of a metal detector to movie night. Others see it as one more obstacle to going about life.

This debate did not start as a result of the Aurora movie theater shooting, but it’s about to grow louder.