After Vegas, should hotels have metal detectors? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

There are metal detectors at places where large masses of people congregate, such as concerts, amusements parks, so, why not at hotels? Well, possibly because hotels aren't particularly common vantage points for mass killings. The recent mass shooting in Las Vegas from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay, which happened to look down on a country music concert venue, is the exception, not the rule. I believe it would be overkill to start looking through people's bags on the way in and out of hotels. Hotels and casinos are already trained to look out for bags that are carried or left on the floor, but other than perhaps advising staff to look out for guests who are hauling in inordinate amounts of luggage, hotels are not necessarily where terror killers would look to commit their dastardly, inhumane acts.

As far as disturbing guests regularly who have Do Not Disturb signs on their doors, which is another recent suggestion that has been thrown out there after it was noted that the Vegas shooter left such a sign on his door for days - well, it depends on the venue. In Vegas, high rollers routinely place such signs on their doors. It is normal in a place like Vegas to want privacy, especially if you are keeping odd, even nocturnal hours, gambling. While a Do Not Disturb sign left on the door in say, a destination where people might not normally spend much time in their rooms, such as Hawaii, perhaps should arouse concern, in Vegas, this is just par for the course.

In short, we can't change everything about our lives and start living in fear in desperate attempts to screen out terrorism. This is what terrorists want us to do. Yes the world has changed, but we can't sacrifice everything just to be more safe, especially when the added inconvenience of screening hotel guests entering a hotel would not eliminate much in the way of terror acts anyway, since not many actual hotel guests commit such acts.

Now gun control, on the other hand, is something that I do favor, and would have helped stop this mass shooting. Obviously background checks are insufficient because the average shooter who kills for no reason and no financial gain is an otherwise law abiding citizen who would be entitled to firearms and not screened out by a background check. Keeping firearms from the general public would solve most if not all of these acts. Countries like the UK have very strict firearm laws, and do not have problems with gun violence. We should learn from the example of gun control countries and enact such laws here. The wild west is over, there's really no need for the average citizen to have a firearm. Law enforcement protects us much better than our own gun toting, and the chances of a gun hurting or killing its owner or immediate family are much higher than its ever being used effectively for self defense.