At the gym yesterday I saw this inane exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Brian Todd about security at the Holocaust Museum:
TODD: ...CNN's security analyst, Mike Brooks, says his law enforcement colleagues in Washington are telling him this space -- in here and in there, where you can enter again unchecked before you hit the security MAGS -- could represent a vulnerability, Wolf.
That's got to be something that they will be looking at.
BLITZER: But is there an alternative? Because there are a lot of museums in Washington that have exactly the same kind of security.
TODD: That's exactly what I asked Mike Brooks. And he returned the question to me.
He said what is the alternative?
Are you going to have large crowds of tourists waiting outside in potentially bad weather elements to clear security?
Are you going to put security MAGS outside?
There may not be a great alternative here. But he says this incident, like the Capitol shooting more than a decade ago, represents one concept here. You have to remember, if someone has a gun and they want to shoot up a building like this, they can get into at least some kind of perimeter and have some chance to penetrate.
But he says after every incident like this, law enforcement, federal and local, they'll review the procedures. They're going to certainly going to review the layout of this building here and see what could have worked and what might not have worked.
BLITZER: I'm sure they'll do a complete and thorough review (INAUDIBLE) study, as they call it.
In the wake of a tragedy like this, there is an understandable desire to improve security, but in this case the system (apparently) worked. The shooter did not clear security and the guards at the Museum immediately returned fire. The idea that it's a vulnerability to be able to enter "unchecked before you hit the mags" (i.e. metal detectors) is crazy. As Todd admits, there's no good alternative. If the security screening takes place outside, then a random shooter could still kill people there.