Having been through real security situations, I've concluded that most advertised deterrent mechanisms are only a prop or at best the first target that do little more than cost the attacker(s) a moment or so more in their execution than they'd otherwise have.

But my experience is not comprehensive. Being shot at by bad guys while under security escort, or living in a compound where active roving security is constantly present, or having to wear body armor most of the time is not a common thing here in the states, yet. Hopefully none of you will have to experience that at your home or place of work. Based on my experiences, and those of others who've dealt with similar circumstances, our approach made more practical sense than just posting a sign out front or hiring and posting guards at the entrance/on patrol or putting in a metal detector.

No one is talking about turning anything into a shooting gallery. Being prepared to use lethal force and having a plan for deployment that incorporates stealth does not inhibit any of the other aspects of a security protocol. Rather, it validates them, as there is no security without potential force deployment, only a facade. If you don't have a plan that includes the potential use of force, then you don't have security.

Just different philosophies I guess. Layers of security is always the most preferable approach. The use of force should always be the last resort.