Pretty much yes, Ben.
You notice something like it with airline passengers too.
They want the planes and airports secured but they get real annoyed about the need to go through security checks or to have their luggages inspected. It was especially so when the security was dramatically increased and became much more visible after 911.

People get the security they are willing to pay for. It is not just the money cost either.
The cost includes inconvenience and the challenge to their world view as well.
Even a house alarm costs you some convenience because you have to make the effort to set and maintain it. The more elaborate the security measures are the more inconvenient they are.

The challenge to the world view is a bit more deep. It would seem seeing security in place should make people feel more relaxed, but a lot of people are just reminded that the world is not as secure as they would like and they find that disturbing.

There is one other problem with security on a church. The Church wants to project the image of welcoming all persons and the image of being a safe refuge from the world at the same time.
Security negates both of those conflicting messages.

If you need people with guns protecting it then it is not a safe place, it is a place under siege.
If security is screening people at the door then they are not openly welcoming because they are excluding some people who are regarded as unacceptable threats.

I won't even go near what security means in regards to the power of God to save people from evils.
----edit-----
Anyway, at the end of it all I would still say the first thing is to get control of the doors. You can call your people ushers, you can call them greeters. You can call them whatever you like, and they can be as smiley as you want.
Just so long as they easily identifiable and are competent to secure the access points.
If they can screen for you, and if there is a problem create enough of a disturbance and delay for the next level of response to get there, they have done great.