Large public events can be made safer but perfect security is impossible in a free society

Source: Juliette Kayyem. "Can We Make Events Like the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Safer? - The Atlantic." April 27, 2026. www.theatlantic.com

The Gist

The author argues that while we can make big public events safer through better security planning, we can never make them completely safe without destroying what makes them valuable in the first place. She says the goal should be reducing risk while keeping events open and meaningful, not building fortresses that eliminate the freedom and community these events are supposed to celebrate.

Conclusion

Large public events like the White House Correspondents' Dinner can be made safer through better planning and security measures, but eliminating all risk is impossible without sacrificing the freedom and openness that make such events valuable

Premises

  1. The realistic goal of event security is risk reduction, not risk elimination
  2. Vulnerability is a natural consequence of the freedom and access that democratic events require
  3. Effective event security requires balancing three goals: reducing risks, coordinating defenses, and preserving the event's essential purpose (fun, community, celebration)
  4. Hard security measures (guns, guards, gates) can protect core areas but create soft vulnerabilities elsewhere
  5. The WHCD shooting demonstrated insufficient protective planning, particularly in areas outside the main ballroom
  6. Future events should implement better security measures like moving to more controllable venues with limited access
  7. Completely secure alternatives (like Trump's proposed White House venue) would undermine the democratic purpose of press freedom events

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai