Two decades since gun violence erupted on the scene at the USC Medical Center in 1993, Los Angeles County has decided to move on from the incident by planning to remove metal detectors and scanners from many major medical centers by the beginning of this summer.

According to the Los Angeles Times, L.A. County plans to remove 26 more metal detectors by June 30. With this move, it seems that commercial interests are becoming more of a concern that the issue of safety. And the removal of these security measures, prompted by the 1993 incident that left three wounded,  is a bit of a scary step — especially since there isn’t even a back-up plan.

Though the metal detector system might not be great, there’s no reason to scrap it. Until there is a new system in check, it is best to keep preexisting safety measures, especially for a sense of reassurance in a time warped by the issue of violence in public areas nationwide.

Walking through a metal detector in order to enter a hospital might not initially give off the most welcoming of auras, and might even suggest that the hospital could be unsafe, even dangerous. But unfortunately, this is now the world that we live in. Even hospitals — havens of hope and recovery — aren’t as safe as people like to think.

Hospitals, as welcoming as we want them to be, have to make safety a genuine priority, and if that safety can be found in metal detectors — the best that can be offered as of now — so be it.

This proposal to remove more metal detectors is creating quite an uproar from both sides; some hospital personnel say that taking away the detectors creates a more inviting atmosphere in hospitals, while others just don’t feel safe without it because, after all, just because it’s a hospital doesn’t mean that violence with weapons can’t happen there.

It’s not just the perceived intrusiveness of metal detectors and other safety equipment that some hospitals appear to be concerned about but rather, in an ironically selfish way, their financial interests, which hinge on getting people through the doors. What’s more ironic is that the force behind this new competitive nature between medical centers is the Obama administration’s healthcare overhaul, according to the L.A. Times. The plan to help those in need of affordable medical services is indirectly causing the county to take down security measures that have been in place for a reason, though that impetus arose two decades ago. By creating an increasingly competitive marketplace, the new healthcare system inadvertently increases danger. Safety cannot be compromised, especially not to give way to the forces of commerce.

Those who remember the 1993 incident are wary of removing the detectors, a system that probably could have prevented the entire episode, according to the L.A. Times. We owe it to those who have been hurt in gun-related incidents to keep up this current security system unless another, better plan is ready to take its place. As of now, metal detectors are the strongest bet that hospitals have against dangerous weapons making it inside.

Supporters of the removal have cited an Annals of Emergency Medicine study in September 2012 that “found hospital shootings [to be] rare” and “typically involve a ‘determined shooter,’” but it’s simply worth it to be prepared or have some sort of preparation for those “rare” moments, because, as they always say, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Granted, metal detectors are not the best way to close all the loopholes in ensuring security — not just at hospitals, but anywhere, whether it’s the airport or important government buildings. However, hospitals are places where lives are saved, and people ought to benefit from the best security possible. Even if the technology can’t catch every determined criminal, at least there is a bit of assurance to cling to.

Sometimes, that might just be enough; the sense of being secure makes a world of difference.

Until there’s a better system in place — which won’t be soon, seeing that America’s still on the fence on what to do about gun violence in the nation — L.A. County should not act so quickly without deliberation on what’s ahead and if the safety alternatives it has in mind will be any better.

Valerie Yu is a freshman majoring in biological sciences and English. Her column “Heart of the Matter” runs Fridays.