Security Analyst anti-gun?

[Cruentus]

Get this:

O.K., I may be letting the cat out of the bag a little with my job, so please don't ask questions like "where do you work," etc., as I would like to keep that off the board.

But I will say without giving too much away that I am the regional operations manager for a security company. We have some fairly large corporate and federal clients, and we are on the homeland security tier. We do both asset and principle protection (I usually do/will do the principle protection work myself). I am in charge of hiring, firing, training, and making sure each site and client is secured appropriately.

Essentially because of my job, I am armed most of the time.

When I work in the office, I am in a suit, and I have my pistol holstered inside the waistband. It is usually visable without my jacket, and I don't wear my jacket in the office in the summer months.

Even though the only position higher then me is the 2 owners, I essentially man the desk in the front to both protect the front as well as get the majority of my work done. I have other offices with doors that I use for training and interviews, but the rest of the time I man the front.

I have a customer service rep. (as I jokingly call her which pisses her off) who works for us also, out of my branch office. She is technically a security analyst, but she doesn't do much of that. She mostly has the inflated title, and she does client communication. She has the credentials for analyst work in terms of her education background, but none of the street smarts. But she is good at what she does when it comes to client communication and so forth.

Anyways, this chick is about 26 or 27 years old with 2 MBA's. respectable, except when you consider that she has been (and still is) on her parents dime, and this is like her 1st real job ever. She has been a school girl for over 20 years. Did I mention no street smarts?

I am maning the front and working, and she was by my area and she says this while taking notice of my gun:

"I don't like guns..."

I reply: "That's cool.... guns aren't for everyone..."

her: "No...I am anti gun, I don't think that you should be armed."

Me: "(laughing) good luck with that!" (keep in mind that we employ armed guards)

Her: "I am serious...guns are violent!"

well....I'll get to part 2 later tonight. A security analyst who is anti-gun? Whats up with that!

When I get to part 2, you'all will laugh your *** off!

:supcool:
Paul

 

[Phil Elmore]

There are plenty of people working the self-defense, martial arts, and security fields who are irrationally anti-gun. There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens. The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study self-defense while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective means of self-defense.

 

[BruceCalkins]

I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.

 

[47MartialMan]

I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.

I have to agree. I worked as a security guard for one brief late spring/early summer. The father of a friend had a partnership in a Security company (now closed-bankrupted). There were a lot of festivals going on that particular year. In that particular point of time, I was living in the area of New Orleans (Louisiana-noted for finding a way or subject to throw a party). (Worse, doing one of my details, my girlfriend -now wife, came by to go to lunch, she forced/coexed me to pose silly with my guard uniform. I look rather young and silly in that pic.)

Anyway, you had to be over 21 and get a special license/permit to have a side arm.

Since I was a temp, I didnt want a license/permit (Which I should have went for, it was free and easy to get. In such a case, also easy to renew once had.). Many guards with that company were "old-timers", or those working for years as a SG. Two, out of dozens, did not have a side arm. I had asked (at different time intervals)-why. Their response, both disliked guns. Both were anti-gun liberals. Imagine that, SG people not wearing a side arm. However, in the SG field, there are some positions that do not require to have one.

So someone in a security field that doesnt like guns is synoymous with a person/assistant in a Dentistry office who cant stand the site of blood. Which the latter I know of one also.

 

[Andrew Green]

There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens. The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study self-defense while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective means of self-defense.

There are limits to everything. I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades. I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.

I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.

 

[47MartialMan]

There are limits to everything. I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades. I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.

I also don't think that private citizens whould (is this should?) be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.

Yeah, kinda brings up that county in Florida (I think) that had citizens carrying their guns around.

There was a reason why there is no longer the Wild West.

Besides, let the bad guys (wolves) carry theirs around without regard for gun laws anyway. Let the wolves have the fangs and the rabbits of society remain helpless.

 

[Cruentus]

There are limits to everything. I don't think Private citizens should be allowed to drive tanks, and carry machine guns & frag gernades. I don't think Artilery or mortar is appropriate for a home security set up regardless of whether you can afford it.

Dude...no one is saying that. The fact of the matter is this: the only thing that can equalize a firearm wielding assailant with reliability that we have available to us is a firearm. 2 people with bombs on their chests won't equalize each other out; they'll just blow each other up. There is potential to stop someone with a "frag grenade" if you shot him before he can use it. But, generally speaking criminals aren't getting a hold of heavy artillary where one would need heavy artillary to equalize, so that isn't even logical.

Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.

I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.

I would say that not allowing a citizen to carry in "public" is asking for more trouble then not. If a bad guy is going to rob the store or bank your in, or do something to you and your family, he is going to do so regardless of the gun laws.

I carry in public all of the time, on or off the job.

If I was a witness to a crime and an innocent person was hurt or killed, and I could have done something "if only I hadn't left my firearm in the car or at home"...well I don't know if I could forgive myself. That would haunt me for the rest of my life.

 

[Cruentus]

I think you are right about the need for the firearm But I have worked with many security officials that don't like guns. I feel in the trained hands of a professional a gun is a Powerful tool and gan do goos thing for safty. In your field You carry not to impress but to defend and only use when everything else fails. Keep up Keeping us safe. With or Without your side arm.

I have a lot of employees who are anti-gun. They are at unarmed sites that are painfully simple to guard, and that is just fine. When you are dealing with site protection, you have a lot of guards who don't carry. Many sites actually require you to NOT carry at the post. Most of this work is not glamerous or even interesting. They are basically only a walking 9-11 call.

Anyone who is serious into the security profession and wants to do more then just sitting in a guard shack or bouncing under table at a bar, however, needs to be armed. I just don't see any way around it, nor do I see how anyone serious into the profession could be anti-gun.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

There are plenty of people working the self-defense, martial arts, and security fields who are irrationally anti-gun. There are plenty of "martial" artists who dislike, fear, or otherwise oppose firearms ownership by private citizens. The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study self-defense while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective means of self-defense.

And as much as I know this....I still can't believe it when I see it!

 

[Andrew Green]

Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind. From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions. Neither is likely to change their mind.

The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.

In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often

 

[47MartialMan]

Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.

I would say that not allowing a citizen to carry in "public" is asking for more trouble then not. If a bad guy is going to rob the store or bank your in, or do something to you and your family, he is going to do so regardless of the gun laws.

I carry in public all of the time, on or off the job.

If I was a witness to a crime and an innocent person was hurt or killed, and I could have done something "if only I hadn't left my firearm in the car or at home"...well I don't know if I could forgive myself. That would haunt me for the rest of my life.

This brings me to my sarcastic remark;
Let the bad guys (wolves) carry theirs around without regard for gun laws anyway. Let the wolves have the fangs and the rabbits of society remain helpless.

I wont be a rabbit nor a wolf. I'll be the prepared human.

 

[47MartialMan]

Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind. From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions. Neither is likely to change their mind.

The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.

In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often

And that is why you can take your position.

Thus yours or anyone's in opposition, only matter to the situation and environment.

 

[Cruentus]

Part II

So we left off where she said guns are violent.

Me: That doesn't even make sense. A gun is an innatimate object, and can't have a trait like "violent."

Her: But only violent people carry guns...

Me: How can you say that? Do you think that every guard we employ or every cop on the street is a violent person?

Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.

Me: They have a capacity to use force...there is a different between being able to use force to stop violence, and being a violent person.

Her: Well....I just don't think that you should have a gun in the office.

Me: Yea...and when one of our many death threatners decides to come in here and collect on the threat, then who do you think is going to stop them? (side note: we average around 2 death threats a month - from disgruntled ex-employees to people who we have "busted" for one thing or another)

Her: That is what the police are for...

Me: The police can't be everywhere, and are usually called to a scene after things have already gone from bad to worse. The police will not be able to stop someone from barging in here and shooting up the place. That is why I am armed and why I am at the front desk here instead of in an office with my door shut.

Her: Well, you know 85% of people shot were carrying guns themselves?

Me: Good...then you should take comfort in knowing that if someone decides to come in here with a gun, then they'll shoot at me first. Besides that, I would have to actually see where that statistic came from:

Her: (rattles of some source)

Me: That's great, but I actually have to SEE it. As you should know from your extensive education background, where from and how stats are taken are about as important as the statistic itself. But that's mote...what I don't understand is how you can consider yourself a security analyst when your anti-gun. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But...if you want to debate this some other time when I am not trying to get work done, I'd be happy to oblidge."

Her: O.K....we'll debate. And remember, you always bring your sources to a debate.

Me: Actually, I would like you to bring every statistic you have. I, on the other hand, will bring nothing, and I will still beat you in the arguement. This is because the arguement boils down to very basic logic that no statistic can provide.

Well...I guess part II was sort of anti-climactic. However, it still amazes me that she can be anti gun and consider herself a security analyst. How can you assess a site and make a recommendation if you are morally opposed to an intricate part of what is needed to secure many sites? The whole thing just blows my mind...

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

Well, arguing this is kinda pointless and no one is going to change there mind. From one side the others seems irrational, but it goes in both directions. Neither is likely to change their mind.

The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.

In fact thats the way all us martial artists up here in Canada train, and we don't get shoot by armed bad guys very often

I am not claiming that you can't study martial arts and be against guns. I am saying that if one claims to be in support of an individuals right of self-defense, then one runs into a logical dilemma if they are against the right to carry.

 

[47MartialMan]

Very intresting.

Perhaps someone should "fire" her for being incapable of her job.

I bet if she was under "gun fire", she would be screaming at you to shoot back.

Then you can tell her to wave her stats at them.

I hate the statement-"guns kill people"....

 

[KenpoTex]

Paul, these stories would crack me up if they weren't so pathetic. I've been the guy that was stuck at sites where SG's weren't allowed to be armed (we weren't even supposed to carry pocket-knives...yeah right).

Thankfully the owner of the company I work for now came right out and told me that I can carry anything I want as long as it's legal...how refreshing. I get so sick and ********** tired of hearing people whine about how violent and awful guns are.

----------------------------------------
On the issue of weapons, specifically firearms, and self-defense; I agree that to separate the two is irrational at best. Once again, weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Whether they do it with their bare hands, a kitchen knife, or a .45 is really not relevant.

In saying that you support the right to defend yourself, but that you don't think people should own guns is to deprive them of the most effective weapon around. Yeah, I know, guns aren't a talisman that will solve all your problems. However, given the choice between having to fight with empty-hands, a knife or impact weapon, or a firearm; I'm going to pick the firearm just about every time.

I also don't think that private citizens whould be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence. Ownership for hunting / target shooting is something different. But carrying a weapon in public? Just asking for trouble IMO.

The point was that you can do martial arts and be against carrying firearms.

Andrew, in your "art/rank" line you listed MMA and Weapons. I'm curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs regarding firearms with your choice to train in systems that teach the use of weapons. I'll admit that I enjoy training with MA weapons (Bo, Nunchaku, sticks, tonfas, etc.) but they are nowhere near as effective as a firearm would be. However, at the time when all of these weapons were actually in use, they were all the people had. If I could go back to 15th or 16th Cen. Okinawa and hand some guy a .45, I'll bet the "chucks" would get tossed pretty quick in favor of a more effective weapon.

The point I'm trying to make (in my own roundabout way) is that in MA's, we train with weapons that were the best weapons available to the culture in question. Why wouldn't we apply that same logic to today's weapons and use the best ones that are available?

 

[47MartialMan]

The point I'm trying to make (in my own roundabout way) is that in MA's, we train with weapons that were the best weapons available to the culture in question. Why wouldn't we apply that same logic to today's weapons and use the best ones that are available?Thata because these weapons didnt kill

 

[Jerry]

Answering more than one poster... sorry.

The paradox in which these people are trapped never quite seems to dawn on them; they don't seem to realize that you cannot rationally study self-defense while opposing philosophically and politically the most effective means of self-defense.

I disagree. You cannot ignore the reality of firearms, nor ignore that you are reducing your ability by excluding yourself the option... but you can still oppose them.

Yeah, kinda brings up that county in Florida (I think) that had citizens carrying their guns around.

There's Kennesaw GA that dropped crime against persons 80%+ by instituting a manditory gun ownership law.

Because the only thing today that reliably equalizes a firearm wielding assailant is another firearm, then if you are not in support of the rights of the private citizen to carry, then you are not in support of the private citizens right to self-defense.

Actually, I'm going to have to agree with the original principle, though not the original line. It's a "line in the sand" where we make exclusions. If I am to believe the millitary, a beared assault rifle is preferrable to a concealed handgun for personal protection; and yet we don't allow those, nor would I choose to carry one.

If I was a witness to a crime and an innocent person was hurt or killed, and I could have done something "if only I hadn't left my firearm in the car or at home"...well I don't know if I could forgive myself. That would haunt me for the rest of my life.

But how far do you take it? What about the guy you could have gotten harmlessly with a tazer but you didn't have one, only your firearm? What about the person you could have rescued if only you'd brought your rope spool from home?

Don't get me wrong, if there were something I often carried it then didn't have when someone needed, no matter what that thing was, I would feel bad and remorseful; but that's not a good "why firearms must neccessairily be OK" reason.

Anyone who is serious into the security profession and wants to do more then just sitting in a guard shack or bouncing under table at a bar, however, needs to be armed. I just don't see any way around it, nor do I see how anyone serious into the profession could be anti-gun.

I don't see how any *successful* one could be... though I'm not sure on what *grounds* a combatant would be anti-firearm (unless he was anti-violence in general).

I am saying that if one claims to be in support of an individuals right of self-defense, then one runs into a logical dilemma if they are against the right to carry.

I don't see how placing a limit represents a logical delemmia.

(to head off the almost inevitable ad-hominym, I'm a happy gun-owner with a carry concealed permit in the state of Florida. I'm not opposed to firearms, and support the right to carry... I simply don't see it as a foregone conclusion).

 

[Andrew Green]

Andrew, in your "art/rank" line you listed MMA and Weapons. I'm curious, how do you reconcile your beliefs regarding firearms with your choice to train in systems that teach the use of weapons.

I also like shooting

But I don't carry any sort of weapon ever... unless of course I am going to go somewhere and train with it. See no reason too.

 

[Tgace]

Why train in martial arts then..do some running, lifting for exercise. Training for fighting promotes violence... [/sarcasm]