Speak for yourself lol I've been excellently taught on all aspects of security, weapons, surviving edged weapons, controlling aggression, taking down suspects. surveillance..................................etc etc etc.
Security Guards switching unarmed to armed..
- Thread starter PiedmontChun
- Start date
Speak for yourself lol I've been excellently taught on all aspects of security, weapons, surviving edged weapons, controlling aggression, taking down suspects. surveillance..................................etc etc etc.
Huh, yeah of course, you have the advantage there and respect due. Me, yeah yeah whatever
Huh, yeah of course, you have the advantage there and respect due. Me, yeah yeah whatever
LOL, told you, join the MDP! (pays good!)
Would be an idea. I did try for the PCSO's, but have a criminal record so got knocked back. Tbh, I deal with enough electronic paperwork as it is
Would be an idea. I did try for the PCSO's, but have a criminal record so got knocked back. Tbh, I deal with enough electronic paperwork as it is
What's electronic paperwork or even paperwork, that's what the admin people are for lol.
Crazy Eyes
Yellow Belt
As an unarmed mall cop, I don't find the lack of a gun to be a hindrance. When push comes to shove, I bring the crazy.
What is a 'mall cop'? over here only police officers can call themselves 'cops ie police officers, it's an offence to impersonate a police officer.
Crazy Eyes
Yellow Belt
While not actually a police officer, the bad guys do call us 'mall cops.' I'm quoting them more than I am trying to make myself seem more than I am.
Same over here. Well not as much as I have heard Americans use the term. Mind you though, the terms of endearment tend to be a little more profane that I have experienced lol.
Tgace
Grandmaster
This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard. Possibly THE most ridiculous this month.
Generally, it's a sort of pejorative term for security officers working at a mall. Their duties, authorities, and professionalism range from squirrelly jokes up to folks who really take their job seriously and do it well.
Since I've put my two cents in...
I don't know why the business switched to armed security. There could be a lot of reasons, ranging from government security requirements on a new contract, down to "just 'cause the owner/heads of the company wanted armed guards." In Virginia, there can be a small legal advantage, in that an armed guard has a little more arrest authority than an unarmed guard on the same property. I'd have to dig into the Code, but I don't think they're actually required to have a gun, only be a licensed, armed guard.
Personally, I'm not a fan of armed guards as a general rule -- unless the post or situation merits lethal force options. Here, a guards primary job is to observe and report, with limited duties and expectations of intervention. They're guards, not enforcers. That said, there are places where the guard needs to be armed. It may be a bad neighborhood, and it's for the guard's own protection from real threats. It may be the value of what they're protecting, and the likelihood that anyone trying to get into the place will be armed (armored car carriers, or high end jewelery shops, for example). Or that what they are protecting merits that level of protection -- like the guards at nuclear plants or protecting some highly classified material. In other words, like any other security decision, it's a balance of the risks involved against the need for protection.
I don't know why the business switched to armed security. There could be a lot of reasons, ranging from government security requirements on a new contract, down to "just 'cause the owner/heads of the company wanted armed guards." In Virginia, there can be a small legal advantage, in that an armed guard has a little more arrest authority than an unarmed guard on the same property. I'd have to dig into the Code, but I don't think they're actually required to have a gun, only be a licensed, armed guard.
Personally, I'm not a fan of armed guards as a general rule -- unless the post or situation merits lethal force options. Here, a guards primary job is to observe and report, with limited duties and expectations of intervention. They're guards, not enforcers. That said, there are places where the guard needs to be armed. It may be a bad neighborhood, and it's for the guard's own protection from real threats. It may be the value of what they're protecting, and the likelihood that anyone trying to get into the place will be armed (armored car carriers, or high end jewelery shops, for example). Or that what they are protecting merits that level of protection -- like the guards at nuclear plants or protecting some highly classified material. In other words, like any other security decision, it's a balance of the risks involved against the need for protection.
RowdyAz
Orange Belt
That's the reasoning behind the laws in Australia. Don't shoot the messenger. Unlike some I'm not about to cry about it. We are more advanced than the mother country less crime, less idiots and far less hero's.
Really? and what crime do we have that you don't we don't have that many idiots and our gun laws are on par with yours.......
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
The reasoning is insurance. It is cheaper for a security guard to get hurt than for them to hurt a member of the public.
Well ok in part. There is much more nuance to this discussion.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
In Australia we cant lethal force everybody. So the rules are a bit different. It makes guns for protection a bit different.
Do you throw Koalas at them instead?
Given that now days anyone at any time can walk in heavily armed I would feel better that they were visibly armed as a deterrent You should have no problem talking with security or HR. In fact if it is not authorized you have a duty to do that because the person could be a problem..
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
-
-