Should there be more armed Security Officers?

[Rooney]

I agree with alot of the points on this thread. My opinion on armed personnel on campus is thus:

1. Security officers: With extensive training on small campuses that do not have their own armed police force or municipal LE on site, yes.

2. Most larger campuses like the ones here in Arizona have their own state registered LE that are armed.

3. If a campus is using contracted security I believe it depends on the company size and background. i.e. Joe Blows security versus Blackwater, Wackenhut, etc.

With all of the gun debate I have heard on the "media" lately since this horrific event, a few things stand out that I would like some of your opinions. I will post a thread on this forum.

[BadBoynMD]

I need some clarification on this Hopefully. If the Federal government (FBI) is a big part of the process of me getting a LTC/CCW then why is it illegal for me to carry in a Federal facility while I am performing business there? IE Post office
VA etc.

Of all the shootings at a post office I can't remember a time when the perp had the weapons at work with him. He always came to the PO armed to the hilt form the outside for the sole purpose of killing. Do they not trust their own background checkers? It's kind of like the DMV issuing a drivers licence then telling you not to drive on state roads.

The FBI has a small part in a CCW permit issuance. All you're doing is a FBI fingerprint card, which is mailed to the NCIC HQ in West Virginia. All the FBI will tell the jurisdiction of your application is if, there any criminal findings on this you. Each state is different when it comes to where you can and cannot carry. For instance in Maryland the only place you can't carry is any public (I think even private) schools. You use to be able to carry inside a courthouse IF you were on duty. I think that rule has changed. I haven't been in court in a long time (thank God, I hate testifying lol).

As for Federal buildings.. don't feel bad, alot of police officers can't even carry in most federal buildings.

[power102]

I think Gonzo is talking about, if the situation should ever arise...having a locked cabinet of firearms, ready to be quickly accessed. I would still rather already be armed in the first place though.
Personally, I think both armed & unarmed officers are needed, depending on where he/she is located and whether the paying account gives permission to require their guards to be armed.
IMO...Most paying accounts that have a "no gun" policy for their guards are due to the comfort level for the employees/residents of that location, all I'm saying is...maybe "unarmed" security officers (who want something better than pepper spray) should atleast carry (or be allowed to carry) a concealed firearm on the job - to maintain the comfort level and "appearence" of being unarmed. After all....a class-A shirt ordered from Galls and a radio doesn't do a thing when it comes to the safety of yourself when your the one who's being payed (or under-payed) to be a "first responder" (as the DIVE team commander would put it ).
I've seen unarmed security officers in banks...it doesn't make sense, especially knowing that the guard himself would be the first one (besides the teller with the safe combo) to get a gun pointed at him.

I'm not "putting down" unarmed guards (I'm aware that some guards would rather stay unarmed for their own comfort level, or whatever their reason may be), I'm just saying that If I were a criminal, I would much rather make an attempt to rob/shoplift/ect. from a place without worrying about an officer drawing down on me while I was trying to escape...or if I planned on shooting him/her..I wouldn't have to worry about that officer returning fire.
as far as hotel security (or something along the lines of that)...hell, a wacko on a shooting rampage could unload on crowds at a Hyatt just as easy as a mall or campus.

[gonzo1510]

I think Gonzo is talking about, if the situation should ever arise...having a locked cabinet of firearms, ready to be quickly accessed.

That's what I was trying to get across... thanks Power102.

If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun.
LOL! Nice way to put it.

Well, it's funny but true .....

[Christopherstjo]

First, I've never quite bought into the insurance companies' position because I've never seen any real loss numbers. If we have, say, 1.5 million security officers in the US and if 5% are armed (I've seen figures ranging from 3 to 5%, so let's use the top estimate), that's around 62,500 armed officers. How many incidents are there in a year in which an officer is involved in a "liability shooting" - i.e., a "bad" shooting that invokes liability? More to the point, what, really, are the total losses to insurance companies from such liability?

As daring of a thought as this may be. I believe the hype of insurance liaiblity claims is not based upon actual monetary losses of substantial amounts suffered by insurance companies or even that of a high rate of actual liable shootings. Rather, I believe it is based primarily upon the poor image and lack of credibility that security officers have because of the lack of a standards of practice and because of such, we are labled as "high risk"