How can I make a case to be armed

[FireEMSPolice]

I was sitting and thinking of all the crap that is going on and wondering how I can write a letter to corporate office to make a case so they allow us to be armed, or at least carry and ASP or OC. Heck, I am willing to provide the firearm (a Sig Sauer P226 .40) and ammunition if they pay for the school (I dont think it costs more then $200.00). They still save! There are some of us with a wealth of firearm experience (former/current armed guards, former LEO's/Military, etc). There are those of us who I wouldnt trust with a homemade blowgun but for those of us who have the knowledge, I say why not? Those without the knowledge, why not give them OC until they can be trained?

Thanks for any advice.

[Chucky]

I'm sure it's not the gun that is holding your and many others up from being armed. I wanted to get liability insurance so that I could freelance for companies that only need armed every so often. The best I could find was $14K per year. That amounts to a lot of working hours just to break even. So if your company can't convince their clients that they will need to pay more for armed.Guess that's what food stamps are for.

[Bill Warnock]

I'm sure it's not the gun that is holding your and many others up from being armed. I wanted to get liability insurance so that I could freelance for companies that only need armed every so often. The best I could find was $14K per year. That amounts to a lot of working hours just to break even. So if your company can't convince their clients that they will need to pay more for armed.Guess that's what food stamps are for.

Chucky, blunt but accurate!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Investigation]

The question is, do you work in an area where you feel that your safety is being compromised? If so, then personal protective equipment must be issued, or the company needs to change the way you operate in order to make it safe. If you’re just sitting at a desk in a lobby, and are rarely exposed to potentially dangerous criminal activities, then it would be hard to justify having a firearm or any other tool. It's going to cost your company more than 14K per year if you do get seriously injured on the job.

[N. A. Corbier]

Its easy to get around the OSHA PPE rule. There's no occupational hazard of injury when your job is to "observe, report, and do not intervene." Which is what most companies tell the insurers and OSHA, it lowers their insurer rates and makes OSHA happy. This is why most companies do not give out gloves, but do give out coats. One is not an occupational hazard (our guards should never come in contact with bodily fluids, that is intervention), the other is (our guards will come in contact with inclement weather working open air sites without protection. We will provide this coat as PPE against the cold and rain.)

You have three groups you have to convince for your site to be armed: Your company (who has to have a firearms rider and other insurance riders on purposeful use of force, wrongful death, errors and omissions, etc that they don't have to have otherwise...), the client (who's insurance will increase for having contractors with guns, as well, along with the social stigma of being "unsafe" enough to give security guards guns), and the state (who, in most cases, wants to see cause to arm.) The state is the easiest.

Paying for your course, and buying a gun for you is the least of their worries. Their worries include: Will this make our insurance go up? Will the client pay a higher man hour rate? Does our contract allow them to break the current one to get an armed rate contract? Can we maintain or increase or level of profit after signing an armed rate contract with this client? Will the client require our employees to be more than a visible presence?

Remember, if the client starts saying things like, "Now we have armed guards, they should start escorting people out or arresting shoplifters," the company hears: "We want you to engage in activities that guarantee an increase in injuries, liability insurance rates, and worker's compensation coverage." Don't even factor in the possible employee LOD death issues, which may make the insurer drop them.

On the other hand, the client starts asking questions like... Why can't the guards just wait for the police like they do now? Is this mall so unsafe that the security guards have to carry guns? How well trained are those guards? What if they shoot someone accidentally? How much will our insurance go up when we hire armed guards? How much more will an armed guard cost? What will the liability be if our guard shoots someone?

The first step would be examining what you do at the mall. If its observation and reporting without intervention, then there's no purpose for you to have a gun. If you take shoplifters or other people violating laws into custody, examine how much training you have had, and continue to get, in such operations. If its minimal or none, and you just "do it," I have doubts that your company will arm your post.

[FireEMSPolice]

I am a mall security supervisor. We are in-house. Sorry for leaving that out.

[N. A. Corbier]

Take everything I said about "the company," and replace it with "corporate management," then everything about "the client,' and replace it with "corporate asset prevention + mall management."

[Protective_Services]

I have to agree with the above posts. If you are employed by the mall this is going to be about insurance, liability and cost. I feel more malls should have armed trained qualified security. It all boils down to what the mall is willing to pay for armed guards. I recommend submitting your ideas in a letter form to your employer and see what kind of response you get.

[CorpSec]

They will never go for it. No matter how good of a case you make. It is all about the bottom line and perception. They will worry that if mall A, mall b, and mall c don't arm their staff, then shoppers will perceive their mall as less safe and spend their cash elsewhere.

Also, at a mall, you are almost always going to have someone down range in a shooting incident.

None of the malls around here have armed staff. A few do outfit their officers with vests, batons, and OC.

[echo06]

They will never go for it. No matter how good of a case you make. It is all about the bottom line and perception. They will worry that if mall A, mall b, and mall c don't arm their staff, then shoppers will perceive their mall as less safe and spend their cash elsewhere.

Also, at a mall, you are almost always going to have someone down range in a shooting incident.

None of the malls around here have armed staff. A few do outfit their officers with vests, batons, and OC.

"Someone always down range"...I have been waiting for someone to bring up that important and overlooked fact.


I do not know the experience of everyone on these boards so I will not try to pretend to know their background and/or experience but if you have ever had to point and fire a gun under a high adreniline rush, then you can relate.


Lets say you do get lucky enough to even hit the intended subject and the bullet makes an exit wound hitting a child or innocent civilian? You may have won the battle but you have lost the war.

[FireEMSPolice]

I just want some method of defense, if not a firearm then maybe an ASP or something.

[Lawson]

Lets say you do get lucky enough to even hit the intended subject and the bullet makes an exit wound hitting a child or innocent civilian? You may have won the battle but you have lost the war.

Unfortunately, when you arm up, you have to realize, there may be a time where you just dont have a shot and all you can do is soak rounds until that opportunity presents itself.

[acrand]

"Someone always down range"...I have been waiting for someone to bring up that important and overlooked fact.


I do not know the experience of everyone on these boards so I will not try to pretend to know their background and/or experience but if you have ever had to point and fire a gun under a high adreniline rush, then you can relate.


Lets say you do get lucky enough to even hit the intended subject and the bullet makes an exit wound hitting a child or innocent civilian? You may have won the battle but you have lost the war.

Excellent Point! This was the first thing I thought of while reviewing this topic. I have managed both Armed and Unarmed services and I still struggle with this topic. The state in which I work, only requires an 8 hour training course for an Armed Guard License. A prerequisite is that you must have a current Unarmed License. 8 hours, however, is a joke when you are talking about firearms training. I say this even being a Firearms Instructor for the state. 8 hours does not prepare you to carry a firearm in the course of your duty.

From my experience, alot of Security Officers, not all, but alot, do not comprehend the impact that a firearm can have if used in the line of duty. You will be sued. That is for sure. You may win, but you will be sued. That alone is a long, tiresome, exhausting process that will take a toll on not only you, but your family as well. And that is if everything went right during the incident. Lets say you were met with gunfire and proceeded to fire back in defense of your life. How many rounds actually hit your target? And how many rounds missed your target, and went straight into the daycare facility behind your target? YOU WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ROUNDS. At least in the state where I am you will regardless of the situation. And then there is the psychological effects of actually taking someone's life you may or may not suffer. It goes on and on. It will be a life changing experience.

After all is said and done, I am obviously for being armed, however, Officers that are armed must attend training above and beyond what most states are requiring, and continue that training. And not just range training. Liability Training would also be great so that all Officers understand what the outcome will be when you fire your weapon in the line of duty. I can go on and on about this topic, but I will end here.

Good luck to all and stay safe.

[SecTrainer]

I just want some method of defense, if not a firearm then maybe an ASP or something.

The case against firearms in terms of the public image, the liability, cost of effective training, etc. can be very difficult to overcome absent what I would call a "clear and present danger" for armed assault within a particular venue. When such danger (risk) exists, the arguments swing markedly in the other direction.

However, I do not think the case against arming officers in almost any venue with Tasers is nearly as effective - at least, I have not been persuaded by any arguments I have seen. There is virtually no venue in which the prospect of at least unarmed personal violence, as well as violence with weapons such as knives, does not exist in this country, and that includes libraries, churches and old folks' homes. Despite some adverse incidents with Tasers (which always receive a lot of publicity thanks to our press), and have triggered some lawsuits, I know of none that have actually prevailed to date. Last time I checked the Taser site, they were reporting that none had prevailed, anyway.

Not only is the Taser suited for the more typical situation of unarmed physical violence, knife attack, etc., but the Taser is also perfectly suited to venues where the consequences of a stray bullet would make a firearm virtually impossible to deploy, such as a shopping mall, hospital ER, etc.

My inclination would be to arm officers with firearms in the venues where they are obviously appropriate and necessary, and all others with Tasers. Did I say "all others"? Yes, because I still believe that the phrase "unarmed security officer" is an oxymoron, and is becoming more so by the day. I don't personally care if all the client wants is "observe and report", bad guys have this nasty tendency to attack first and ask questions later. HELLO....BAD GUYS DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT "OBSERVE AND REPORT", so when a confrontation occurs, all of that garbage goes out the window anyway. Truth be told, there is NO SUCH THING AS "OBSERVE AND REPORT" and any security officer in any venue is quite likely to find this out the hard way. Action might not be his mandate, but the situation will override his mandate, and he will either take action or someone is going to be seriously injured...or die. All this "observe and report" nonsense is crap when the rubber meets the road, and we're derelict in allowing clients to believe it's a realistic strategy in the first place, because it isn't realistic, and in fact, it isn't "security" at all. It's time for "observe and report" to die the undignified death it has always deserved....or else call these people "observers", and not "security officers" because they're no such thing.

(It should also be noted, incidentally, that "armed" does not necessarily have to mean "open-carry" with respect to firearms. There might be some venues where I believe officers should have a firearm for self-defense purposes, but for reasons of public relations would outfit them in a way to permit concealed carry. So if the objection is merely one of "appearances", that little problem can easily be solved.)

And, finally, there is the question with armed officers of what load they should carry. Obviously, there is a wide range of choices, and the type of load can, to a significant degree, minimize some of the concerns about strays, etc. So, for armed officers, the company should carefully consult the wealth of information available about different loads, as well as firearms experts, select appropriate loads, and then mandate that only those authorized loads may be carried.

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer, well said. Security Consultant this will tickle your heart. I was asked to do a physical security survey based on the proposed client's preconceived notion there was nothing wrong and "if I would take his analysis of the site with an emphasis of observe and report" he and his management would be most appreciative.
I told him I did not validate their report without first doing my own on-site visit. I also told him my flat fee was $80 an hour plus travel and lodging expenses and those expenses submitted on behalf of any subcontractor of my choosing. Additionally, he and his management would have to agree to terms that stipulated he would have to complete my security survey which would probably take a better part of two weeks. Additionally, he would sign an agreement the report would not be altered or unduly influenced by anyone to include attempted changes in Observations and Recommendations and there was no place or personnel on the site that would be off limits to me and or any subcontractor I hired to conduct certain phases of the validation once on-site.
He declined to use my services.
No reputable security surveyor would ever write a report site unseen with the objective to agree with what management wanted it to say.
"Observe and Report" is akin to using a wheelbarrow with a square wheel. A nonstarter!
Enjoy the day,
Bill