imported post
I have to disagree. Unarmed security is very useful to the businesses.
Armed security makes places safer. Unarmed security looks for, reports, and deters property crime and shoplifting. They have different uses/purposes.
Obviously, mall owners are more concerned with graffiti, shoplifting, etc. A few rare cases of violence aren't going to hurt their pockets near as much as constant property crime. They focus on the bottom line. The bottom line for them is protecting profits, and unarmed security is cheaper and just as effective as armed security for these purposes. They figure the cheap, unarmed security can just call the well-trained, but free, armed security(the police.)
Both sides of this silly issue are arguing whether unarmed security is useless. One side is recognizing the limitations of unarmed security while not acknowledging its usefulness. The other side is only recognizing its usefulness while ignoring its limitations. If either side was to look at this from both angles, each would see that his/her point is not contradicted by the other's. (except for the absolute statements that are just plain silly. ie: unarmed security is absolutely worthless, period.)