Armed Guards

imported post

I've been doing armed security for about a month now and it seems that most armed guards don't care for training/range time.

I've spoken to a few guards within my company and the only time they fired their firearm is to quailify. Furthermore, they don't carry OFF duty.

WTF

I knew that many armed guards don't care about their jobs (low pay, crappy sites, etc), but damn I would hate to be in trouble and theywere my backup.

Just something that puzzles me, yet doesn't surprise me.

imported post

Dan, you got a armed security job even with those arrests on your record? (NOT that they were valid arrests)

Good for you.

imported post

I saw a thread on here about this but can't remember where. It said something to the effect that employers of armed guards tend to stay away from people that state that they have extensive firearms training.

Seems that the reason behind this is that they don't want some gun-ho employee just itching to shoot someone.

I guess what they are hiring is the presence of an armed person. Not someone who can actually stop a crime or protect people with force.

imported post

Beau wrote:

Seems that the reason behind this is that they don't want some gun-ho employee just itching to shoot someone.

Click to expand...

No, they are like some here on OCDO, more concerned with impressions (that a jury may have given by an attorney) than the reality.

Some here preach against offending idiots with our selection of arms, even to disagreeing with the most effective ammo or a normal capacity magazine, for the impression of gung-ho killer in an idiot's mind.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

danbus wrote:

I've been doing armed security for about a month now and it seems that most armed guards don't care for training/range time.

I've spoken to a few guards within my company and the only time they fired their firearm is to quailify. Furthermore, they don't carry OFF duty.

WTF

I knew that many armed guards don't care about their jobs (low pay, crappy sites, etc), but damn I would hate to be in trouble and theywere my backup.

Just something that puzzles me, yet doesn't surprise me.

Click to expand...

What I find puzzling is why a lot of guards (armed and unarmed) will faithfully carry that badge of theirs in their wallet or purse (excluding those that are required to have both badge and cards on them at all times due to work/contract requirements) but no sidearm.

I think, like many in the LE or oc/cc community, they view going to the range or taking extra training just isn’t worth it. They’ve met the minimal standard to carry and that’s all they needed.

The certification and re-cert. course for armed security is not that hard of a course. After seeing some of them shoot, I’d rather be on my own. There’s been quite a few times that after shooting for certification, I’ve had more holes in the target than what I’ve fired.

A few good thing about working armed security is you can write off your taxes all range fees, ammo, targets, body armor and your firearms, if you have to buy your own for work.

unrequited wrote:

Dan, you got a armed security job even with those arrests on your record? (NOT that they were valid arrests)

Good for you.

Click to expand...

Only if he has been found guilty of any crime, drug or mental issue that makes him a prohibited person or basically puts him on the NICS list.

Beau wrote:

I saw a thread on here about this but can't remember where. It said something to the effect that employers of armed guards tend to stay away from people that state that they have extensive firearms training.

Seems that the reason behind this is that they don't want some gun-ho employee just itching to shoot someone.

I guess what they are hiring is the presence of an armed person. Not someone who can actually stop a crime or protect people with force.

Click to expand...

You maybe closer to the truth than you realize. Security companies (generally speaking) love to advertise that their employees are former or retired LE, military and so-forth, except for PPS (bodyguard) and that depends on the threat level, most are placed on low risk sites to avoid their possible use of their past training and arms.

Companies that contract security or hire security from within, usually do so just to get a reduction on their liability insurance. Most security companies strongly push the "observe and report" or "you are only there as a visible deterrent" policy.

imported post

danbus wrote:

I've been doing armed security for about a month now and it seems that most armed guards don't care for training/range time.

I've spoken to a few guards within my company and the only time they fired their firearm is to quailify. Furthermore, they don't carry OFF duty.

WTF

I knew that many armed guards don't care about their jobs (low pay, crappy sites, etc), but damn I would hate to be in trouble and theywere my backup.

Just something that puzzles me, yet doesn't surprise me.

Click to expand...

You and me both, friend (on the bolded text).

I've known a few LEOs who tend to think the same way and one (an Alexandria or Arlington officer as I recall) would have just as soon gone unarmed.. he was not particularly fond of carrying a sidearm. One has to pose the question; "why in the hell did you chose law enforcement as a career?".

I am pretty confident that you will separate yourself from the center of mass of security people by the simple fact that you are a member of this forum. This might be a good time to try to educate your fellow employees or maybe even pull them over to our side.

Good luck and please do watch your back!

imported post

danbus wrote:

it seems that most armed guards don't care for training/range time.

Click to expand...

the same can be said for LE, .mil, and even civilians (whether they OC or are CCDW Permit holders), too.

imported post

When my dad was in the army he was for a while assigned to be a payroll guard. They made him have to qualify with a handgun first, he passed as it was easy. So the first time they put him on this guard duty they hand him a .38 and 6 cartridges. He proceeds to load the gun and suddenly is yelled at "what are you doing?" and told to unload it. He is told the gun is just a deterrant ( or something goofy like that) and not actually meant to be carried loaded. My dad was like WTF, but didn't say anything, just followed his orders, putting the ammo in a pocket. Thankfully no one ever tried to steal the payroll money while he was doing this duty detail.

imported post

I worked armed security for a number of years. Every single post I was assigned had a set of orders that made it clear thatmy primary dutywas to "observe and report." A number of posts where large amounts of cash were involved, made it clear that I was NOT to draw the weapon to protect the cash - only if there was a specific imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. And that was clarified that the mere presence of a weapon did not yet reach the point where I could draw, let alone fire. Had to be something like a hostage taken or somebody specifically being targeted.

Armed security is mostly for show. There are a few places (nuke plants, etc.) where they are all business. Otherwise it is all about "observe and report."

That being the case, there is no incentive to be proficient with a weapon. Yes, you can write off your training costs on your taxes, but if you are making $10/hr you may not have enough $$ to pay for training, let alone itemize your tax return.

BTW, I did pay for training, and I did put in range time every week, and I did deduct my expenses from my taxes. But it was because I wanted to be proficient, not because my job required that I be. If the job required it, my employer should have paid for it. (Come to think about it, the two assignments where proficiency was an issue they did pay to send me for training and for range time.)

stay safe.

skidmark