Armed security

[wcd]

Ok so a company has a no firearms policy, which prohibits employees from carrying. Skip forward a few years now company in question now has Armed security at their main office, which are employed by the company, not contractors, not temps but full blown employees of the company, with benefits, etc.

The announcement was made recently for security reasons it was deemed necessary to have armed security for the safety of employees!

How does that make sense? I am not sure what training is required for an armed security job, but I would hazard a guess that there company employees out there that have a higher level of training and proficiency?

I am still scratching my head.

 

[M67]

Cause they're trained pro-fessionals

 

[flatlander]

Certified by Yeager since you're in Tenn. ?

Bob

 

[Clay Pigeon]

 

[Route 45]

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The company wanted security, so they hired security. A bunch of employees running around with LCPs in their pockets with no policy and no guidelines is not security. Not in any realistic sense, and definitely not in any legal sense.

 

[ditcherman]

Cause they're trained pro-fessionals

Yew mispeled perfeshunuls.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Legal liability and insurance: It's the same reason so few school districts, outside of state laws, do not want armed teachers.

If you are running a company and someone comes in to shoot up the place. Your draftsman packing an LCP in his pocket shoots the goon, saves the day. Goon now sues not only the employee, but your company and your insurance company. YOU hired the savior, YOU seemingly allowed them to be armed and YOU gave them aegis, whether you know it or not, to shoot by either not having a no-gun policy in place or measures to prevent weapons from being carried in the workplace. That's the MAIN reason companies have no gun policies: Yes, sometimes out of political motives but a majority of it is insurance. Your insurance company, despite the possible danger of having even MORE people dead, sees workplace shootings as outliers (read: low occurrence risk compared to industrial accidents and car wrecks) and having an armed employee is an UNSECURED RISK. The insurance company is not aware of your training level, weapons proficiency, ability to cope with a stressful situation, etc...

Hiring a third party security outfit circumvents this. Goon comes in, Paul Blart Mall Cop shoots him, the goon can only sue the insurance company of the security company, POSSIBLY (but not usually as the security company's insurance company will cover the actions of the guard as part of their job) the security company, but rare. Hiring a third party SEPARATES the risk from the hiring company and the threat. It also ensures metrics that an insurance company can consider an SECURED RISK, in this case, 'training' or qualification that the security guard takes to carry their weapon. There is a risk, yes, but the risk is contained by the supposed training, however laughable, of the security guard and his/her firm.

Then there is the middle ground: A firm hiring their own security, as in the OP. An insurance company can see this as an ACCEPTABLE risk, depending on the coverage level they are willing to offer when you have security guards. Insurance companies can be just as foolish as liberals or others unaware of firearms and the fundamental right to defend yourselves. They often operate under the misguided mindset that if your firm designates specific employees as security guards, even arming them, that they are a secured risk just by that alone. The deal for armed security is discussed between the company and the insurance company: They can dictate that they have training records or not even care in some cases.

I've worked in armed security and for a majority sake, it is a joke. Most firms hire anyone that is a relatively clean background and can pass a drug test. I've seen qualifications and 'training' by other firms as well and it's laughable. I would trust the shot of someone with an LCP in their pocket, jacked up on adrenaline and not remotely familiar with their gun over the shot of the average security guard. At the company I worked for right out of college, just having a LTCH was enough. Training involved a box of ammo and a 1/2 price voucher for range time. Another company I witnessed actually provided the arms and ammunition, but had ridiculously low standards (can you even hit the paper at 7 yards, good, you're in, go clean your gun and enjoy the rest of your Saturday). If you couldn't hit the paper, keep shooting until you can or they run out of ammo, at which point they would just tell you to practice on your own (which they didn't). One guard I worked with, while being a former Marion County Deputy and a nice guy, had palsy so bad that I would be afraid to be in the same county if he had to pull that .357 on his belt (which he used to carry 'back in the day'). I saw guns turned sideways during practice sessions. I saw dirt fly up from the ground after being shot 3 feet in front of the shooter. I saw Lorcins, Hi Point (ones that DIDN'T run) in floppy Unky-Mike's holsters on the belts of people that honestly shouldn't carry guns. I saw guns being pulled in the garages of armored car companies, demonstrating how they were going to shoot someone who cut them off, different race, etc... The few companies out there that are 'professional', most of their employees looked like they wanted to be cops but couldn't pass the psych eval.

But, insurance companies never see that. They just see papers, certifications, documents that look good to a jury in a civil matter.

 

[femurphy77]

Remember; the elite DESERVE protection. The rest of us are on our own.

 

[Mongo59]

Scripture speaks of the "hired shepherd" (but not in a favorable way) and maybe they got the school relations officer from Florida, I hear he is looking for a new place to live...

 

[wcd]

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The company wanted security, so they hired security. A bunch of employees running around with LCPs in their pockets with no policy and no guidelines is not security. Not in any realistic sense, and definitely not in any legal sense.

The rub is one class of employee is not allowed to carry. However if you are in the ivory tower you can be armed, and can be an employee not a.contractor.

The Ivory tower has RFID cards for entry at 3 points prior to reaching the office. So how much of a threat i there?

Now people out side of the office have no such precautions and often are in high threat situations.

There in lies the issue.

 

[ashby koss]

THIS changes the dynamic to a more "second class" status kind of thing. This should be brought up and acted against since its not equality. This will likely also get all firearms ivory tower or not banned.

The rub is one class of employee is not allowed to carry. However if you are in the ivory tower you can be armed, and can be an employee not a.contractor.

The Ivory tower has RFID cards for entry at 3 points prior to reaching the office. So how much of a threat i there?

Now people out side of the office have no such precautions and often are in high threat situations.

There in lies the issue.

 

[Route 45]

The rub is one class of employee is not allowed to carry. However if you are in the ivory tower you can be armed, and can be an employee not a.contractor.

The Ivory tower has RFID cards for entry at 3 points prior to reaching the office. So how much of a threat i there?

Now people out side of the office have no such precautions and often are in high threat situations.

There in lies the issue.

This is confusing.

So, employees in the "ivory tower" can carry, but...I dunno..."field employees" cannot? That's kinda weird, but I don't know what kind of company you are talking about.

Or are you complaining that security can carry, but you cannot? Because that is just silly.

 

[Route 45]

THIS changes the dynamic to a more "second class" status kind of thing. This should be brought up and acted against since its not equality. This will likely also get all firearms ivory tower or not banned.

Doubtful. Gun carry equality is generally not a particularly important issue to most companies. There are always different classes of employees in a company.

 

[ashby koss]

Doubtful. Gun carry equality is generally not a particularly important issue to most companies. There are always different classes of employees in a company.

You are 100% correct in that most businesses do not care, BUT if there is complaints businesses tend to take the easiest route. Which unless the owner / president takes issue with it, would end with complete disarming ivory tower or not.

 

[Route 45]

You are 100% correct in that most businesses do not care, BUT if there is complaints businesses tend to take the easiest route. Which unless the owner / president takes issue with it, would end with complete disarming ivory tower or not.

Unless it's an employee vs. contractor type thing, which it sounds like it might be from what I can tell. OP will have to give further info. In that case, the company will probably tell the contractor to follow their contract or pound sand.

 

[Gabriel]

This is confusing.


Or are you complaining that security can carry, but you cannot? Because that is just silly.

This is basically how I am reading it. Seems like the OP needs to apply for a different position in the company.