I’m trying to find how if (and how much) effect having armed guards has on escalating violence versus unarmed guards. I really need facts and figures to show Mrs Cads boss so citations are definately needed.
Like at a mall or school? Or do you mean in terms of, for instance, guarding someone famous?
Workplace or bank. Someone comes in with a gun, the armed guard pulls a gun, etc. OR are people less likely to bring a gun to a workplace/bank if someone there is armed?
Hm, well I can’t find anything in the way of a study. Common wisdom (from reading through stuff) seems to hold that a weapon is just another tool in the arsenal. It gives you more ability to deter an incident than not having it. From what I know of crime, this fairly well makes sense since criminals are usually going to go along the path of least resistance when it comes to committing crimes. But for that same reason, just having a guard–armed or not–is generally going to be deterrent enough since it’s easier to hit a place that has no guards at all.
http://www.bankersonline.com/security/gurus_sec050602b.html
http://www.delsource.com/custpage.cfm/frm/16554/sec_id/16554
http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/archive/index.php/t-2465.html
One thing to note is that being an armed guard generally requires more training and, if you’re hiring from a company, it’s probably pretty likely that they’ll encourage people that they think are good and smart guards to go for getting all the qualifications needed.
Interesting question. I’ve always wondered if the armed rent a cop at a bank or jewelry store is actually supposed to draw down on a bunch of bandits, and if they are what would happen in reality. If I were Tiffany’s, for example, I would want the armed guard there to keep honest people honest, but if the brown and smelly hit the metal and spinny, I’d probably rather the crooks cleaned the place out than have the OK corral on my hands.
Also, what is the guy making $15 bucks an hour really going to do if he is instructed to put up a fight? If it were me, I’m not getting in a gunfight for some cash or diamonds (protecting a life is different).
This goes back to credible threats in game theory. Economists gave this a lot of thought during the Cold War.
El Al (Israel) is widely considered the most secure airline, and they have lots of armed guards and other security measures.
Well, there wouldn’t necessarily be a causal relationship there. I would imagine a simple armed guard is basically a giant sign that says “We’re willing to pay for an armed guard”. The conscious and subconscious conclusions that result from this probably depend on particular type of establishment.
For example, if a robber has to pick between robbing one of two banks, and one has an armed guard near the door there are multiple possible reasons for picking the one with the guard. Starting with the stupidest “the one with the guard has more to protect”, and ending in a fairly reasonable “Banks probably, on average, spend roughly same on security, and a guard is a security feature you can see and account for.”
I don’t see how guns have much to do with it. Real life criminals aren’t like the ones in the movies. They are usually just crazed hoodlums that have only a basic idea of what they are doing. If I own a bank and hire a 300 pound ex pro-wrestler who manages a team of attack dogs that guard the door who are friendly to all regular customers but will attack on command, I don’t see how the bank across the street with no guards will fare as well in robberies.
The vast majority of armed guards will never have to fire a gun. If you are a bank robber and have to choose between one with an armed guard and one that doesn’t have one, which one would you pick? The derterence is simply the thread itself.
Speaking as someone who has worked as a Security Guard, Security Supervisor and as an Armed Guard…
Security Guards are all about Visible Deterrent. They’re an Authority Figure without Police Powers. That’s right, the average Security Guard has no more power in any given situation than the average citizen, except as granted by their employer. We have no power of arrest, only an extremely limited power to detain. We can’t manhandle you, interrogate you or hold you against your will. If any Security Guard does such a thing, FILE SUIT. You’ll win.
The difference is in directly employed security. If you work directly for the company, they can grant you greater powers over their employees than they can for outside, contracted security.
For example, I worked a front desk for a warehouse. We put the employees through metal detectors and inspected bags and lunch boxes as they came in and as they left. We were not only forbidden any direct contact with them, but we were instructed to apologize to them if we accidentally brushed against them! Needless to say, we never did that. Not only would we be constantly apologizing, but it would have created a potentially dangerous situation for us in regards to provocatures who would have gone out of their way to create contact just to cause problems for us.
One day, an employee blew past me after setting off the metal detector, and without opening his cooler. I simply moved on to the next person. The Asset Protection Manager was livid and told me to go after him. No, I said. Doing so would have meant abandoning my post and not checking every other employee who came through, or being able to stop non-employees from entering. Besides, there was nothing I could do to stop him. I was forbidden from speaking crossly with him or impeding his progress, and could not touch him. How the fuck was I supposed to bring him back? Ah, but YOU can, Mr. APM. You can touch him, you can yell at him, you can fire his ass. So YOU go after him!
Any given Armed Security Officer is going to be FIRED if he draws his weapon except in the face of an imminent threat of deadly force - and yes, I’ve known guys who have been fired for doing it in inappropriate situations. Even as an Armored Courier (Brinks, Loomis, etc. I worked for one of the two named), you are going to be required to fill out paperwork justifying why you drew your weapon and can be disciplined for it. In my 14 months working in a Downtown area, I never drew my weapon outside my truck (and thus in a situation where I had to file the paperwork). However, there were four incidents where I drew my weapon IN the truck as a visible deterence to people attempting to break into my truck or put moves on my partner who was outside the truck. If I had reported those incidents, I’m sure it would have been frowned upon.
If you think the rules for drawing your weapon are tough, forget the idea of firing it. It better never happen, unless you’ve already been shot. And even then, you’re best off retreating. It isn’t your money or property, it isn’t worth your life or the potential lawsuits.
In short, an armed guard is, for the most part, simply MORE of a visible deterrent. People might try to play games with a guy in a uniform, but they’re a lot less likely to do it with a guy carrying a gun.
Need more, or have any other questions about armed vs unarmed guards?
Re: Escalating Violence,
Any Security Officer worth his salt is trained to DE-escalate situations. In nearly four years, I’ve never been in a fight, never thrown a punch, never even grabbed anyone. Likewise no one has ever done any of those things to me. I’ve walked into the middle of fights and put an end to them. I’ve dealt with people attempting to make moves on me as an Armored Courier without incident. With only one other guard present who merely stood by, I’ve kicked 30 hostile young males out of a gym. I’ve dealt with multiple threats of physical violence peacably and without any violence resulting.
A Security Officer who escalates a situation to violence is very quickly an EX-Security Officer.
Seriously, the key is that nothing is ever personal. I don’t take anything they do personally. It’s not about ME. It’s about whatever they think they’re doing or want to do. Likewise when I act it’s not about them, it’s about restoring a normal situation, about adhering to policy and procedure. I call every adult Sir or Ma’am. Always. Doesn’t matter how big an asshole they are. In fact, I used to teach new guards that if they were really feeling the need to get back at anyone for the way the person was acting, all they had to do was to keep being as polite as possible at all times. The angrier the other person is, the more it pisses them off. And you’re not doing anything that can get YOU into trouble or giving them any excuse to act out against you!
If a group of armed robbers hits a place with armed guards, they are planning on shooting guards, plan on replying in kind.
I worked unarmed in an amusement park that was pay per attraction (no admission charge). So our drunk/idiot/hoodrat to customer ratio could get pretty high at times.
We were employees of the park so we had a wider authority and alot more lattitude WRT a more hands on approach to “guiding” customers to the exits.
We used to have armed guards but the owners dropped it due to insurance costs. We ended up spending about half the difference in additional guards because we had alot more problems without the armed guards.
Bottom line is this:
Mrs Cad’s boss wants to arm secuity corporate types. The high muckity mucks. When her boss asked for her opinion, she pointed out that being armed results in people dying (none of her branches have any casulties). The other execs think that they’re Roland the Gunslinger so she came across as the stereotypical passive woman (she is the only XX in the group). She wants to show any study or stats that show
Does being armed deter attacks in the workplace?
Does being armed lead to more innocent deaths?
Typical High Testosterone Jerks. Blaming it on her being a woman instead of a more likely thing of being anti-gun and ill-informed, which is how it sounded to me.
I spent a little time googling, but I don’t want to waste too much time when it’s not really my issue and I’m going to spend a lot of time writing this anyway.
Armed Guards, especially Executive Bodyguards, are NOT shoot-em-up cowboys by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who thinks so has been watching too much TV and doesn’t know what they’re talking about. The liability issues alone involved in any shooting are frightening. Collateral damage of killing innocent bystanders can be prosecuted as Murder (Manslaughter at the very least) and the resulting lawsuits would ensure that the shooter and their company are bankrupt till the end of time.
Let’s put it this way. When I worked Armored, I knew several people who carried 60+ rounds of ammo “just in case” of a big firefight. I laughed in their faces and called them out for being ignorant rambo dumbasses. In front of several of them, I asked a 40 year veteran of our branch when the last time was that someone had fired their weapon in the line of duty. He said that someone had to shoot a dog attacking him about 10 years earlier, but otherwise he couldn’t remember the last shooting. I carried only the 15 rounds in my gun. My partner, who carried a revolver, carried only 12 rounds total. My oft stated philosophy was this:
“I’m in a downtown area with a lot of people. If I shoot more than once or twice, I’m going to hit bystanders. And if the 15 rounds in this clip don’t solve the problem, then the fact that I have a gun at all isn’t going to get me out of it.”
Any firefight involving me that might have happened at any point was NOT going to be a TV/Movie “randomly firing bullets which miraculously and harmlessly bounce off car bodies and wooden crates”. I know better, and I’m not stupid enough to fire at anything unless I know I’m going to hit my target and nothing else.
Back to your issue: Having armed security would be a significant deterrent to workplace shootings in more than 90% of potential cases. Because most of the people who would consider such a thing (and they are very few and far between, it’s almost not worth considering at all), are going to be deterred by the idea that they might not ever get to shoot their intended target before they get gunned down. Even the ones who intend to commit suicide upon killing their target are going to think twice, because they might not be able to reach their target at all.
But it’s the one who just doesn’t care, who wants to die but not by his own hand, and doesn’t really care if he kills the bad boss man at all that isn’t going to be deterred. Hell, he might even walk in with an Airsoft gun, begging for them to shoot him first!
The other issue is that people have to know they’re there. Most high end armed security wears suits, without visible firearms. Thus we come to the bottom line, which is that the primary benefit of having an armed bodyguard is the psychological benefit to the person protected. Believing themselves safer, and having someone trained to deal with situations who can intervene and keep their client at a distance (physical and psychological) from trouble.
Hm, well I’m doing a second look, this time through Google Scholar. This article looks like it might have some actual data:
http://aic.gov.au/publications/armedrobbery/arobbery.pdf (PDF)
I doubt most rent-a-cop security guards are making $15/hr. I haven’t worked as a guard but I’ve been a dispatcher (moonlighting job) and at that time the basic private patrol guards were making about $2-3 above minimum wage. (Most of these guys weren’t armed with firearms, either; just OC spray and batons, with the radio being their most effective weapon.) AC guards probably make a little higher, and well-trained professional executive security types will pull down some seriously decent coin, but also work very long hours.
As for the effect of arming security guards, I agree with Chimera that it is mostly theater to keep the riff-raff at bay. These guys aren’t trained for a real firefight (many of them have no training at all beyond very basic firearm safety) and operate in public venues where a firefight would very likely result in litigious injury or death of bystanders, for which the guard’s employer could be held liable. Real armed robbers are going to target the guards first for takedown (disarmament or death) first thing. In any well-conceived situation, the guards are just the first step in the layers of security (alarms, physical barriers, insurance, et cetera) and given their relatively low pay, not even one that is especially trusted.
The Michael Man film Heat has what I think is a pretty accurate portrayal of what would occur in a firefight in a public area against professional armed robbers. The scene occurs just after a successful robbery of a bank in downtown Los Angeles at lunchtime, as the cops–tipped off at the last moment–insanely try to pin down the robbers (Robert DeNiro, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore) as they escape, with the predictable result of a lot of dead bystanders, cops, and bandits. Not a good time for anyone. (The principal actors actually trained for a couple of months with Andy McNab, so the firearm handling and tactics are refreshingly accurate in most details.) A single security guard, facing down such an opposition, wouldn’t have a chance.
And I agree with Chimera on the pointlessness of carrying several magazines for a pistol; if you have to empty a modern high capacity pistol and reload in a firefight, you are already in a seriously desperate circumstance and should be fighting your way to an escape route or a better gun. An armed security force might deter some 21-year-old punk with “Born To Lose” tattooed on his forehead, but it didn’t even stop the SLA from robbing banks, and those guys were as amateur as they come.
Stranger
Not exactly what you’re looking for but you could compare the VT massacre with the copycat attempt in Israel. In the latter case there were armed people available and they killed the would-be murderers.
Such situations are improbable at best. I can’t think of a single such situation, ever, anytime. Robbers are robbers because they are dimwits who can’t succeed otherwise. Even thsoe numb-nuts who got themselves killed in LA a few years back when they robbed a place in heavy body armor and automatic rifles didn’t actually kill anyone, though they shot up the place.
The fact is that accuracy in such a situation is essentially impossible, and nonlethal, non-maiming wounds are the “best” you can hope for.
Correct. Take a look at the Craigslist ads for Security in your local area.
Bottom level, for which you get pretty marginal people, is about $8.50 to $9 per hour in the Minneapolis area, which is a metro area of 3 million people. Most Security companies start at $9 or $10. Minimum for armed is $11 at places like Brinks and Loomis. For some of the crappier companies and accounts, the minimum is $12 an hour. I’ve walked from at least one place, because it was simply too risky for the pay.
Like we were constantly told in the Armored trade: It’s not your money. Don’t put up a big fight and risk getting killed for it.
That being said, over 90% of the armored robberies are INSIDE JOBS. One or more of the people in that truck were in on the job, and the people who stole the money were their friends or family.
Again: Don’t confuse TV and Movie “Security Guards” with the real thing. Real people don’t rush in just to get shot. Not for $10-12 an hour, hell, not even for $50k a year. Not worth my life.
When I worked for a University, we used to joke that if the shooting started, we’d be down in the tunnels - not accessible to, or for the most part, even known about by the student population. 
Cleveland cops and Cuyahoga County deputy sheriffs make a pretty penny for providing security, while in their regular uniforms, for area businesses (esp. supermarkets, drugstores and the like, and carnivals and street fairs in the summer). Although they’re off-duty from their day jobs, they still have full law-enforcement powers. As highly-visible theft deterrence, they’re hard to beat. I’ve never heard of any of them having to ventilate would-be robbers.
Some cities handle hiring out their own of-duty officers for Security work. St/Paul is one of these. The officers get overtime rates, which is pretty damned good and 3-6 times what a regular security officer gets. As you say, they have complete power of arrest in this duty, which is an advantage for a company or institution in certain circumstances, like large crowd control.
Other cities, like Minneapolis (I believe) let the officers handle it themselves. I’m not sure how it works out for them, if they have companies or organizations that do this, or if they’re basically free-lance. Again, they’re still cops, they still have the full power of their positions.
But like I said, it’s damned expensive!
One of the really cool “Fear of Dog” ways I’ve seen this used was on Move In Day last fall for the University I worked for. Two off-duty officers walking around campus with a K-9 unit. It sure kept down the initial drug incidents that usually occur as former high school students experiencing their first day as independent adults get together and celebrate.
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen the other side, as we had retired cops in positions of management. I recall one day where two off-duty cops, on our dime, spent basically their entire shift sitting in our office shooting the breeze with our retired cops. Fucking waste of money and really put a sour taste in the mouths of us normal security officers.