Effect of armed guards

[mutantmoose]

Hmm. I think the point of the question was whether arming guards makes it more likely that violence will ensue.

If the crims decide to take down your joint (and you have armed guards) maybe they’ll decide to carry guns as well so as to overpower the guards. But if the guards aren’t armed then maybe the bad guys will figure they don’t need to be. So they might show up mob handed and carrying other weapons but at least no one would get shot.

Once you arm the guards, you practically force the bozos to pack heat as well. Before you armed the guards they had a choice.

It’s not so much a question of how well trained the guards are and how unlikely it is that they would start shooting. It’s more a question of whether having armed guards at all increases the likelihood of the crims also being armed.

[Saint_Cad]

Except for Sage Rat’s Australian study, none of this is helpful. This is more of a GD thread of “Armed guards help prevent violence”. I really need FACTS, hence being posted in GQ. I need stuff like:

According to a 2004 FBI study, a workplace had 26% less risk for violence if someone on site were armed, but it was 81% more likely that the perpetrator would be injured and 67% more likely that a bystander would be injured.

[Chimera]

@Saint Cad

Except for Sage Rat’s Australian study, none of this is helpful. This is more of a GD thread of “Armed guards help prevent violence”. I really need FACTS, hence being posted in GQ. I need stuff like:

Since none of us have done a PhD dissertation on this subject, you’re stuck doing your own google work, as I mentioned in my first post. Otherwise all we/I can give you is anecdotal information, which you obviously don’t want.

So do your own work.

@mutantmouse

Once you arm the guards, you practically force the bozos to pack heat as well. Before you armed the guards they had a choice.

Sure, and once you arm the cops, you force the crooks to carry guns. :rolleyes:

Afraid I don’t have much patience for the unilateral disarmament crowd. Wolves don’t suddenly evolve into herbivores just because the sheep don’t fight back.

[Saint_Cad]

@Chimera

Since none of us have done a PhD dissertation on this subject, you’re stuck doing your own google work, as I mentioned in my first post. Otherwise all we/I can give you is anecdotal information, which you obviously don’t want.

So do your own work.

You never mentioned anything about google in any of your posts and there is no reason to get snippy since if you read MY first post you would have seen

@Saint Cad

I really need facts and figures to show Mrs Cads boss so citations are definately needed.

so yes, I made it clear from the start that I don’t want anecdotal information.

Oh and one other thing. I read professional journals long before I started my Ph.D. (actually an Ed.D). I didn’t realize one needed to be working on a Doctorate of Security (Sec. D.) to be familiar with the technical details of the field.

[Chimera]

@Saint Cad

You never mentioned anything about google in any of your posts and there is no reason to get snippy since if you read MY first post you would have seen.

See, here’s where the reading thing gets tricky. You’re coming off as really snippy and petty to me, and that’s what I’m reacting to.

I apologize, I had written something in my first post about not wanting to spend a lot of time doing the research myself. Or maybe I’m confusing this thread with another.

Basically, I’m the only one with extensive security experience who has responded to this thread, and I haven’t got a clue what the numbers are. It’s not something I’ve ever seen or heard discussed. This isn’t a business run on exact data, probably because you can’t quantify what hasn’t happened. It didn’t happen, so you don’t know it didn’t happen or why precisely it did not happen. It’s like asking how much crime police deter. There is no answer.

how if (and how much) effect having armed guards has on escalating violence versus unarmed guards

Frankly, I’d be really surprised if there are any hard numbers on what you’re asking.

Even this;

but it was 81% more likely that the perpetrator would be injured and 67% more likely that a bystander would be injured

is pretty empty. How many incidents were in the study and how often was the perpetrator injured? How many times was a bystander injured? 67% increase in bystander injuries sounds pretty bad, but given that I’ve never seen a bystander injured in an incident, just what does this mean? A 67% increase in a 0.1% chance of a bystander being injured would mean a .167% chance of a bystander being injured if armed guards are involved. A 67% increase in a 2% chance of a bystander being injured would mean a 3.34% chance of injuring a bystander in an incident involving armed guards.

Percentages alone are meaningless without context.

Also, I don’t see anything in that specifying how many fewer victims and guards were injured, which is a key piece of data. Personally, I don’t give a rats ass if 81% more of the perpetrators were injured in the commission of a felony if their success rate in injuring innocent people was severely limited by the presence of an armed guard. If one guy bites hard on a bullet in order to prevent two or more people from being assaulted, then I’m all for it.

[Sage_Rat]

@Saint Cad

Except for Sage Rat’s Australian study, none of this is helpful. This is more of a GD thread of “Armed guards help prevent violence”. I really need FACTS, hence being posted in GQ.

I think that several facts have been introduced, just not in a nicely digestible scientific study form. You seem to be disregarding a lot of data because it’s not in the format you were expecting.

Criminals target easy targets. The easier the target, the greater the chance that they will attack it. (Australian PDF)

Armed guards have a greater ability for deterence. (Link 4 of my first post) You have a random sample of guards recalling their past history of working armed vs unarmed and how much each seemed to deter people, respectively, anonymously on a bulletin board. drachillix has also given hard data that you need 50% more unarmed guards to equate to the deterrence of a group of armed guards. A scientific survey is just a survey of anecdotes. With enough of them, you’ve got data.

Guns are almost never actually drawn, let alone fired, so the chance of escalation is essentially none. (Various posts and links)

The only case in which escalation seems reasonable to happen is if there is a displacement effect. (Australian PDF) If all targets in the region are equally guarded and all of them are highly guarded, it’s possible that any attack will be more violent since the attackers will generally be “that” desperate.

[Saint_Cad]

I’ll try this again because I may not be making this clear.

Mrs Cad is a bank security manager. Her guards are unarmed and she has had 0 casualties. She also worked at a mall with armed guard where the only casualties were with the guards pulling out their guns to show their friends.

Her boss wants her to carry a gun since on the rare occasion when a customer pulls out a lot of cash (once a year per manager if that), he wants all of his managers to be packing for protection. When it was up for discussion, she pointed out that in her 2 decades of experience, it is more dangerous when the guard is armed than not.

Well of course one of the other managers starts going into a rant about if anyone comes into HIS workplace that he will do whatever it takes to defend HIS people yippi kai ai MFers. You knew that in that situation lead would be flying every which way.

Of course the boss (IMHO was looking for a rubber stamp and not a discussion) took her off the focus group since her “mind was made up” and she had nothing constructive to contribute. She was also told that to get along she needs to go along.

This entire situation has put her in a bad light so she is looking for some sort of hard data (though she may not use it. depends on the bosses mood) to show that her concerns have some validity.

I also think she is planning on some sort of “I told you so” CYA when some poor secretary catches a stray .357 slug in the face and the security managers get the blame for “recommending” packing the heaters.

There may not be the hard data I want, but I just wanted to clarify that this more specific than armed v unarmed guards. Maybe more of a personal protection scenerio.

[Sage_Rat]

That’s an entirely different question from your question about security guards being armed or not.

I’ll have to do some googling about clerk concealed carry.

[drachillix]

@Sage Rat

drachillix has also given hard data that you need 50% more unarmed guards to equate to the deterrence of a group of armed guards. A scientific survey is just a survey of anecdotes. With enough of them, you’ve got data.

Guns are almost never actually drawn, let alone fired, so the chance of escalation is essentially none. (Various posts and links)

Hard numbers here are going to be tough because as Chimera stated such events often lead to disciplinary action, meaning less likely to be reported in grey area situations.

A few more numbers for you.

In my roughly 10 years in the park, 6 years armed 4 unarmed. In those 6 years I know of 3 incidents where armed guards drew guns, no shots ever fired.

#1 14 y/o kid with a knife threatened another, guards confronted him, he pulled it out and threatened to “stick the first rent-a-pig that tried to get in his way”. He wisely chose to drop it when two of the three drew their weapons, the third unsnapped and was ready but chose not to draw.

#2 Bullet fired from outside a building went through a window and hit a customer in the face, literally within 5 feet of the guard supervisor who was in the arcade guarding the manager pulling the billchangers. He drew, but when no target or threat presented itself he reholstered it.

#3 A guard was attacked 6:1 in an attempt to prevent an individual from being detained for police because of an assault (ended up the person was wanted for questioning on a shooting). Guard pulled away and drew, guys scattered and ran.

These all predated my security time working unarmed.

IME most of the deescalation is provided by a show of overwhelming force. When 2 idiots decide to start a fight and are confronted by 6 guards, they usually stopped right then with little additional intervention. One guard alone usually had to try and get in the middle and keep them off each other long enough for backup to arrive.

[Sage_Rat]

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso (PDF)

@Starting at page 50

This inverse correlation (more guns-less crime) is one of several which seem to contradict more guns = more death. To reiterate, for decades the gun control lobby has emphasized that, in general, the American jurisdictions most restrictive of guns have consistently had the highest violent crime rates and those with the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates. For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are most restrictive of gun ownership. As to one specific control, the ban on carrying concealed weapons (CCW) for protection, “violent crime rates were highest in the states [that flatly ban CCW], next highest in those that allowed local authorities discretion [to deny CCW] … permits, and lowest in states with nondiscretionary” CCW laws under which police are legally required to license every qualified applicant. Also of interest are the extensive National Institute of Justice-sponsored opinion surveys among incarcerated felons, both juvenile and adult: Large percentages of the felons replied that they often feared potential victims might be armed and aborted violent crimes because of that fear – and "the felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms."116

@From page 47

4. LATER AND MORE SPECIFIC MACRO-HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
   Malcolm presents reliable trend data on both gun ownership and crime in England for the period 1871-1964. Significantly, these trend data do not at all correlate as the mantra would predict: Violent crime did not increase with increased gun ownership nor did it decline in periods in which gun ownership was lower.

In the U.S. a decade from the mid-1960s to the mid-‘70s saw the murder rate double. The fact that this coincided with vastly increasing gun sales was taken by many as proof positive that more guns = more death. That, however, did not at all follow. It was at least equally possible that the causation was reversed, i.e., that the decade’s spectacular increases in murder, burglary and all kinds of violent crimes caused fearful people to buy guns. The dubiousness of blithely assuming that the gun sales caused the rise in murder rather than the reverse might have been clearer had it been known in the 1960s- ‘70s that virtually the same murder rate increase was occurring in gun-less Russia. Clearly there was no basis to assume guns were the reason for the American murder rate rise when the Russian murder rate exhibited the same increase, yet virtually none of those murders involved guns.

Reliable information on both gun ownership and murder rates in the U.S are available only for the period from the end of WWII on. Significantly, the decade from the mid-‘60s to the mid-70s is a unique exception to the general pattern. That pattern is that, decade-by-decade, the number of guns owned by civilians has risen steadily and dramatically – but murder rates nevertheless remained stable or even declined. As for the second half of the 20th Century, and especially its last quarter, a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that over the 25 year period 1973-97 the number of handguns owned by Americans had increased by 163%, and the number of all firearms by 103%. Yet over that period the murder rate declined by 27.7%. It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 despite the addition in each year of two-three million handguns, and c. 5 million firearms of all kinds. By the end of the year 2000 the total American gunstock stood at well over 260 million – 951.1 guns for every 1,000 Americans – but the murder rate had returned to the comparatively low level prior to the increases of the mid-‘60s-‘70s period.

In sum, these data for the decades since the end of WWII are further evidence failing to bear out the more guns = more death mantra. These and related data have been summarized as follows:

“The per capita accumulated stock of guns (the total of firearms manufactured or imported into the United States, less exports) has increased in recent decades, yet there has been no correspondingly consistent increase in either total or gun violence… About half of the time gun stock increases have been accompanied by violence decreases, and about half the time [they have been] accompanied by violence increases, just what one would expect if gun levels had no net impact on violence rates.”

I.e. concealed carry prevents violent crime, while as gun ownership in the general populace has no effect.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7M-3V50H0N-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cdb8851fe87b2b7b5e49d27cf26b913a

A recent study concludes that permissive concealed-handgun-carrying (or “shall-issue”) laws have sharply reduced crime rates, including the rate of homicide. The method of the study has been critiqued by several authors. In this paper, I report a quite different approach that exploits the minimum age requirements for concealed-carry permits to more effectively control for unobserved variables that may vary over time. Because even permissive concealed-carry states require permit holders to meet minimum age requirements, any deterrent benefits from these laws should be concentrated among adults and, therefore, should be reflected in the gap between adult and juvenile victimization rates. My results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467988

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence - Google Books (Quoting not possible)

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns on JSTOR (Quoting not possible)

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Saint Cad

Her boss wants her to carry a gun since on the rare occasion when a customer pulls out a lot of cash (once a year per manager if that), he wants all of his managers to be packing for protection. When it was up for discussion, she pointed out that in her 2 decades of experience, it is more dangerous when the guard is armed than not.

Well of course one of the other managers starts going into a rant about if anyone comes into HIS workplace that he will do whatever it takes to defend HIS people yippi kai ai MFers. You knew that in that situation lead would be flying every which way.

Wait a minute; the boss wants to require the branch managers to carry firearms, not just guards? I’m by no means opposed to responsible use and carry of firearms, but that’s just nutty. First of all, the FDIC insures money, up to and way beyond anything anyone should be carrying in cash. Second, if there are armed robbers on the premises, the best thing to do (in terms of minimizing risk) is simply to give them what they want and get them out quick, hopefully with an exploding dye pack in the bag. Asking or requiring the bank manager to engage in armed conflict with robbers is just begging for dead or injured customers and a lawsuit. Third, a handgun is most effective for defense when it is concealed from view and (obviously) at hand; are managers going to be trained in concealed carry and defensive shooters, or is this just some Die Hard-esque plan to arm managers and come what may?

The hard data you want is going to be difficult; even the links that Sage Rat lists are both somewhat contentious and may not be directly applicable, insofar as they pertain to statistics on general crimes (in which the majority are crimes against persons and not crimes perpetrated against institutions). I don’t disagree with the general premise that an responsible armed citizenry is of little threat to the public and tends to reduce the incidence of crime, it is hard to translate deterrance into real numbers given that a majority of such incidents are not formally reported and may be exaggerated or underreported in surveys.

Stranger

[Sage_Rat]

@Stranger On A Train

The hard data you want is going to be difficult; even the links that Sage Rat lists are both somewhat contentious and may not be directly applicable

Agreed. I should have noted that, myself. And I agree that arming the clerks is somewhat silly, particularly if it’s not publicly known. Forced concealed carry is going to be a different ballgame from chosen.

I might look for something more relevant later, but I’m feeling a little lazy at the moment.

[Saint_Cad]

No no no, she’s not a branch manager, but a security manager. She works in an ivory tower and has a bunch of branches that she trains in security/robbery procedures. She investigates robberies and coordinates with the FBI after the fact. Once a year she may have to oversee a transaction when a customer pulls out over $10,000 in cash. And she escorts then to the car. That last part is the only reason she may ever have to carry.

[Chimera]

The issue here is going to come down to the deterrence perception of having her be armed in those circumstances, versus the legal liability to the bank of having her use that firearm and the criminal liability to HER if she does so.

The Bank Manager wants her to be armed in those few, very rare circumstances for (psychological) “protection”. A deterrence factor in that she’s escorting people with large amounts of money and is armed, therefore deterring any potential criminal from approaching them. Again I will say that unless the firearm is clearly displayed, it amounts to nothing more than a psychological protection. She knows shes armed, the customer may know she’s armed - they feel better. The average joe walking past sees nothing.

Liability wise, the bank is on the hook for HUGE legal settlements in the event that she ever uses that weapon. Unless she has, at the very least, some basic firearms training and is comfortable shooting that weapon, the end result is an accident waiting to happen - and the end of both her career and the bank managers.

Criminal wise, she would have no legal basis to actually USE that firearm in defense of herself or the customer except to defend their lives. If some random idiot ran up, punched the customer in the face and attempted to wrestle away the money, shooting is not a legally defensible option in the great majority of cases. Showing the firearm may be a credible means of stopping the action, but that’s pretty much as far as it goes unless someone’s life is on the line.

The bottom line is exactly as we were told in Armored. It’s not your money. It’s not worth being shot over, or shooting someone else. Let them take it. The bank is insured against this sort of thing.

Hell, if my boss the Bank Manager was presenting these kinds of scenarios, I’d be going to Corporate Security with my concerns. If someone attempts to rob one of my tellers with a firearm, there’s no way in hell I’m pulling out my gun and opening fire. That would be an indefensible criminal and civil liability nightmare fore myself and the bank.

Finally, I have one other issue: Discretion. When carrying large amounts of money, the greatest defense you can ever have is silence and secrecy. If no one knows you have $10,000 shoved in your pocket, no one is going to bother you. But if your idiot bank makes a great big dramatic production of having armed guards escort you to your vehicle, why they just showed the world that you have something incredibly valuable on you and drew a great big target on your head. The thinking criminal is going to follow you to see where you go and if they can catch you unaware at some coffee shop or in your home. (This is an incredibly stupid proposition for the bank and your wife should be working at this angle. Discretion is the better part of Security work.)

Given how many times people followed our armored truck around, which is a lot larger, well armed and prepared target; how easy pickings is that 60 year old woman with the jewelry and the 10 grand in her pocket?

[B_A_Bay]

You can’t answer this question because you have no way to qualify all the people that WOULD’VE robbed a bank and went elsewhere because there was a guard with a gun.

So if 1000 people case the bank and leave because of the armed guard, who’d know? This would drastically alter your statistic. And since you can’t answer it, there’s no real estimate

[Quartz]

@Stranger On A Train

Wait a minute; the boss wants to require the branch managers to carry firearms, not just guards? I’m by no means opposed to responsible use and carry of firearms, but that’s just nutty.

In the short term, maybe, but what about the longer term? If Bank X gets a reputation that ‘everyone packs and if you try to rob a branch you will get shot’, might that offset the short term effect of lawsuits etc?

[Saint_Cad]

@Chimera

The Bank Manager wants her to be armed in those few, very rare circumstances for (psychological) “protection”. A deterrence factor in that she’s escorting people with large amounts of money and is armed, therefore deterring any potential criminal from approaching them. Again I will say that unless the firearm is clearly displayed, it amounts to nothing more than a psychological protection. She knows shes armed, the customer may know she’s armed - they feel better. The average joe walking past sees nothing.

She doesn’t work for the bank manager. Her boss is the top in Security and she is in charge of the branches in her area. In fact many managers WANT armed guards but corporate policy is no because they believe that armed guards will result in someone getting shot.

Here is my guess as to the behind the scenes. The Big Bossman wants his security managers to carry concealed weapons. In some areas (like the one Mrs Cad lives in), a CWP is impossible to get unless required by your job. So Big Bossman talks to Bigger Boss Man who says that the security managers need to approve it since they’ll be the ones packing the hogleg. Big Bossman expects unanimous consent (who WOULDN’T want a CWP?) but Mrs Cad expresses concern that being armed may escalate a situation. Jim Bob from one of those states that’s south of Oklahoma and north of Mexico starts talking about blasting away any perceived threat to HIS people and you realize why Mrs Cad is concerned that Jim Bob + .45 = bad things. Of course not getting unianimous consent, Big Boss Man is pissed at Mrs Cad and now needs to have a tiger-team lock-up session to study the issue. In a bizarre example of randomness, this group contains only people who advocate CWPs. Mrs Cad is confused.
Mrs. Cad “I thought we were sharing opinions?”
Big Boss Man “They weren’t the right opinions.” :mad:
Jim Bob “I knew she was a pussy. Time to drink some beer and shoot something. YEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!! I’m such a fuckin’ stud.”

[DrDeth]

No, that’s not going to deter anything since no one will know she’s armed.

An armed guard, in unfirm, especially one that looks competent is a deterrance. I worked my way thruough college as a armed guard, earning what was then the munificent sum of 2X Minimum wage. I drew my gun once, never fired it. I did have to use my nightstick a lot when I worked those wedding receptions that served beer in gang areas.

Now I have a badge but no gun.

Having a gun is only a good idea* if you are trained and willing to use it*. Your wife is neither.

Now, if the Big Bossman wants to “require” security Managers to pack guns so that the ones that are trained and willing to use it can carry one, then she should agree, as long as she gets a private memo in writing that since she has a “religous or philosophical” reason for not carrying a gun, she is exempted. No one will have problems with an exception for “religous or philosophical reasons”. They have their way, she has hers, it’s a win-win.

[Saint_Cad]

@DrDeth

Having a gun is only a good idea* if you are trained and willing to use it*. Your wife is neither.

Wrong and wrong! Why are many of you assuming this.

She’s trained by the sherriff’s department and as an armed guard. She would use it if necessary for her own safety IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!

[Sage_Rat]

@Saint Cad

She’s trained by the sherriff’s department and as an armed guard. She would use it if necessary for her own safety IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!

Then I don’t know that there’s any evidence that she would be better without it.

And I’ve got to say that you’ve been stupendously poor at portraying the full image of what your question was and who the particular people it involved were.