Should private security guards be armed

Vas_Guy

Should private security guards like those in Securicor who transport large sums of cash be trained and carry fire arms?

In todays paper it said that specialist garda units are to be deployed at potentially vulnerable cash points in a bid to curb the rash of tiger kidnappings. How much is this going to cost teh tax payer, if the security guards were trained and armed it would reduce cost and maybe deter would be kidnappers and highjacks?

I know in the past people who received threats were allowed be carry a fire arm for personal protection.

User45701

well it would deter some of them but it would result in some firefights in the streets and also gardai would not be allowed to return fire in a public place so thats pretty much it there...

event

seeing as the rank and file gardai dont carry them, i dont think private security guards should

are they even trained?

parliament

No, firstly I can't imagine there being a change made to the laws of the land to allow regular citizens to carry firearms.

Secondly, I would prefer a security guard to hand over the money rather than try be a hero and resist and start a gunfight which could result in innocent people being hurt/killed. We need to encourage less use of guns not more. Once the step is made of arming even regualr guards on the street there is no going back. It would result in criminals who do not carry a gun to all of a sudden being forced to use one to continue with their daily business.

kippy

Definetly not.
Rank and file Gardai do not carry them and as I believe it they are far better trained than any security staff.
Random gun fights in the street are not a good thing.

Kippy

hottstuff

No way.
A percentage of them are monkeys just like the criminals that hold them up.

I had 2 guys in a securicor van tailgate me one day in the centre lane of the m50 and continued to act the **ick on my bumper for quite some time.

Whilst they both found it funny , watching me get pissed with them while they were behind re-inforced steel/glass , if i had a gun , i would have let loose , M50 cowboy shoot-out style!!!!!!!!!!!!.LOL

It would take some serious consideration to arm our Gardai , letalone some wannabes.

parliament

also why do people get the hump when it mentioned that the guards are being used to do this or that. If its crime related its their job...end of story! Its not the security companies fault that criminals have free reign over the country.

Mossy Monk

**** no

Dr_Teeth

I don't think they should.. yes the criminals have guns but at the same time, I haven't heard (maybe I'm wrong) of security guards being shot dead during robberies. If the security guards had guns there'd be a lot more violence involved I think.

Random muppets don't rob these vans, it's organised criminals that plan what they're going to do carefully. If the security guards had guns that woulf be factored in, probably by shooting them dead.

Plus it could lead to an arms race.. if the criminal's plan now has to involve shooting armed security guards you can bet they'll source some assault rifles for themselves to make sure they succeed.

Firewalkwithme

Absolutely not - if they were given guns the criminals would simply shoot the guards. I don't think any private security employee would want to carry a gun while working because ironically it puts them at more risk of being killed or injured.

lostexpectation

isn't this still all about the amount the banks are willing to pay for gardai protection

Ruu_Old

Not a chance, there would be total carnage.

Flukey

No, I think it would set a dangerous precedent. Next thing you'll have bouncers looking for them.

limerick_man

No, no way.... they arnt even allowed in America.

Giving guns to our citizens but not our law enforcers would be insane?!?!

faceman

no chance, if armed security is needed then thats the job of the gardai or army.

Terry

limerick_man wrote:

No, no way.... they arnt even allowed in America.

Giving guns to our citizens but not our law enforcers would be insane?!?!

I'm Ron Burgundy?


No, they shouldn't be given guns. that's just silly.

phantom_lord

no way...

poobum

Vas_Guy wrote:

Should private security guards like those in Securicor who transport large sums of cash be trained and carry fire arms?

In todays paper it said that specialist garda units are to be deployed at potentially vulnerable cash points in a bid to curb the rash of tiger kidnappings. How much is this going to cost teh tax payer, if the security guards were trained and armed it would reduce cost and maybe deter would be kidnappers and highjacks?

I know in the past people who received threats were allowed be carry a fire arm for personal protection.

if they were armed the gardai would certainly have to be(which im totaly for)

Thrill

Even if they were armed i dont see how that would have prevented the last tiger kidnapping heist. The result would have been the same.
The raiders didnt actually attack the van. They only had to hold an innocent women hostage and send the husband to get the money.
Who could the security guards shoot?
All they could do was either give the husband the money or say no.

Arming security guards would put them in great danger imo.

Random

Take every bag of money with a dye back and a GPS locater.

Don't give guns to civilians .. are the Gardai supposed to hide behind them if it comes down to a shoutout?

Just arm more Gardai, it's the way of the world and it must be done.

mukki

no way, every factory i have worked in has got 1 or 2 security staff that a few screws short of a robocop

Manic Moran

limerick_man wrote:

No, no way.... they arnt even allowed in America.

Yes they are. I am amused, however, that they are the last bastion of the revolver: The companies don't spend the money to issue 'front-line' firearms, and, I think, tend to expect that the firearm will remain unused even in a robbery. I am fairly convinced that the only reason security guards have them is for a lower insurance rate. "Yes, we have armed guards, give us lower insurance premia please"

Frequently, also, security guards aren't the cream of intellect (I can say that, I worked as one for a while), and it irks me that they can be armed, but as long as I live my current city, I can't be. Different issue. Although I am most definitely in favour of armed citizenry in general, this may surprise people, but I would not argue in favour of arming security types in Ireland.

So to answer the question, no, I don't see any benefit to Securicor chaps being armed. I am not convinced that there will be adequate training, or that there will be even a need for them: They have armoured cars: Why are they even engaging in a gunfight? It's about the one situation I can think of where pushing a button and calling for the police to show up might well be the more reasonable option.

NTM

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

definitely not.
we have enough 'mistake' shootings after arming the gardia.

Random

How does it work with soldiers guarding Securior vans? Can they open fire or do they need the armed gardai with them to open fire first? Or do they need to only fire in self defence? Or are they just a "detterent" and cannot fire at all?

hottstuff

ciaranfo wrote:

How does it work with soldiers guarding Securior vans? Can they open fire or do they need the armed gardai with them to open fire first? Or do they need to only fire in self defence? Or are they just a "detterent" and cannot fire at all?

I would assume it's a proven detterent.
But in a case where criminals did decide to have a go, "Heat" style , im sure the army would have strict instructions to open fire on any "clear Armed" target.

Steyr

ciaranfo wrote:

How does it work with soldiers guarding Securior vans? Can they open fire or do they need the armed gardai with them to open fire first? Or do they need to only fire in self defence? Or are they just a "detterent" and cannot fire at all?

They can fire, when they are under threat or DF property is under threat or whatever they are guarding is under threat, they go out with live ammo when doing the CIT*.

But i think they must give verbal warnings first for the person/s to stop and if verbals dont deter then warning shots and if that dont stop then use of deadly force. Personally i believe that if your face to face with a Steyr 5.56mm then id back down asap. Very very accurate Assault Rifle the Defence Forces have.


CIT=Cash In Transit.

godtabh

ciaranfo wrote:

Take every bag of money with a dye back and a GPS locater.

Thats sounds like one of the more sensible answers I've heard so far today. Why wouldnt something like this be workable.

Also the Gardai and Army get paid for the escorts

purple'n'gold

ciaranfo wrote:

How does it work with soldiers guarding Securior vans? Can they open fire or do they need the armed gardai with them to open fire first? Or do they need to only fire in self defence? Or are they just a "detterent" and cannot fire at all?

Soldiers are a very blunt instrument to use for civilian matters. They are not policemen, if they are under threat or are attacked they will open fire, and they will aim at the biggest target. They will not try to maim, they will kill.

Sputnik

purplengold wrote:

Soldiers are a very blunt instrument to use for civilian matters. They are not policemen, if they are under threat or are attacked they will open fire, and they will aim at the biggest target. They will not try to maim, they will kill.

Untrue. The army have very specific rules of engagement when it comes to opening fire in the course of preforming their duties. That means using the appropriate level of force which moves from thumping the bad guy to firing warning shots and shooting to wound.

Dr_Teeth

Sputnik wrote:

Untrue. The army have very specific rules of engagement when it comes to opening fire in the course of preforming their duties. That means using the appropriate level of force which moves from thumping the bad guy to firing warning shots and shooting to wound.

I don't think this is particularly realistic..

* Unarmed robbers aren't going to contemplate robbing a van guarded by soldiers.

* Armed robbers would be shot centre-mass and most likely die immediately. Soldiers wouldn't fire warning shots or "shoot to wound" if a robber was pointing a gun at them.

Celticfire

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

definitely not.
we have enough 'mistake' shootings after arming the gardia.

Care to tell us how many?

godtabh

Dr_Teeth wrote:

I don't think this is particularly realistic..

* Unarmed robbers aren't going to contemplate robbing a van guarded by soldiers.

* Armed robbers would be shot centre-mass and most likely die immediately. Soldiers wouldn't fire warning shots or "shoot to wound" if a robber was pointing a gun at them.

Army lads are well trained and as has been said they do have rules of engagement.

Soldiers have training for this kind of thing I'm sure and are not just gona shoot because the robber is pointing a gun at him

Celticfire

kearnsr wrote:

Soldiers have training for this kind of thing I'm sure and are not just gona shoot because the robber is pointing a gun at him

I would imagine that's exactly the time to shoot, what do they have to do wait till they are shot first?

godtabh

Celticfire wrote:

I would imagine that's exactly the time to shoot, what do they have to do wait till they are shot first?

I would have thought shooting is a last resort

Celticfire

kearnsr wrote:

I would have thought shooting is a last resort

Ok , explain to me the options that arise when armed thieves have just pointed a gun at an armed soldier. Give me all the options that soldier has in the split second he has to decide if he's going to live or die.

Random

Celticfire wrote:

Ok , explain to me the options that arise when armed thieves have just pointed a gun at an armed soldier. Give me all the options that soldier has in the split second he has to decide if he's going to live or die.

Yes, you would think the only choice is to shoot.

I thought that because the soldiers were in an urban environment in their own country, and there's no martial law or nothing .. that they couldn't actually fire their weapons.

Don't ask me where I read that, it seemed stupid, this is why I asked.

Manic Moran

Steyr wrote:

But i think they must give verbal warnings first for the person/s to stop and if verbals dont deter then warning shots and if that dont stop then use of deadly force.

Whilst I'm fairly sure there are steps in escalation (And I don't expect any serving Irish soldier to confirm or deny this, it's the sort of thing the Army doesn't like being talked about), I think a little common sense is required. If the first indication that there is a problem is a chap opening up on you with a Kalashnikov, it seems rather redundant to give a verbal warning first.

"Oi! You naughty person! Stop emptying your magazine of 7.62mmx39 at me, or I shall be very cross and demonstrate my crossness by displaying my weapon. If you continue to shoot at me, I shall fire a warning shot at you. If you have moved on to your third magazine, I shall shoot back..."

Soldiers have training for this kind of thing I'm sure and are not just gona shoot because the robber is pointing a gun at him

I would. I would in my civilian capacity as well. If someone's pointing a gun at me, it is a threat to my life, and I will defend myself. Presumably this is the same for Ireland, but around here no rules of engagement can prohibit the very basic right to defend your life or that of your colleagues. I'm certainly not going to wait until after he pulls the trigger: At that point, I may not be in a fit, unperforated condition to return fire.

and shooting to wound

Where, exactly, are you going to aim in a dynamic environment with a 5.56mm rifle that will be a shot to wound? Bear in mind that if you take a shot at a leg or arm, which will probably be moving, and miss, the bullet is going to go somewhere. You want to aim at the place that gives the best chance of a quick hit, and that's centre mass. If he survives, fine.

By complete coincidence, my boss wandered in the door as I'm typing this. We had a good conversation relating our various firefight stories, and I asked him point blank about a 'shoot to wound' policy. (He was the SWAT team leader for San Francisco Police). He laughed.

As for the concept of 'who pays for cash escorts', I can see arguments both ways, but lean defiinitely in favour of keeping the current situation: Law and order is a government responsibility. If we start a precedent of charging private bodies for the services of the police or army, does that mean that when I suffer a burglary that I should pay an 'incident fee' for the police to come and check it out? The banks are already funding the escorts: It's called corporation tax, and the police and Army are paid by taxes.

I thought that because the soldiers were in an urban environment in their own country, and there's no martial law or nothing .. that they couldn't actually fire their weapons.

Don't ask me where I read that, it seemed stupid, this is why I asked.

Closest I can think of is American law, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic duties which would result in a situation where shooting is required.

NTM

OwenM

Irish soldiers will most likely have shot you before you aim a firearm at them. They avoid whats called the mexican standoff -

"You put the gun down", "No - you put the gun down....."

If it's reached that stage the soldier should already have fired and one of his buddy's most likely will within the next few seconds.

They do have rules of engagement for peace time and at the core of them is justification. If they are justified in believing you will shoot or disarm them then they are allowed to fire upon you.

Black Swan

Gosh, why stop at arming private guards, why not the gardai? And even better, let's all strap on a six-shooter, cowboy hats, boots, spurs, and swagger down Grafton and plug anyone that gives us a suspicious look? Oh, even better, instead of just letting the USA use Shannon as a refueling point, we could all jump on the planes headed to Iraq and get some target practice? Then when we all come back to Dub, we will really feel safe and secure, knowing how to dodge bullets or dress wounds in the street? Just think of it, we could have an armed society, just like the States, where they have more guns than people according to the National Rifle Association. And after they get rid of Bush in 2008, we could invite him over to give lessons at Trin on how to shoot first and ask questions later? What a brave new world we could live in?

Random

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Gosh, why stop at arming private guards, why not the gardai? And even better, let's all strap on a six-shooter, cowboy hats, boots, spurs, and swagger down Grafton and plug anyone that gives us a suspicious look? Oh, even better, instead of just letting the USA use Shannon as a refueling point, we could all jump on the planes headed to Iraq and get some target practice? Then when we all come back to Dub, we will really feel safe and secure, knowing how to dodge bullets or dress wounds in the street? Just think of it, we could have an armed society, just like the States, where they have more guns than people according to the National Rifle Association. And after they get rid of Bush in 2008, we could invite him over to give lessons at Trin on how to shoot first and ask questions later? What a brave new world we could live in?

Oh dear. He's not getting a gun when we're handing them out!

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Gosh, why stop at arming private guards, why not the gardai?

Excellent idea, though a number of them are armed already. See other thread on the subject.

And even better, let's all strap on a six-shooter, cowboy hats, boots, spurs, and swagger down Grafton and plug anyone that gives us a suspicious look?

Also an excellent idea, though I would recommend a semi-auto and, frankly, abandoning the coyboy hat and spurs. I saw Irish people dressed up like that during the Line Dancing Craze of the early 1990s, it just doesn't work. It would certainly cut down on suspicious looks though, wouldn't it? As the old phrase went: An armed society is a polite society!

Oh, even better, instead of just letting the USA use Shannon as a refueling point, we could all jump on the planes headed to Iraq and get some target practice?

Done that. The paper range is easier though, one can go for a drink afterwards. Not being allowed to have a drink after a shooting is a royal pisser, trust me.

Then when we all come back to Dub, we will really feel safe and secure, knowing how to dodge bullets or dress wounds in the street?

Are either of those things really bad things to know? Response, breathing, bleeding, shock, fractures, burns, head injuries... and all that. You might actually save someone's life.

Just think of it, we could have an armed society, just like the States, where they have more guns than people according to the National Rifle Association.

I don't see that as being an issue. I've got two (and picking up a third today). There are chaps over on the shooting forum living in Ireland with more than I do.

And after they get rid of Bush in 2008, we could invite him over to give lessons at Trin on how to shoot first and ask questions later? What a brave new world we could live in?

I could recommend better instructors. I'll volunteer my services, I don't charge too much.

NTM

Black Swan

Oh, let's not stop at arming private guards, the gardai, and all adults in Ireland. Let's arm our kids too. Then they can organise themselves into gangs and fight over territory, just like they do in metropolitan Los Angeles? What a worthwhile learning experience. Then they can go to the playground and bang away at each other, and if they hit some innocent kid on the playground (as they did in Huntington Beach, USA, not too long ago), why worry? The USA has a name that depersonalises innocent victims in Iraq. They call them collateral damage. So long as they get the bad guy with one of their smart bombs, or a platoon of Marines, what matter a few dozen innocent civilians?

Oh, in response to an earlier poster, suggesting that we upgrade from six-shooters to semi-automatics, do you really think that the average citizen in Dub will hit the suspected bad guy? It takes a lot of practice on the range, and most in Dub will not put in the time. Not only that, when they have had one too many cool ones in the local pub, their aim may be off? Now, rather than semi-automatics, where they have to aim and pull the trigger each time, why not arm all citizens with shot guns (with double odd buckshot) or fully automatic machine pistols? But what if the suspected bad guy hides behind an engine block or dives into a store when you let loose with your lead? I know! All citizens could be issued howitzers that could be towed behind their petrol guzzling SUVs. Then, when the suspected bad guy tries to seek cover, POW!, no more cover (or city block)!

Now, that's a brave new world! Just think how safe and secure we would feel with an armed society? Bagdad's civil war would have nothing on Dub! Gee, we could really have bragging rights about our streets (what was left of them)!

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Oh, let's not stop at arming private guards, the gardai, and all adults in Ireland. Let's arm our kids too.

Not a bad idea in itself. I know people who used to sling a .22 over their shoulder at age 10 and ride their bicycle to the woods for some plinking. Of course, current law prohibits anyone under a certain age from owning a firearm (16 in Ireland, isn't it?) but that doesn't stop people I know from basically buying a plinker for their kid's exclusive use.

Then they can organise themselves into gangs and fight over territory, just like they do in metropolitan Los Angeles?

I would hope not. The gangs in LA have absolutley bugger-all tactical sense or technique. I would submit that any worthy gang should have urban warfare training. I see no reason to do things half-assed. Again, I offer my services.

So long as they get the bad guy with one of their smart bombs, or a platoon of Marines, what matter a few dozen innocent civilians?

You have no idea the amount of paperwork I have to go through every time I shoot someone. Really puts an incentive on trying not to kill the wrong person.

Oh, in response to an earlier poster, suggesting that we upgrade from six-shooters to semi-automatics, do you really think that the average citizen in Dub will hit the suspected bad guy? It takes a lot of practice on the range, and most in Dub will not put in the time.

That's why you need the semi-autos: More rounds means a greater chance that you might actually hit what you're aiming at. 15 times 2% is a lot better than 6 times 2%, after all. It's very embarassing to empty your firearm and see the target still standing. Hard to explain to your mates.

Not only that, when they have had one too many cool ones in the local pub, their aim may be off? Now, rather than semi-automatics, where they have to aim and pull the trigger each time, why not arm all citizens with shot guns (with double odd buckshot) or fully automatic machine pistols?

Now you're talking my language. The machine pistols would probably be the better bet, as really, you want something that will fit on your hip or your handbag.

But what if the suspected bad guy hides behind an engine block

What? On Grafton street? What's a car doing there? The owner deserves to have holes punched in his bodywork.

I know! All citizens could be issued howitzers that could be towed behind their petrol guzzling SUVs.

Again, we have that problem of the theorised scenario taking place on Grafton street. You're not allowed drive SUVs (towing howitzers or not) down it. I would recommend a field gun more than a howitzer, however. The range on Grafton Street is such that the lower trajectory is more suitable. Something like a 105mm mountain gun would be perfect.

Now, that's a brave new world! Just think how safe and secure we would feel with an armed society? Bagdad's civil war would have nothing on Dub! Gee, we could really have bragging rights about our streets (what was left of them)!

Dublin's roads aren't in the best of condition anyway. A few craters might be an improvement.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote:

As the old phrase went: An armed society is a polite society!

Well, it must be true, just ask anyone in Bagdad or Lebanon or South Central Los Angeles?

Oh, my credit card and I are quite familiar with pedestrian Grafton. Just didn't want to leave out the rest of Dub. Wouldn't want anyone complaining and reaching for their piece.

A whole new spin comes to mind for RIP: Rest In Piece means Rest In Peace.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Well, it must be true, just ask anyone in Bagdad or Lebanon or South Central Los Angeles?

Oh, they execute each other in a most polite manner down there. It's something of a ritual. Except in South Central L.A., they don't bother with tea. Most uncivilised.

What is the most polite society in Europe? Surely the Swiss, right? Efficient, prim people... Where you can go to the local Spar with an assault rifle over your shoulder.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6236/450pxcarolinemigrosp100eu7.jpg

NTM

sceptre

ciaranfo wrote:

I thought that because the soldiers were in an urban environment in their own country, and there's no martial law or nothing .. that they couldn't actually fire their weapons.

It's been a while since TV3 showed The Siege.

My short answer is "this isn't the United States" and I rather hope that doesn't sound too condescending as an answer.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Oh, let's not stop at arming private guards, the gardai, and all adults in Ireland. Let's arm our kids too. Then they can organise themselves into gangs and fight over territory, just like they do in metropolitan Los Angeles?

Arguing by extremes is a pitiful way to argue. And pretty annoying to be honest.

Dempsey

parliament wrote:

No, firstly I can't imagine there being a change made to the laws of the land to allow regular citizens to carry firearms.

Secondly, I would prefer a security guard to hand over the money rather than try be a hero and resist and start a gunfight which could result in innocent people being hurt/killed. We need to encourage less use of guns not more. Once the step is made of arming even regualr guards on the street there is no going back. It would result in criminals who do not carry a gun to all of a sudden being forced to use one to continue with their daily business.

Ze reason not to arm them, they have hand guns, we get semi-auto, we get auto, they get rpgs, barretts. Whatever Gadai/security get, they'll get the better to win. Its the wrong way to go

poobum

Dempsey wrote:

Ze reason not to arm them, they have hand guns, we get semi-auto, we get auto, they get rpgs, barretts. Whatever Gadai/security get, they'll get the better to win. Its the wrong way to go

even i you dont arm the gardai with guns, most need to be armed better! they have no deacent baton or anything, have you ever looked at what an american cop or english go out with(bar the gun) they are much better equipped! most gardai at one stage or another while on duty have been assaulted and beaten, but this has been allowed due to bad training and arming! (once again i dont mean guns but with blunt weapons etc they havent even been given a chance to defend themselves!

Black Swan

sceptre wrote:

Arguing by extremes is a pitiful way to argue. And pretty annoying to be honest.

I wonder if you would have agreed with the intent expressed by Jonathan Swift when he wrote his Modest Proposal? Correct me if wrong, but didn't he propose to raise and feed the Irish young to the British upper classes in terms of meeting their tastes? Was this a parody? Obviously he did not really plan on serving them our children to eat? Of course, his command of the language would surpass anything we have seen by anyone in this thread including myself.

Ste.phen

Chief Wiggum: All right, you scrawny beanpoles: becoming a cop is not something that happens overnight. It takes one solid weekend of training to get that badge.
Crazy Guy: Forget the badge! When do we get the freakin' guns?!
Wiggum: I already told you: you don't get a gun 'til you tell me your name!
Crazy Guy: I've had it up to here with your..."RULES!"

Seemed appropriate given the context

event

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

definitely not.
we have enough 'mistake' shootings after arming the gardia.

really?

which ones are they?