Security Guard Hold Ups - Easy Weapons

[maffu]

It's better they take the guns off the security guards as they are obviously not a deterrant

Is it true that the common police in the UK do not carry fire arms? If the police in the UK have no fire-arms, it is not so far fetched to say that the local armaguard vans should not carry weapons.

Its a tough situation, if they have guns the criminals just use bigger better guns, and if the security guard actually shoots then they are tried as a murder suspect like that woman who was beaten up.

It really comes down to trying to calculate if them carrying guns deters more crimes occuring, or if the fact that they carry guns is an incentive for the criminals, as quite often the guns are part of the looty.

 

[Happy]

I agree with your frustration Roland, but when they do use their firearms they are dragged before the courts like a commom criminal eg that poor woman who shot a robber after she was assaulted by him a few years ago. Security guards are in a terrible position and from my knowledge paid terribly as well.

This is the biggest problem, police seems to have the same problem too, to the point that use of stun-gun is contested.

I think sooner we get over softly softly approach the better.

Surely some use legally owned guns improperly, but we cannot gag and cripple security guards and police just because some unique snowflake gets exterminated.

 

[maffu]

This is the biggest problem, police seems to have the same problem too, to the point that use of stun-gun is contested.

I think sooner we get over softly softly approach the better.

I agree in that the rules regarding the use of Stun Guns is crazy.
People are up in arms about the police carrying stun guns, people want to make them illegal as they are possibly lethal.

Well the police already carry lethal force in pisotls, so why care if they use a stun gun, it may be dangerous, but alot less so than a pistol.

 

[Ageo]

This is the biggest problem, police seems to have the same problem too, to the point that use of stun-gun is contested.

I think sooner we get over softly softly approach the better.

Surely some use legally owned guns improperly, but we cannot gag and cripple security guards and police just because some unique snowflake gets exterminated.

If you look at American statistics on gun related crimes etc.. you will find that the highest areas of gun crime are cities that have the toughest laws regarding firearms. I.E states that have CCW (concealed carry weapons) actually have a lower rate of gun crime due to more of the population patrolling their own land. Remember most criminals dont wanna get shot and only steal because they know most of their victims will give in to them.

Unfortunately zero tolerance action is the only way to counter these issues. If security guards were highly trained and taught to shoot robbers on site (without being made out like a murderer) i bet there would be less robberies.

 

[Ageo]

I agree in that the rules regarding the use of Stun Guns is crazy.
People are up in arms about the police carrying stun guns, people want to make them illegal as they are possibly lethal.

Well the police already carry lethal force in pisotls, so why care if they use a stun gun, it may be dangerous, but alot less so than a pistol.

The stun gun issue is quite absurb and most people who oppose it are usually tree huggers.

To sum it up quite easily would you rather be shot by a pistol or a stun gun??


case closed on that matter

 

[Happy]

Unfortunately zero tolerance action is the only way to counter these issues. If security guards were highly trained and taught to shoot robbers on site (without being made out like a murderer) i bet there would be less robberies.

Why don't they give security job back to police, let them shoot to kill and see what happens.

 

[Ageo]

Why don't they give security job back to police, let them shoot to kill and see what happens.

At least it will show that if you wanna break the law then your life is at risk. Im sure 80% of robbers will factor that in next time they look at doing a job.

 

[adobee]

One who is skeptical might suggest the majority of hold ups are inside jobs.... ?!!??

They should be taught to shoot first question later... That would solve the inside jobs and outside jobs... Problem is that they take action and they end up in jail..

 

[awg]

One who is skeptical might suggest the majority of hold ups are inside jobs.... ?!!??

They should be taught to shoot first question later... That would solve the inside jobs and outside jobs... Problem is that they take action and they end up in jail..

Skeptical? not sure what you mean?

another thing that some closer to the action may be able to disclose

It may vary from situation to situation, but there are very strict training and procedures to be followed in the event of robberies taking place.

I have worked with and known people who were/are police or security weapons trainers, and although they keep things close to their chest, I am almost certain that operators are instructed to discharge their firearms only under very limited circumstances.

Especially when there are members of the public at risk of stray bullets

 

[insider]

Another Security Guard hold up this morning in North Sydney:


Want a gun, knock over a security guard - easy

Its called an ambush...

 

[Uncle Barry]

Good evening Happy,
"Surely some use legally owned guns improperly"

Could you please supply me with one case, one situation, here in Australia, where a 'hold-up' was conducted with firearms legally owned?

Or is it a simple case of talking without knowing the facts correctly, maybe ?

Nothing personal of course,

 

[>Apocalypto<]

Another Security Guard hold up this morning in North Sydney:



.... and yes, I always wait for the last sentence - their guns were taken.

I vote that the security guards are taught how to defend the property they are meant to be defending and use their weapons, or take the damn things off them - we have enough weapons on the street already.

Want a gun, knock over a security guard - easy

what rubbish,

I would love to see what you would do in 1-3 seconds if you had a loaded gun pointed at your head.

so easy to say should have been done

 

[Ageo]

Good evening Happy,
"Surely some use legally owned guns improperly"

Could you please supply me with one case, one situation, here in Australia, where a 'hold-up' was conducted with firearms legally owned?

Or is it a simple case of talking without knowing the facts correctly, maybe ?

Nothing personal of course,

Barry most crimes are done with illegal firearms and every law under the sun wont stop crims from breaking the law.

Those with the old mentality that stronger gun laws are the answer need to stroke it with the other hand.

A good example that the 96 steal back was a waste of $700million not only did it "not reduce crime" but they also sold alot of the guns handed in back onto the black market.

What ****s me is that crims get off on light punishment for possessing illegal firearms yet a registered gun owner forgets to take the bolt out in transit and the cops wanna bust his balls for it.

Shoot the crims and teach futures crims a lesson.

 

[Krusty the Klown]

I am not sure what the law is in other states but in NSW - an armed security guard can only discharge their firearm if someone's life is in immediate danger - and no having a gun at your head is not enough of a danger (the gun could be fake) - the bad guy must be shooting or injuring someone, for the security guard to use their weapon.

That is the law.

The cash is always insured and the guards are trained to let the money go. The security company does not lose money in a robbery - only when someone gets injured - they may have to pay compensation.

Even if they never use their weapon, it is still a visual deterrent - same reason they wear uniforms - as a deterrent. This idea only has to put one offender off from carrying out a robbery to be worth it. That's the theory.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Krusty:

"I am not sure what the law is in other states but in NSW - an armed security guard can only discharge their firearm if someone's life is in immediate danger - and no having a gun at your head is not enough of a danger (the gun could be fake) - the bad guy must be shooting or injuring someone, for the security guard to use their weapon.

What comic book did you read that in Krusty? If the security guard had a gun pointed at his head he would be quite entitled to shoot the offender regardless of whether the gun was fake or not, its simply self defence. Let's not forget you just said he could discharge his firearm if someone'a life is in immediate danger. However, the smart security guard may just be inclined to accede the demands of the crook in that situation.

This type of crime will only increase as the incidence of ATM gas explosions and attempted theft of ATM's is not rendering as much success as some crooks would like hence the increase in targeting the Vans carrying the cash.

 

[Krusty the Klown]

What comic book did you read that in Krusty?

NSW Crimes Act 1900 + case law.

It's not a very funny comic book!! You should read it some time.

If the security guard had a gun pointed at his head he would be quite entitled to shoot the offender regardless of whether the gun was fake or not, its simply self defence.

Apparently NSW law disagrees with you.

Let's not forget you just said he could discharge his firearm if someone'a life is in immediate danger.

I also said a gun at your head is not enough in the eyes of the law, the offender must be causing actual bodily harm where life is in danger.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Krusty:

"NSW Crimes Act 1900 + case law.

It's not a very funny comic book!! You should read it some time.

Nice come back Krusty! But how about provide an excerpt and source URL to back up your assertion.

The offender could have a knife and if he went at the security guard the guard would be quite justified in shooting him. No different.

 

[Glen48]

Why is all stops are pulled out when some thing like this happens and few grand is lost but when some crook scam's thousands of victims he is allowed to live in his Mc Mansion after a few months sentence?

 

[Tysonboss1]

I think they undergo training in using their weapons... the problem lies in the fact that they are never ready and are always sprung by surprise. They would be better off having their weapons drawn when guarding a delivery.

The problem is security guards may be trained to use a firearm, But the are not trained to re-act aggresively in a fire fight, and they are not trained to use the weapon aggresively. Simply knowing how a weapon works and being able to pass a safty test once a year is nothing.

I mean there would be a big difference between trying to steal the weapons from three chubb guards, rather than say three Infantry soldiers.

 

[tehnoob]

The guns are strictly as a deterrent. You are only allowed to use 'appropriate force' which does not include shooting somebody who is trying to steal a few quid.

Guards are trained to protect themselves and the public foremost as the money is insured anyway.

The only reason the guards carry guns is a requirement by the insurers for them to do so.

And yes, I do work in the industry.