This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Security Guard Hold Ups - Easy Weapons

Jump to new
roland said:
It's better they take the guns off the security guards as they are obviously not a deterrant
Click to expand...

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.
 


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.
 
Happy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 


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
 
Ageo said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

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.
 
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
 
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,
 

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
 

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
ColB said:
What comic book did you read that in Krusty?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by Krusty:

"NSW Crimes Act 1900 + case law.

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

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.
 
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?
 
jono1887 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Life in the USA
Replies
4
Views
4K
Monkey C Doo
M
H
Security guard acquitted of murder
Replies
4
Views
4K
warney
W
R
Grim world of new Iraqi torture camps
Replies
3
Views
4K
RichKid
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...