Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to devise company proposal. Would appreciate input.

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JohndeFresno
    replied
    I go with Bigun -

    Glocks are excellent pistols, but there is no external safety, period. Forget the company line about the trigger pull and trigger safety device being enough. I had a friend who inadvertently shot himself fatally with a Glock while holstering it in the morning - and he was a SWAT member. Leaving that issue aside, even a new Glock is much safer than an ancient choose-what-you-may firearm of questionable maintenance history, and the nod is to the Glock for stone reliability.

    I was a security guard when I first got out of VN, so I believe I know the thinking of your management. In that vein, here are some ideas to present to your boss, largely already touched on above, but perhaps more concise:

    A good-paying client prefers (not particularly in the order below - stream of consciousness):

    1) Image is 90% of patronage.
    Uniformity and modern firearms instantly command a good image.

    2) Uniformity
    The public expects standards in agents' training, equipment, methods of operation. It shows professionalism and predictability. No gun-toting cowboys to protect them or their loved ones or property. Guns should be in good working condition and repairable through one armorer or source. One make and model is easier to routinely maintain, unless you have a huge agency that has persons trained in other models carried.

    2) Safety
    No rogue security agents, no broken guns, no misfires! From the employer's standpoint, who wants to pay the hospital bill or death benefit to somebody who died due to a firearm failure or accident? I must add that I suspect that if you require external safeties, you can get a break in your liability insurance. That, of course, excludes Glocks. Yes, I have carried one on-duty before - but very reluctantly, despite the other excellent features of the handgun.

    3) Firepower
    If you do have to use your weapon, today's criminals are frequently gang members or otherwise organized teams - more than one person - who have the best firepower available, or at least high capacity weapons. A revolver does not work in today's violent society when the chips are down. Even the local 7-11 store is now frequently robbed by a pair of armed assailants, or more. This last week in Fresno, CA, there were 11 robberies of convenience stores where a pair of armed men hit these casual-cash stores with military precision - and they have not yet been identified, despite video surveillance. You have said that semi-autos vs. revolvers should not be a point of discussion, but if you are working at ports or airports where you are very likely exposed to large amounts of people, I just don't see how you can justify carrying a six-gun. The days of the one-on-one dealy encounter pretty much gone, and a lone gunman is not nearly likely to take on an armed security agent without help. Also, if you review police shootings from any forum, you will see that even the best trained officers rarely anchor their target with one or two shots, due to the stress. It is spray and pray, which means that your six-gun may be empty before you stop the threat. Forget the public relations angle about your excellently trained marksmen - personal experience and the experience of my partners tells me that in the real world, you are wise (an understatement) to have more than six quick shots at your disposal. Targets don't shoot back and there is nothing like really being fired at to test whether you can hit anything with the first shot.

    4) A lawsuit is quite likely. An argument can now be made that your security agency could be sued if it did not properly provide its injured or deceased employee with proper tools of the trade. You have already documented that an employee had a woefully unsafe firearm; and it seems apparent to me that your employer must now at least demand that your employees be armed with handguns that are demonstrated as being safe or be extremely vulnerable to a class-action or civil damages lawsuit, should something occur that results in the death or injury of one of your peers.

    5) I am a citizen who may, at some time, want a security escort. As one of your potential customers, I wouldn't consider hiring somebody to protect me if he carries a six-shooter as his main sidearm. As a backup, OK.

    Yup, I'm opinionated, but I sincerely hope that this helps to keep you and your friends from harm. If anything, I have learned over the years that being agreeable and not speaking your piece can ultimately put lives in danger.
    Last edited by JohndeFresno; 08-18-2005, 03:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Runnin' 87
    replied
    How about THIS WEAPON IS UNSAFE.

    Also if that weapon is unsafe and all the other weapons are of the same class, it is reasonable that they are all unsafe.

    The fact that the pistol broke in such an extreme manner during training illustrates the point.

    Now you boss may have another option. Have each of the weapons checked and cleared by a qualified authority.

    As far as new pistols. I ain't got an opinion that you will probably like, because I don't mind revolvers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigun
    replied
    Sorry most of my dealings with Security Gaurds have been the Pinkerton type Poorly paid and little to no training. There are some good agencies out there but they are rare. When you said your weapons were falling apart I assumed the worst but no offense was ment. I still believe that the Glock is a poor choice for a security firm for liability reasons and stand by my recomendations for a DA only pistol if only because they lessen the chance of a AD. Also since Glock has been buying all of the Department owned weapons from the Agencies that they have contracted with and sold these weapons to gun brokers there are alot of slightly used SIG, Beretta, S&W, H&K firearms on the market for really fair prices.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerrymaccauley
    replied
    The Glocks are not plastic...they are space age polymers. If they are cop proof,surely they are guard proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • JakeK
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigun
    Due to training concearns A Glock is probably not the weapon for a security gaurd as they are unforgiving when it comes to sloppy gun handling. A D.A.O. auto like the Taurus 24/7 , Beretta 92D, or Sig DAK would probably be a better choice. No offense ment but most security firms are not going to spend the money for proper marksmanship,weapon retention and use of force training. Basically they are going to leave you hanging if you ever have to use it.
    Well, as I said before, the company's main concern is financing, being that if the higher ups cannot afford how they live, it's not a good idea. If they aren't willing to spend the $300 on Glock 22's through the offer we've gotten from a gun shop in the area to supply our officers with newer weapons, they sure as hell aren't going to be getting us Sigs.

    I understand the stigma you mention about "sloppy handling." Maybe some of the guards you've met are sloppy, but I have to say that our group of patrol officers are pretty on-the-ball about things like this. Most are ex-LE or exmilitary, so they know what a shoddy and poor kept weapon will get you. Our patrol manager is a Glock Armorer, so training would be in-house, then we would have to certify with the state of Washington. The state covers legality on being armed in security, use of force, etc.

    But hey, don't us lowly security guards deserve plastic guns?

    Leave a comment:


  • jerrymaccauley
    replied
    security company

    Here's another angle you can try. If the bottom line for your CEO is liability, explain what vicarious liability is. Failure to train or provide safe equipment for your officers puts the company at greater risk should any of you get hurt, or be unable to protect your clients. There are many good and inexpensive firearms available and you may even get a good trade in from a dealer. Especially if the revolvers are old. But, it still becomes each officers responsibilty to make sure he has a safe, functioning weapon. The boss isn't wearing it. I can't imagine the cylinder popping off of too many guns without some prior clue that there was a maintanance problem. The trade off is this: for the better salary and benefits, you are risking your personal safety. Since you guys are, as you say, well trained, the liability is shifted to the company to provide you with the tools.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigun
    replied
    Due to training concearns A Glock is probably not the weapon for a security gaurd as they are unforgiving when it comes to sloppy gun handling. A D.A.O. auto like the Taurus 24/7 , Beretta 92D, or Sig DAK would probably be a better choice. No offense ment but most security firms are not going to spend the money for proper marksmanship,weapon retention and use of force training. Basically they are going to leave you hanging if you ever have to use it.

    Leave a comment:


  • JakeK
    replied
    My sentiments exactly. Moreover, we are just now being allowed to carry OC. What happened was, a few years ago all the patrol officers were armed, equipped with OC, handcuffs, batons. One day an officer-not even a patrol officer, a site officer-detained someone and they sued. Now when someone is hired they get a duty belt and a radio...that's it.

    I've looked at other companies in the area, and this one pays the most and has the best benefits. Every company has its liability and bottom line in sight, but I would like to think that some of them care about officer safety and not generalize by saying "The more they have, the more they'll want to use it."

    Leave a comment:


  • ccthompsfs
    replied
    Sounds like you may need to jump ship and find another company. If the policy is that anal what is the purpsoe of having the weapon there if your not allowed to pull it. Hell just remember that no one can take away your inherent right to self defense. Fact is that the weapon there can be a deterent but if you not willing to or "allowed" by the company then it does you no good to have it.

    Leave a comment:


  • JakeK
    replied
    I understand all of this, I just want the company to understand. :-)

    The company has an unsaid policy that if you ever draw your weapon, you're fired. You're seen as a liability. I'm not very gung ho about that, but I have no problem drawing if I feel my life or the life of someone around me is in immediate danger. A knife in close proximity, a gun, hell, even a junkie trying to poke me with his needle. I would rather explain why I pulled to a prospective employer rather than be dead because of my employer.

    To the company, just having the weapon on your bel is a show of force, and suposed to be a deterrant to people. I believe that at night, it doesn't matter what you are. You come walking around a corner and happen upon something in progress, they see a uniform and a badge: they don't care who you are.

    Leave a comment:


  • ccthompsfs
    replied
    Go with the Glock it's cheaper and more feasible than a settlement check. It will take a beating and keep ticking(like my timex). Plus it will bring your company upto date and you will have more rounds to present to a threat should the need arise.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeeper
    replied
    Modernization, firepower, better ergonomics, etc. are all reasons to change over.

    If the issue is coming down to cost, you should REALLY check with some of your local dealers or gun makers. Many of them will do great deals for trade-in weapons. I know there was a time when Smith & Wesson would do free (or very close to free) Sigmas when you traded in all your old weapons. And, contrary to popular opinion the Sigma is a decent weapon (a few local PDs are using them). You may also want to look into Ruger, they are solid (but heavy) guns and are quite low cost.

    You guys really need to get rid of the revolvers. Its gotta be getting tough to find duty gear and holsters for them cowboy guns

    Leave a comment:


  • JakeK
    replied
    These are things that we are stressing...and one thing our company wants is for us to have the firearms we have now appraised for a trade-in value for Glocks. The thing is, instead of tracking the weapons by serial number they took a crude razor or something to it, so it looks like a third grader etched "5" into the side.

    What I'm looking for is some reasons major LE agencies have switched. Besides, professional appearance, modernization, and officer and public safety, what else is there? They seem to be under the impression that the only reason we want them is for aestetic purposes only, which isn't true. If I wanted looks I'd push for Springfield XD's, Sig, or H&K's! :-D

    Leave a comment:


  • BrickCop
    replied
    From a liability standpoint it is wiser for your agency to all be issued and trained using one type of firearm. A good Ambulance chaser would have a field day with your current "one size fits all" approach to firearms training. It is also on record somewhere that at least one gun fell apart.

    The check for the Glocks and training today will be far less than a settlement check tomorrow.
    Last edited by BrickCop; 08-08-2005, 08:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DETSGT
    replied
    If I had contracted for security at my place of business etc. and a security guard that I was paying for showed up with a Turaus a colt from WW 11 or a S&W Victory model in his or her holster I do believe that the professionalism of the agency would be in question and I would make a change as soon as possible.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4126 users online. 257 members and 3869 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X