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

  • Trying to devise company proposal. Would appreciate input.

    Okay, first, a little background on the company.

    I work for a private security company that was started in 1940. We have strong ties to law enforcement and a good working relation with them in the area (our founder was the former US Marshall for the region). Our training is considered the best in the area, we have many contracts ranging from City, County, Airlines, Port, etc. Our patrol division is currently trying to convince our CEo that we should switch firearms from the ones we carry to newer, semi-autos.

    The gun we have now are revolvers: some are Taurus .357's, some are older .38's. One of our officers, during his firearms qualification, went to eject the chamber and reload, and the chamber came off the pistol and clammered to the ground. These guns are old. In fact, we have some photos of old patrol groups from the 40's, 60's, etc., and some of the guns in those photos are still in the weapons lockers in use today.

    We are trying to convince the CEO that it would be better to switch to newer guns, namely Glocks. Of course, his main concern doesn't seem to be officer safety, professional appearance, or modernization, but nonetheless he is giving us an opportunity to prove to him why we need newer guns. Some would say the runaway chamber is reason enough, but it doesn't seem to be.

    I don't want to start the whole "revolver vs. semi" argument, or the "glock yes vs. glock no" debate either. I just want to get input on what you guys feel we could bring to the table regarding this.
    "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

    "Carry daily. Apply sparingly."

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

        "Carry daily. Apply sparingly."

        Comment


        • #5
          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
          Nobody ever wants to have to fight, but its a darn good idea for someone to know how.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            Professionalism always, courtesy until it's time not to be.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

              "Carry daily. Apply sparingly."

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                Professionalism always, courtesy until it's time not to be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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."
                  "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

                  "Carry daily. Apply sparingly."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      Jerry
                      "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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?
                        "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

                        "Carry daily. Apply sparingly."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Glocks are not plastic...they are space age polymers. If they are cop proof,surely they are guard proof.
                          Jerry
                          "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              "In my life I have met many people who were quick to point a finger, and but a few that cared enough lift one"

                              ME

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3845 users online. 291 members and 3554 guests.

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

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X