Access Control
& Security Systems

“Security officers should be armed when
providing protection to government buildings such as Department of Defense facilities, courts and high-risk buildings, especially ones identified by the Department of Homeland Security as vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The employee background check, initial weapons training and quarterly recertification should be mandated to all security personnel and conducted by trained and certified instructors. The weapon is only a tool and in the hands of a professional security officer can be an asset. In the hands of an immature, ill-trained individual, the weapon can be a liability for the security officer as well as the employer. I should know, in 1988 one of my security officers attempted to rape and ultimately killed a young coed. I now consult to the security industry, helping them not to relive my history.”
— KIRK MACDOWELL, MacGuard Security Consulting, Inc.

“No! Weapons may be a deterrent in some
more public situations, but should be used only as a defensive measure.”
— ALEXANDER R. (AL) HIGGINS, Security Manager, MobileUSA

“You need to be more specific with the
question. For instance, many federal GSA contracts require that the guards are armed. Whether, while on GSA sites, they should be armed is another matter. Also, security on armored transport services are not required to be armed by any state, local or federal law, but common sense would dictate that they must be armed, due to the nature of the service.
— ERICK HOFFMAN, Police Officer (OIC), Code Enforcement Officer, Girardville, Pa.

“In my opinion the answer is no. Too many security personnel are inadequately trained to be armed. I feel that if the job requires a security person to be armed then they must undergo extreme testing mentally as well as physically. Then they must go to a local police academy for firearm training. A background check should be done to be certain that the person is clean.”
— PATRICK C. DECHIRICO, Director of Security and Safety, Gill St. Bernard's

“I believe security officers are far less
effective when they are armed. They tend to rely too much on the fact that they have a gun, instead of relying on their training such as “de-escalation training” to control the situation. I also believe that simply giving a person training on a firing range does not equip them to adequately handle a gun in an emotional situation. In the end, a company that uses armed security officers will significantly increase their legal liability, as well as their security costs, for relatively little payback.”
— TIMOTHY D. GILES, CPP Risk/Security Management & Consulting

“Yes, security officers would be more effective as a visual deterrence if they were armed with pepper spray, heavy duty flashlight/baton and especially if they need to defend themselves if that kind of situation would arise. However, extensive training would be needed on how to use those items effectively to defend themselves, and an entire new screening process to hire security officers would also be required. To arm security officers with guns would not be advisable. If that security officer works in a specific location that would require a firearm for safety or a visual deterrent, then a police officer should be hired.”
— NAME WITHHELD, Ontario, Canada

“Yes. Armed security officers are more effective for several reasons:

• Uniformed security personnel are present to act as a deterrent. The more professional and formidable looking the force, thus the harder the target, thus the higher the deterrent effect.

• The public's opinion of, and their willingness to, accept direction from an armed officer is higher than unarmed guards.

• Most felons will think twice about confronting an armed guard vs. an unarmed guard. Almost everyone is intimidated at some level by a firearm, and criminals even more so. Criminals don't want to get shot, and they don't want to get caught. Thus, the most effective security posture feeds into these fears.

• Armed guards raise the level of a hostile counter force (number of personnel, armament, level of experience) required to penetrate a facility with armed security personnel which could cause them to opt for a softer, less protected target.

• Armed guards feel better equipped and more confident to handle most situations that might arise during the course of their duties.

• The overall qualifications of an armed security force are of a higher caliber than an unarmed force because of the potential legal liabilities associated with carrying of firearms and the use of deadly force by security personnel. Armed guards tend to: have better judgment and emotional stability; act well under pressure; have a working knowledge of criminal law and the use of deadly force; be capable of passing a background check to ensure they have no criminal history; and they can (in most cases) be bonded and obtain government or corporate security clearances.”
  — DANIEL J. PIEPGRASS, Force Protection/Anti-Terrorism Directorate, Programs & Systems Branch, Code N348B, Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command/Commander, U.S. Navy North Staff