During that recent tragic Buffalo shooting, apparently the guard was able to draw on and hit the shooter, but the shooter had armor and the guard only had a low powered pistol. His hits failed to wound, and the brave man was killed.
Would you be comfortable with better equipped security professionals? I would like to know they're armed for the task in the hopes that such a tragedy could be averted.
My condolences to the people who were hurt and lost, including the hero guard who did his best.
Sad events.
Do security guards need Armor and Higher Calibre Armor Piercing Firearms?
This is pointless. The gun has far outstripped our ability to protect ourselves on an individual level. It is also worth noting that you can't wear significant body armor on a daily basis where as someone who plans an attack only has to equip themselves then and there.
But this is besides the point. Because the US military changed their service rifle things are going to change drastically. USA's love for the AR is not because its a good rifle, its fucking shit, its because it is the gun that the military uses which makes it a status symbol in USA. Problem with this is that the AR is an intermediate cartridge. Sure it will make an absolute mockery out of normal body armor but as far as rifles goes it is weak.
The new rifle however.. Well its more powerful. About twice as much in fact. It is almost up to the level of full power rifles from WW2. This means that they won't just make a mockery out of body armor but when you get hit by one of these soon-to-be-popular rifles in USA you won't just die but your corpse will be mangled beyond recognition.
Shootings in USA is going to become a lot more gory.
Material science is advancing very quickly right now and the US Army just got its first helmet rated to stop a rifle hit which kind of proves my point.
As for the new US military rifle, it's pretty punchy, hoping that's not available to the public at large particularly when they finish the smart scope.
Basically though I'm saying that for a security guard a.38 revolver just doesn't cut it anymore.
Problem with protection is that we have passed beyond material properties. To make a "safe" bullet proof suit would require too much weight and/or volume to be useful in a civilian capacity.
As for the XM5 it is already available for purchase with a silencer. Its called the Spear and as the production kicks up its going to start flooding the US markets. As for security guards, their top priority is not to deal with the worst case scenario so honestly a 9mm is more than enough if not TOO much already.
I think these mass shooters obsession with AR’s stems from the media’s obsession with fear mongering them in addition to their availability. The majority of these shooters use base model cheap AR’s. AR’s in superior cartridges have been around for decades including AR-10’s. They aren’t typically used because they’re pricier and these psychos don’t know much about firearms. It took almost a decade for AR pistols to start being used. Regardless I don’t see the military changing firearms is going to have a much of an effect for a long time
What I am saying is that there is a good argument to be made that security guards should not be armed unless there are special reasons for them to be. Sure if they are guarding a secure facility it might be warranted but if they are patrolling a mall or something then I personally believe it causes more problems and danger to society than it would solve in the case they would need it.
I rather them have to run and get it from their locker than have another case of a kid being shot for waving a toy gun around in a store. But this is a whole other argument quite frankly. The new gun is problematic because it changes the power dynamic. If you are armed with such high firepower you can quite comfortably go up against police when they arrive rather than feel like you need to escape. It is a very powerful tool to put in the hand of a majority of gun owners.
@DarkWinterNights The popularity of the AR is very easy to explain. The gun culture in USA has very strong ties to the military and by extension the military service rifle AKA the AR15. It becomes a status symbol and even a symbol for masculinity. It is the tool that the soldiers they are patriotic about use and boy do they look up to the manliness of soldiers.
Going beyond that it is also widely available since the economy of scale kicks in as the military starts ordering massive quantities meaning the cost of the rifle goes down massively and parts as well as the knowledge to use and repair them becomes ubiquitous.
How long will it be before the gun culture in USA switches over to the new SPEAR? Probably very quickly. It is a very impressive gun in the traditional sense and the gun manufacturing company is going to push it HARD.
I don't think you understand how body armor works. I haven't seen a report on what type the shooter was wearing, but most plates used in a plate carrier are rated to stop at least three.30-06 rifle rounds, which means pretty much anything practical for security including rifles and shotguns, which they wouldn't likely be carrying in their arms all day anyway, wouldn't necessarily be enough, and the guard only managed to hit the shooter once anyway, and that was with a relatively quick to draw and use pistol. In this case, a plate carrier of his own would've been more useful to the guard than a bigger gun so that he could've made follow-up shots or made it to a better position.
Don't make assumptions about what you think I don't know.
I'm suggesting a military grade carbine with a shoulder strap. You see guards like this all the time in Israel. They do indeed carry them ready at all times
I'm suggesting it along with some serious ap ammunition exactly because you often only get one chance to react.
A plate carrier might have been enough on its own, but you don't want a protracted fight that involves repositioning and more time for civilian casualties.
I dunno I guess I am in the minority though, but I think if lethal force is going to be used at all then it should be done to the maximum extent in order to end an incident quickly.
There seems to be some kind of pull towards half measures here that I'm just not getting here.
The problem with using armor-piercing ammo as a standard, is the vast majority of probable threats to a security guard are not wearing armor, and you run an extremely high risk of over-penetration. Those types of rounds are also less likely to inflict a fatal wound or at least incapacitate the threat since they won't expand on impact, and they still usually fail to defeat level 3 & 4 plates with one shot - a shot that again, would have to be exceptionally well-placed in the heat of a moment. The situation in Israel is also radically different- it is a very realistic scenario that any given location could be attacked at any time with the intensity of a squad or platoon-size firefight against terrorists trained and equipped by the Iranian equivalent of the CIA, while it's statistically a freak incident in the US almost always carried out by a lone gunman. I 100% agree with your point on lethal force, but carbines with M855A1s wouldn't be the weapon of choice hardly ever outside of places like Tel Aviv, Beirut, and Kyiv.
You make good points. If you were going to actually implement the ap carbine you'd probably want it configured for three round burst.
As for those kinds of fights, it's also the kind of thing you'd expect as unrest boils over into civil war. Which seems like an increasingly likely scenario in the US. I'm not condoning or suggesting it, just kind of feel it in the wind you know?
I had a much more detailed response but it's apparently too long. Burst/auto modes aren't actually that useful because only the first round typically lands where you want it to, and it's generally unnecessary in close quarters but you can use other means to optimize a carbine for interior spaces. Those modes are meant for suppressive fire, which has merits in a big firefight when you don't have an actual machine gun, but that's about it. Weapons and kits ideal for a societal collapse or civil war are also very different from what you'd want in private or site security too. The biggest obstacle here is that better training and equipment for security has to come out of the pockets of businesses, and something like a grocery store simply can't afford it when they're operating on an average 2% profit margin (the lowest of any business type in the country)- I'm surprised the one in Buffalo had one at all, and no doubt he was there to deal with cashier robbers and such, which is a far more common occurrence. The quickest, most cost-effective solution that a business can do without a fundamental shift in state and federal government policy (that won't happen) is to purchase and issue plate carriers and the inserts for them.
11.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
No. First off they're expensive as far as vests go, and they can be heavy and hot. Most companies aren't going to spring for that unless they can forsee an issue happening imminently, then you get into hazard pay territory. Not to mention insurance increasing for the company and the guard as it is now a higher risk.
As for AP rounds, hell no. Way too easy for it to over penetrate soft targets and damage property or kill someone innocent.
Did I say that? No. Did I even imply that? No. Do I think security guards should have vests and AP rounds? Generally no due to financial and liability concerns. Am I happy with the way it turned out? No, but I'm hardly surprised.
A vest isn't all that expensive, particularly when weighed against human life.
Liability wise I could see how there might be an issue, with ap rounds and a better gun. But seriously you're against vests for armed guards? That's a weird hill to die on.
It is when you have to have the proper size for the guard, and not all vests are meant to stop every kind of bullets. Plus again, then you would be paying likely hazard pay, and at minimum the guards and companies liability insurance will skyrocket.
I'm against them, yet again, because if financial reasons. If we did that and sprung for vests for all armed guards, we will have to recoup that money somewhere. Usually that will entail charging the client more which can risk the contract and thus the guards job, or we can be told to replace the armed guard with an unarmed one as they are cheaper, and then you have even more lives at risk. Alternatively we can also just pay the guards less, and make them pay for a damaged vest if need be.
But let's assume it's free to give them vests, cool. Say it's a standard vest, meant to stop things from a.22lr up to a.357mag. Cool. But if the person has a.40, .44mag, .45, .50, 5.56, 7.62, certain shotgun rounds etc., that vest won't be of much if any help. And if they get shot literally anywhere else, like the sides of the torso, pelvis, arms, legs, neck or head, you have an incapacitated guard.
Want a solution? Better training for guards, under pressure.
Yeah I'm aware of how vests work. As for better training, I'm all for that, but it sounds like this guard did everything right and still ended up out of luck.
I agree though that unarmed guards are pretty pointless most of the time, and that proper equipment has a cost. Which would have ripple effects.
I'd rather guns be in the hands of trained responsible professionals than wannabee hero's. But for shooting in public you need something short range and low power to minimise risk to bystanders.
As for risk to bystanders, having their protector murdered before being also shot afterwards isn't particularly great in terms of risk management either.
I think if you're going to have an armed society then guards and police need to be armed to the top of the line.
This is a good point. Over penetration is a massive concern in urban settings because you dont want bullets to for example penetrate walls and hit people on the other side or pass through the person you aim at and kill someone on the other side. As such you are pretty much stuck with the 9mm or equivalent.
I feel like I’d rather just take my chances that I won’t be one of the people unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time than live my whole life with armed guards with huge guns surrounding me every time I go out in public. That’s not the kind of environment I want to live in, with guns constantly in my sight. I already don’t like seeing guns on every cop’s hip. I don’t know, man, I just don’t live my life with fear, I accept any outcome that befalls me as my proper destiny.
Fair enough, man. I just think that, collectively, as humans, we should be stepping farther and farther back from any mentality of “…or else I’ll kill you”, no matter what it’s in response to.
I like to fancy myself a pretty hard guy, but knuckles are my weapon of choice. If I die, I die honorably, and that’s what ultimately matters to me, more so than surviving.
I get what you’re saying, but that mentality, while possibly realistic (sadly), is EXTREMELY pussy. That’s my problem with humans, we’re the only animal where the weak can routinely defeat the strong, and that’s supposed to happen roughly zero times out of a hundred in nature. Preserving what nature intends is #1 priority in my life. I would rather die unfairly than cheat to live. That’s fucking with natural selection. Humans need to remember we’re meant to be animals in nature, just like everything else. We are not special beings.
I´m not really sure if I really wanted more guns in such a situation I´d rather prefer more gun save safe shelter rooms because chances are that other people get hurt anyways because the shooters uses other weapons like grenates or smaller bombs to distract the guard. Another option would be to install more options to flee from a shop but just giving more weapons to the guard wouldn´t make me feel safer because it always depends on other factors.
Yes that´s true but I generally have a hard time trusting people using something correctly that they don´t use regularly. Plus here where I come from not many guards are athletics many of them seem to be at least a bit overweight. Another option probably cheaper option could be to increase the number of guards because that way they always would be in a majority and could probably handle the situation more smoothly.
Don't need to be an athlete to shoot a gun, that's kind of the point actually. Not really sure why you're bringing fat shaming into it but alright.
As for being an armed guard, regular training is a very good idea. But that wasn't an issue he was on point, no collateral damage or mishandling.
Hiring more guards would again be more costly, and there are documented incidents of armored gunman mopping the floor with dozens of under equipped police. It's why police have carbines now.
I think the approach should extend to armed guards too.
It's not about fat shaming but there are reasons you need to go through a fitness to get in thee army or the police because if you don't have the ability to move and react quickly a guard won't be able to defend you against an attacker no matter how well he's equipped if the attacker knows to use his weapons.
Meh, I'm a fat guy, and I'm pretty fuckin fast. You shouldn't assume a big guy is slow or clumsy it's a great way to get knocked on your ass. I box too and I hit like a bus.
I just like my junk food and don't hit the gym as much as I used to, so sue me.
Just don't ask me to chase anybody for very long or run an obstacle course, I'm just not doing that shit.
This is a tricky one because some security guards get vests and some don't. It probably boils down to where the guards are in terms of buildings they are watching or if the company even has the budget to provide them with that as well. It's not as simple as it looks.
Plus, on the off chance an event like this happens is few and far in between for a majority of security guards during their career.
27.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
I just bought a hand gun and chose a S&W.357 magnum \. I chose this because of the extra stopping power. Security guards if properly trained should have the ability to neutralize any threat that they may encounter.
It's a classic, good power and easy to maintain and use. I have read a lot of after action reports though, and reloading a revolver, even with a speed loader has cost men their lives.
But hopefully you'll never need it let alone find yourself needing to reload under pressure.
I'm a big fan of the Beretta 9mm. I think the US retired it, so you might even get a military surplus unit for a deal if you're lucky.
They are very accurate, feel excellent in the hand, and the heavy steel helps with follow-up shot accuracy and recoil vs a polymer gun like a Glock.
Unfortunately I don't have the paperwork to own pistols here so I just get to borrow the ranges loaners for sport shooting but it is what it is.
Even with the onerous gun laws the crooks here still seem to get their hands on them just fine.
I am not experienced with firearms and think an automatic is too complicated for me. I am going to training an a few days. I know lots of cops who have used this gun. It is a Model 19. It is a real nice looking piece of hardware.
I think police should be armed with automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds. I don't know about common security guards though. most of them are just as suspect as the criminals.
Yeah I suppose that's a valid point, the job would have to be uplifted in terms of screening and background checks, and come with more training. Would make it a better job for veterans though.
Great. After getting sent to the Middle East in a pointless war we can become grocery store security guards. A grateful nation’s thanks for our service. Woo-hoo.
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
I have been one. I was unarmed. I always had a target on my back. If we are on a post where we are actually protecting lives and property, we should be equipped for it.
No kidding. Unarmed guards get into some really bad situations and you're basically just a dude with a clip board at that point. Guards should be equipped to intervene at least to some extent.
so, you know what would have helped in this situation? A net gun. It would have entangled the guy so he couldn't keep walking. A pepper ball gun/launcher that would have made it difficult for the shooter to breathe and keep his eyes open. It's not about penetration. It's about immobilization.
yeah. next thing they need tanks. and then we gotta make tanks legal too right? cause otherwise the second ammendment is pointles. everyone should be armed to their teeth at any point. that's for sure the best society to live in.
What happens if it’s a say tall skinny dude with a weapon in front of people, even if you could take the shot, that round is going straight through and hitting person behind them.
I've never been in a gunfight no. I've never handled military grade weapons either, being a Canadian civilian.
I've studied several high profile modern gunfights to make my creative writing more realistic and out of scholarly interest. I've also had basic firearms training which is pretty rare in and of itself around here.
I've never found the marksmanship aspect that tough. It's just a matter of practice. Although I've really only spent any amount of time with hunting long-arms and a Beretta 9mm at the range. I'd imagine though that it would be easier to be accurate with a carbine assuming equal training hours. I get that panic makes it harder to aim, but that's why you drill.
As an aside:
I've been an unarmed guard during a bank robbery and hostage incident though, and I'd much rather have been equipped to respond effectively.
I ended up talking the guy into leaving the hostage behind and just taking cash. But he could have easily hurt someone. I really disliked how our cultural aversion to guns left him holding all the cards. But at least nobody got hurt.
I guess having been an underequipped guard in a bad situation myself this one really hits home.
@artemissilver if you read what both @Agape93 and @purplepoppy have put, you can see why AP is not a great idea.
Things are great in theory, however in practice it becomes often a waste of resource and you just have to accept these things will happen.
If a shooter know what kit the security has, they just change tactics
Also a shooter can just blatt away at any person with multiple rounds at any body part, the defender / protector is pretty much aimed shots central mass, which by chance ceramics / steel etc go.
Fortunately I live in a state that lets me carry as many firearms and as much ammo as I want including long guns so I can defend myself and not have to rely on others to protect me
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
