When a place of business chooses to hire a security guard, one of the first and toughest decisions is whether that guard should be armed or unarmed. The armed versus unarmed debate is complex; every situation is different and must be evaluated individually.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where workplace and public shootings are entirely too common. Here in Atlanta, the recent tragedy at the Kennesaw FedEx facility has prompted many companies to search for answers about what steps are necessary, including arming their security officers, to protect their assets and ensure the safety of employees.
After such a heart-rending event, this response is expected and completely understandable. But protecting assets and preserving lives is not as simple as replacing an unarmed officer with armed personnel.
First, you must assess your environment and understand if an officer with a gun will be a deterrent or a distraction. Often, an armed presence can create tension for employees, unintentionally displacing a peaceful work culture. There is a balance between feeling secure and feeling intimidated, and the presence of a weapon can upset this balance.
Having a visibly armed security officer also may have the opposite effect of increasing security. Rather than deterring a violent person, an armed officer may become a target — as demonstrated by the 2013 shooting at the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard.
Second, the presence of a weapon may substantially increase liability exposure for a company. In the hands of highly trained and skilled personnel, a weapon impacts the risk dynamic; but in the hands of an untrained or poorly trained officer, a gun may create more problems than it solves.
It is of vital importance to evaluate an officer’s training practices, licensure and qualifications before allowing that officer to bring a gun on site. Most states have strict licensure requirements for armed security officers, and rightfully so. In some states, this service is reserved for off-duty law enforcement personnel.
Finally, exacerbating the challenges in our state is Georgia’s new gun law, the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014. This law permits individuals to carry weapons into a multitude of public spaces, increasing the likelihood of someone carrying a weapon into the workplace or other public area.
If an individual exercising this right lacks proper training or is unfamiliar with the risks associated with carrying a weapon, an unarmed security officer may be at a disadvantage in the event of an escalated situation. Companies must factor in this new legislation to properly assess their individual circumstances.
SecurAmerica has a long history of providing highly skilled security personnel to customers across the United States. Currently, less than 5 percent of our security officers in the commercial sector are armed — and we do not expect that to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. However, in the government sector, more than 85 percent of our officers are armed; they protect some of the government’s most sensitive infrastructure and historical information.
At the end of the day, security and life safety should be the prevailing factors when setting these policies, and the decision should be made in consultation with your security provider and local law enforcement. These groups have the experience and expertise to help guide your decision.
Whether in government or the private sector, the decision to have armed or unarmed personnel cannot be made lightly. We owe it to those around us to think before we react and consider the long-term implications of such a weighty choice.
John Adams is president and chief operating officer for SecurAmerica, an Atlanta-based security firm.
