As you probably heard, we recently had a debate in Tennessee over allowing people with Handgun Carry Permits to dine in restaurants which happen to also serve alcohol. It was pretty heated at times, mostly because of ignorance and misreporting on what the proposed law would have allowed. There were lots of emotional arguments, including the typical “blood in the streets” and “wild west saloon” analogies. A lot of people stated that they just wouldnt feel safe if they knew the guy in the next booth was carrying a handgun to protect his family.
Actually, I’ve noticed that this attitude isn’t confined to restaurants. Some people just can’t fathom that good people might want to protect themselves from bad people. They believe anyone who carries a handgun must be a bad person.
Unless, of course, the person with a gun is a police officer. Or a security guard. We’ll get to that in a second.
The argument typically goes that police officers and armed guards are better equipped to handle bad guys than regular people because of their extensive training. This belief is so widespread that during the House debate on HB962, Representative Hardaway (D-Mem) proposed an amendment that would require restaurants that did not prohibit carry permit holders “to provide armed security guards to protect the restaurant’s patrons.” Presumably, this amendment was meant to protect patrons from carry permit holders. Posting a sign would, apparently, be sufficient for protecting patrons from armed robbers.
Now, I’m not going to argue that carry permit holders and police officers get comparable training. They don’t. I may go into the POST certification requirements later on, but it’s not relevant here. I’m also not arguing that private armed security have no place in the world. They do. I’ve done work as private security in three states. I am going to argue that if you have faith in armed guards not to shoot up the place, you should have faith that carry permit holders won’t either.
On to the good bits!
You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to be a security guard. Private Protective Services companies are regulated by Title 62, Chapter 35 of the Tennessee Code Annotated. Individuals who wish to work for Private Protective Services companies are also regulated by this part of the law. You have to fill out an application, go to training, have a criminal history check, and pay some fees. If you don’t, you’ve committed a Class A misdemeanor, which is the most serious crime you can commit without it being a felony. The State has a website that lists all the requirements and qualifications, in case you’re interested.
The same is true for carrying a firearm for protection. If you want to carry a firearm legally, you have to get a permit from the State, which is covered by TCA 39-17-1351. You have to fill out an application, go to training, have a criminal history check, and pay some fees. You can’t just go buy a gun and start carrying it–that would also be a Class A misdemeanor, assuming you weren’t already a felon. The State has a website that lists all the requirements and qualifications, in case you’re interested. There are also restrictions on where you can carry even if you have a permit, so you have to always be mindful of those. Sometimes those restrictions change and it’s your fault if you don’t keep up with them and violate the law. You also must look for specific signs at entrances to businesses, because those signs invalidate your permit.
Since the argument goes that armed guards are better trained, we should look at the training. The State requires any guard, armed or unarmed, to undergo 4 hours of “General Training.” This course covers the laws governing security guards, the proper attitude, emergency procedures, and job-related things like writing reports and a vocabulary lesson. Armed guards are required to go to an additional 8 hours of classroom instruction, for a total of 12 hours of classroom training. They are also required to undergo 4 hours of range instruction, hitting their targets with 70% accuracy at a maximum distance of 21 feet.
To get a Handgun Carry Permit, you must undergo 4 hours of classroom instruction. You must also complete 4 hours of range instruction with a 70% accuracy rate at 21 feet. If you have successfully completed the firearms training course required for armed security guards, you’re exempt from these requirements.
So let’s walk through that a bit. Armed or not, a security guard must go through the 4 hour General Training. The subject of this post is the armed guards, so we can probably throw this out. I doubt knowledge of how to write a report and a vocabulary lesson on security terminology would help in an armed robbery, but it’s possible I’m wrong. I also doubt that shoot and move tactics, or other things that might be helpful in bringing a quick, decisive end to an armed confrontation are covered in this general class. That would be out of scope since unarmed guards must take this class.
The range instruction requirements for armed guards and handgun carry permit holders is identical. Four hours of range time with a 70% hit ratio at 21 feet. This is fairly standard.
That leaves the firearms classroom training, which is where we find the disparity. The Handgun Carry Permit class is 4 hours, while the Armed Security Guard class is 8 hours. Armed guards get a whopping 4 more hours of training than Carry Permit Holders.
Four. More. Hours.
And if we look closer, we can see where those four hours come from. Remember, since taking the armed guard class exempts you from having to take a carry permit class if you wish to get your carry permit, the four hours of HCP training logically must be covered in the eight hour armed guard course.
They go over the Armed Guard laws. They cover weapon retention. They cover storage while going between work and home, presumably because they cannot be legally armed unless on duty though I can’t find that in the actual law. They probably cover legal liability more in depth than the Carry Permit class because the company they will work for will also be liable. All the other things on that list were covered in my bare bones Carry Permit Class (for some reason, the state doesn’t publish the HCP class curriculum, so sorry for no link).
When you boil it down like this, the argument that armed guard training somehow turns an average citizen with a gun into a super-accurate handgun sniper that will never miss seems, well, silly. So the next time someone pulls a Jeff Woods and starts talking about “yahoos with guns” or somesuch nonsense, ask them if they trust armed guards. Then educate them, and watch the backpedaling.
money = rights | first-hand comparisons | Double Unpossible |
But… but… but… that is half-again as much training!
.
Really, I have never really understood why some people will trust certain people with firearms, and not certain other people. If someone is going to be unstable and go on a murderous rampage, no amount of training will fix/change that. Accuracy certainly does increase with practice, but private firearm owners often end up practicing more often than some police departments.
And as for security guards… yeah, I think you just blew that right out of the water
When will 2am supporters learn to shoot at legit targets? Armed security is NOT it. Despite your intentions, this is what you have done.
Go after the proper targets, which are the opponents of carry permits and those who seek to restrict our right to self defense by establishing “gun free” zones.
I worked as armed private security for many years. I also have four years as a peace officer under my belt. I can say without reservation that the average armed officer is better equipped to handle AND DETER confrontational situations in the setting described (diners at a restaurant with an armed guard) because the officers do this every day and are alert. The permit holder is not at attention every day for entire shifts and is distracted by EATING and SOCIALIZING. Remember basic firearms training: Practice Makes Perfect. Armed officers practice looking for potential problems every minute of every shift. Permit holders, by and large, do not.
Private Security’s FIRST duty is to deter clients’ loss by being VISIBLE and ALERT. Patrons at a restaurant do not fit that description. Everyone goes into Condition White at times. Armed officers on duty are much less inclined to do so.
You identified your target (Representative Hardaway (D-Mem)) right off the bat. And then you strayed to the friendlies… I look forward to future ON TARGET posts.
Not real sure where the offense is. Hardaway and the like make the argument that armed guards are better trained than carry permit holders.
I argue, with evidence, that the state mandated training isn’t all that different for the two groups.
If they trust one, they should trust the other. That goes for everybody.
Uh, Steve, he was not attacking armed security. Rather, he was pointing out that armed security is not really any better or more-trained than handgun carry permit holders, which is a favorite argument of the people you would like us to attack.
So, in short, he was attacking “legit targets”.
You might want to check your fire…
The offense is that you are ignoring evidence. Armed officers, as I pointed out above, do this every day. Permit holders do NOT. In addition, in this scenario the permit holder is much more likely to be in condition white than the armed officer. Diners are eating and socializing while the armed officer is on alert looking for whatever trouble his uniform did not deter.
You are stuck on the initial security course. Typical armed security officers undergo further training above and beyond the initial course and, as I state above, armed officers train every time they go on duty.
Hardaway in this narrow case is correct: The typical armed officer is better trained than the typical permit holder. The WRONG that Hardaway did was to try to mandate that non-signed establishments MUST hire armed security. Places that allow permit carry are, by their very nature, more safe than gun free zones. Forcing one class of business to expend resources that the competition does not for political purposes is wrong. That should be the point of objection to Hardaway.
In truth, the “gun free zones” are the ones that are in dire need of armed officers.
However, your attack on armed officers is misplaced and misguided. Further, from my observation Tennessee officers generally are more professional regarding their duty than most other states. Poor target selection, in my opinion.
Uh, Steve, he was not attacking armed security. Rather, he was pointing out that armed security is not really any better or more-trained than handgun carry permit holders, which is a favorite argument of the people you would like us to attack.
Armed security IS better and more trained than the average permit holder. That is MY point. For my reasoning please see the other commments I’ve posted here.
Go after Hardaway, please, and not your fellow 2am supporters. What things like this post do, when unchallenged, is perpetuate the myth of the lazy slob who straps on a revolver and sleeps his way through his shift in a remote post.
Funny, Steve – speaking as a handgun carry permit holder, I do carry my firearm and look out for the safety of myself and my family every day. So, now, who is attacking whom?
You seem to be confusing/conflating “police officer” with “security officer” – the two are separate, distinct, and disjoint sets, especially here in Tennessee. You will never have any argument from me that a police officer is better-trained than an average handgun carry permit holder. However, if you try to allege that the armed security guards strolling through malls are better trained… well, the numbers simply do not add up.
Now, if you have specific examples to bring up concerning what additional training that armed security guards (not police officers) go through, and what training they do before every shift, feel free to field it here and now. WizardPC presented hard evidence and numbers in his post, and now that responsibility is incumbent upon you, since you are challenging his premises.
And while I cannot speak for WizardPC, I think I am relatively safe in saying that there was no attack intended. Presenting the numbers of hours of training an armed security guard is required to have is not an attack, and does point out that their required training is not significantly greater than ours. As for optional/elective training on the part of the guards and their employers, that argument holds water in both directions.
So calm down already, before you impale yourself on the plank in your eye.
Linoge, I think you have not read for comprehension what I have said since I have already addressed you “challenge(s)” above. As one who has acquired both the permit and armed security card for Tennessee, who has worked in almost every facet of the private security industry, and who has four years’ experience as a peace officer I do believe I can tell the difference between a security officer and a police officer.
If you wish to read what I have written above and respond without the polemically disruptive phases such as “calm down” and the like, I’ll continue. However, as I alluded to in the post above your latest, too often the Blart myth of mall security is given as an objection to real world reality, as you did in your last comment.
No, Steve, my last comment was directed at you, specifically, and was not an allusion to some stereotype (methinks he dost protest too much…). When you get the time to look up “plank mote eye” in Google, I would suggest you do so, especially concerning how you are accusing others of attacking fellow 2nd Amendment advocates, whilst doing a damned fine job of that yourself.
Now, regarding my “reading for comprehension”, so good of you to launch into ad hominem attacks already. If you would care to look back at what you wrote, and actually look at it, you would realize that it is not immediately clear which category of “officer” you are referring to. Thank you for clearing that up, though in a amusingly high-handed and condescending way.
Congratulations on your permits, and your service history. Now that you have finished sharing your anecdotes, however, would you be so kind as to present some evidence? As I said before (though you seem to have some reading comprehension problems of your own), if you have concrete examples and numbers to provide, please feel free to provide them. But the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy simply never works in the stead of hard evidence.
Phil Williams reads WOTC?
Apparently, WTVF’s “Investigative Reporter” Phil Williams reads this blog. Tonight’s story? Armed Security Training Requirements.The teaser talks about “several high profile shootings across the state” but I haven’t heard of any. Three weeks ago, I wro…