Comment by pjlegato | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjlegato | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not so. Armed security guards are indeed legal and licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states[1], as well as in almost all European Union states[2], Japan[3], Australia[4], and Canada[5].

So, in nearly the entire 'developed world,' security guards can indeed carry guns.

[1] Time magazine even wrote about this a few months ago: https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing... -- it says that "about 30" states even allow guards to be licensed as "private police" with full arrest powers.

For an example, here is California's regulatory site: https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml -- California, one of the most notoriously anti-gun states -- allows properly licensed security guards to arrest people, as well as to carry tear gas, batons, and firearms.

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security...

[3] https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan

[4] https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-wea...

[5] https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know...

> licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states

Now look up authority to dispense lethal force. Much more limited compared to police.

On the contrary even individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force.

It’s a peculiar argument you are making attempting to make it seem like only only law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force.

> individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force

But not to run into a room to dispense it. If the armed guard happens to be under threat, yes, they can shoot to kill. But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.

> But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.

This is simply not true. Most states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect. It’s part of the training they receive and licensure to be able to carry a weapon for their job as an armed security guard.

Also, in most states, a private citizen carrying a weapon can who is just a bystander is legally allowed to use lethal force to protect other people and even if that means to run into a room and dispense it.

I think what may be confusing you is that guards can’t just blast for anything (like cops can). But if there’s someone with a gun drawn (or other lethal weapons) then it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person to eliminate that threat.

Most people won’t seek out danger if they hear gunshots or see something. But armed guards have that as their job.

If I hire a security guard who is licensed to carry a gun and they don’t intervene if some psycho is waiving a gun around then that guard is doing a bad job.

Guards with guns are very different from the mall cop type people who you see as loss prevention officers that can’t do much. But they aren’t there to protect you from harm, they are there to reduce shoplifting.

> states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect

Source? Duty to protect doesn’t even apply to cops in America.

> it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person

And if they miss and hit someone else? There is no liability shield for them as there is for cops. This is why there are virtually no examples of armed security subduing a shooter. It’s randos or cops.

Maybe I’ve fallen for cops’ marketing. But when hiring for events in four states, moonlighting LEOs come with an advertised advantage of being able to pull a trigger without thinking twice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com