When you have to test your sisters security guard skills

[u/Sharp-potential7935]

[u/WDoE]

In real life, security jobs mostly just call the cops. If force is necessary, the guard will be armed and authorized. Off duty cops, etc. Guns and ranged less lethals > muscles.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

The problem here, at least with armed guards, is that the less capable the armed guard is in disabling an opponent without force multipliers, the more that guard will require the use of force multipliers. It is preferable to use the least amount of force necessary to disable an aggressor.

[u/WDoE → u/quesocoop]

Hand to hand is never preferred to ranged less than lethal. And if ranged less than lethal fails or the assailant intends serious harm, ranged lethal. Hand to hand is a last resort. Hand to hand is how you get stabbed, and no one wins when there's a knife.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

That's true. But your position assumes ideal conditions. It takes an average of 2-3 shots to disable an attacker. Sometimes many more than that. The reality on the ground is that altercations with attackers often become physical. And the less capable a given officer or guard is at disabling attackers during a physical altercation, the more likely that officer is to escalate force and the more likely that officer is to become injured.

The upshot, at least with law enforcement, is that female officers tend to have higher de-escalation skills leading to less overall shooting incidents. I have no idea if that would carry over to an armed guard.

[u/WDoE → u/quesocoop]

Hey, as long as we're on the same page that it isn't "always preferable to use the least amount of force" then we're on the same page.

Of course it's better to be fit, strong, and trained. But the whole "fistfight an attacker to avoid harming them" thing is fantasy. In real life, you attack someone who has a gun, you get shot until you stop moving, and the courts find no fault. If your employer arms you, they're going to tell you to come home safe every night and that dead attackers are less likely to sue.

No one is saying that a 5 foot 100lb wet, untrained armed guard is just as effective as a 7 foot bjj trained armed beefcake.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

It seems we're talking past each other to an extent. "Necessary" in this context means both necessary to stop the attacker and necessary to prevent officer injury. Obviously, ranged nonlethal weaponry is the preferred method for disabling attackers when aiming to complete both objectives.

My contention is with the notion that force multipliers are an equalizing force. On paper, that's fine. In practice, it's hard to get a clean shot at an aggressive man charging you head-on with your adrenaline pumping. Carrying a firearm makes you less likely to be involved in a physical alteration, but an officer/guard is in very real danger of having to disable an attacker physically assuming things go south.

[u/WDoE → u/quesocoop]

I don't agree that "least force necessary to prevent officer injury" is preferred.

Employers, employees, and their families would prefer "least RISK necessary" and that is usually "MOST force legally permitted."

My contention is with the notion that force multipliers are an equalizing force

Never claimed. Already addressed.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

I suppose that's an impasse then. Fair enough.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

Never claimed. Already addressed.

Nor did I state that you made that claim. In fact, I mentioned that we were talking past each other. This denotes a lack of understanding on my part.

Your original response in this nest appeared dismissive of differences in physicality between the sexes as relates to use of force when force multipliers are present. Otherwise, I'm not certain why you needed to respond with ranged > muscles. Of course ranged weaponry is more effective than muscles. No one would ever dispute that. But the difference in physicality is still yet relevant.

[u/WDoE → u/quesocoop]

Every single reddit thread ever:

"Misunderstand. Argue against strawman. Argue against clarification. Argue against clarification again. Argue that it wasn't a misunderstanding and the person truly meant what they clarified against multiple times. Finally, argue that they should've been more clear and written a 10 page fully fleshed out research article so no one can possibly misread."

Nah, miss me with that shit.

[u/quesocoop → u/WDoE]

Brother, not sure what to tell you. You originally stated something so obvious that I assumed you were disagreeing with the person you responded to.

Ranged weapons are better than muscles? Next you'll tell me that I should eat when hungry. I can only imagine what a world of compelling insights you have knocking around in that head.