Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Illinois Proposal to Require Some Businesses to Hire Armed Guards
An Illinois lawmaker has proposed a bill forcing Chicago grocery stores and gas stations to hire armed guards.
This proposal was introduced by a Democrat. The requirement to hire armed guards would apply only to some types of businesses (they appear to be the types of businesses most commonly seen in armed robbery events), and I think only in the city of Chicago.
Although introduced by a Democrat (normally anti-gun), Isn’t this proposal confirming the “pro-gun” argument that it is safer for potential victims of crime to have a firearm than not to have a firearm?
Other than touting that:
“It’s also important that we continue to take steps to stop gun violence, which is why I recently voted to fix a loophole in the tragically flawed Firearm Owner Identification card laws which helped lead to a mass shooting in Aurora two years ago. It’s one stop in a larger effort to tackle gun violence and make our communities safer.”
I haven’t found evidence that this particular state representative has a strong position with respect to citizen possession of firearms in general. Democrats generally oppose allowing citizens to arm themselves. But maybe he’s different because his proposed legislation is making a pro-gun argument.
The Fox Business article spends a lot of words on the costs of the proposal. But isn’t the proposal confirmation of the principle that “good guys” should have guns? The proposal supports the idea that firearms should be readily available to the public, and opposes the idea that firearms should be tightly restricted.
The anti-gun people would no doubt argue the details about licensing of the required armed guards, including the training and other factors. But the requirement still is based on a broad premise that having potential victims of crimes armed makes those potential victims safer. That premise applies not just to the specified businesses, but also to other types of businesses (even if they are less likely to be targeted for crime) and to individuals.
This proposed legislation is making one of the arguments “pro-gun” people have been making for many years.Published in Guns
Why not just let the business owners carry concealed? Why force them to pay someone else to do what they have a 2nd Amendment (and moral) right to do for themselves? Not to mention, the guard is a visible and armed target who would be the obvious and first priority to take out.
Better something more like this:
“3 Taco Bell employees draw guns, shoot alleged robbers
1 suspected robber killed”
Happened in Cleveland, 2017. Nice job, guys!
How interesting. Thaddeus Jones is listed as not voting on the “assault weapons” ban bill due to an “excused absence.”
You can’t buy a firearm in Illinois any more. Well you can, but the dealer has to keep the magazine if it holds more than 12 rounds. Some people think they are selling the magazines on the internet…double-dipping if you will.
And this is just a corollary to Lori Lightfoot’s priorities. God willing, she will lose tomorrow.
Wait…the government is going to require business owners to hire armed guards…because the armed guards—the police—they’ve already paid for with their taxes are not being permitted to function effectively?
What happens when the armed guard confronts a robber? Does the armed guard arrest him, only to have some Woke prosecutor refuse to prosecute? What happens when the armed guards turn out to be more likely to shoot black people than white ones?
Well, the government was supposed to work for the people, but it just didn’t work out that way. Now we work for them. Shucks.
Maybe the idea is that they’ll require the new guards to be members of a protected class.
Heck, pay the cashier $2 extra to carry a gun and pay to train him.
Is kleptomaniac a protected class?
Insane. Encourage crime, open the jails, weaken the police, disarm the law-abiding then mandate hiring armed guards!! ? Mandate that all ships punch holes below the waterline and carry extra large pumps? Order police to randomly hit people in the head with bats unless they are wearing helmets?
Yeah, my first thought was, “Isn’t this an admission that the government police force is ineffective?”
I’m sure there’s going to be a whole host of questions about what the armed guards will be permitted and not permitted to do.
My cynical suspicion is that the proposal may really be a jobs program masquerading as a safety proposal. Suddenly there will be a lot of need to hire new security guards. Lots of jobs created (theoretically, assuming the costs don’t drive too many businesses to close up shop). One could also ask about the likely quality of the new candidates the new demand will bring in, but that’s again down in the details that probably have yet to be thought about.
I find it interesting that the legislator who introduced the proposal says quite a bit on his website about supporting local business opportunities, yet here he is making a proposal that will cost businesses A LOT of money, thus making it less likely for new businesses to open.
Although I am mostly interested in the principles relevant to the proposal, curiosity did propel me to do some “back of the envelope” costing. One of the categories of business covered by this proposal is “gas station.” Suppose (conservatively) the station is open 16 hours a day (6 am – 10 pm; many city stations are not open 24 hours a day) six days a week. That’s 96 hours a week. Suppose (conservatively) it costs $20 an hour to hire a minimally trained security guard (either through a contractor like Securitas, or directly in wages plus ancillary costs like uniforms, liability insurance, etc. More if employee benefits like medical insurance and sick leave are required. That’s almost $2,000 per week cost, or $100,000 per year. How many local gas stations have enough existing profit margin to absorb such a new cost?
Does this that Chicago is giving up on running a police force?
Just wait until the first shooting by private security in Chicago. It will be the first case of an actual gun prosecution in years. There will be a follow-up federal civil rights prosecution.
One question: would you feel safer in an establishment having an armed guard? How about taking your children/grandchildren into such a place?
I think it would depend on if it was in an area where it might be more likely that troublemakers would come in and the shooting starts.
So, where I live? Not really.
In some ‘hole like Chicago? Yeah.
Yes. Two things. I bet security guards aren’t up to the skill levels of police, and G4S is one of the, if not the, biggest private security forces in the world. So someone will be making out like a, um, bandit, I guess.
And also, wouldn’t it be weird if the progressives running things and guiding our futures never intended for a separate federal police force, but instead an all-private corporate police force. Sounds like movie stuff, something like Detroit/ Delta City in Robocop. Nah.
People shouldn’t be buying gas anyway, right?
btw, a grocery store not very far from where I live has armed guards and some guy attempted to take one off of him. Died as a result, but it might have gone the other way if he’d been less trained, less ready, less strong….
The point is, if you are hoping to find a free gun and willing to take a risk (say you’re a desperate junkie), well, a security guard is where you can for sure find one.
There will need to be racially diverse teams of armed guards, each authorized to shoot only members of his/her/their/xyr own race unless the race-designated shooter is killed in which case guards of other races may shoot back. Nighttime and hoodies might conceal racial identity so all Chicagoans will need to wear color-coded armbands indicating race and sexual identity otherwise guards would be free to assume…
Exactly! Not every business can afford to hire an armed guard. And doesn’t the proposal prove the concept that the police can’t be everywhere to protect the general public?
The state is a busy monster, it regulates the insurance companies that replace what is lost in robberies, runs a complex system for warehousing robbers months or more after their robberies and then letting them out of jail early for reasons. It allows businesses to fire employees who foolishly try to prevent robberies, and puts those people through the complex system if they don’t like how the prevention went.
But it is heartening that the state can still find time to decide which businesses must hire security guards (licensed by the state of course) and how many.
It’s all part of the plan to make everything 1) illegal and 2) mandatory.
A couple years ago I was at a broken-down gas station in a run-down part of Lousiville, KY. The place had bars on the windows. In such an establishment, yes, I would have felt more comfortable if there had been an armed guard in uniform.
Driving thru on I-64? I bet I’ve stopped at that place.
If this passes, the clickety clack sound you hear in the distance will be Clarence Thomas’s keyboard adding a paragraph to his draft opinion striking down the IL gun ban…