5 reasons why Security guards should not be armed with guns

A security agent evacuates an injured woman from the scene where explosions and gunshots were heard at the Dusit hotel compound, in Nairobi, Kenya January 15, 2019. REUTERS/Njeri Mwangi

After the DusitD2 Hotel terror attack, Arming the guards might be the next wave. This will probably change the dynamics of the industry. Shall we have more past members of security services like retired policemen and soldiers recruited?

Are we likely to see two layers of security guards, with the armed overseeing the unarmed?  Enough digression. Does arming security guards make economic sense?

Pistol and bullets laying on table

Well, arming security guards is an indirect admission that our security services paid for by taxpayers are unreliable.

Two, arming the guards could make the police and other security organs less effective.The gun is a symbol of power and authority. The police could see the armed guards as competitors and that could breed unhealthy rivalry.Would that perhaps stop the police from doing their work because there is a parallel force?

For example, could an estate be denied a police post because they have armed guards? Three, arming guards will accentuate inequality in Kenya, with some enjoying “excess” security and others none.

Private security is generally for the mostly urban elite. The vast majority of Kenyans live in rural areas and their only security is large families or dogs. Will vigilante groups also get guns?

What of watchmen who guard our homes and institutions like schools?

Four, arming guards could raise the cost of private security. Expect adverts like: “Our security firm guards are armed with AK47s.” The firms will raise their charges because their customers are now more “secure.”

The gun ownership could make some firms more attractive than others. Could there be an intense rivalry to deny competitors guns? And by the way, will firms buy guns or lease them?

Will they pass the cost of guns to their customers? Five, by making such drastic changes because of a terror attack, we create an impression that terrorism drives our national agenda.

We create an impression that we make very important decisions emotionally.  One could ask why not after Westgate. Why not after the US Embassy attack? Why not after Garissa?  Did DusitD2 contribute to realignment in the Cabinet, leading to a “super” cabinet secretary or prime minister?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *