Should security guards have guns in Canada?
Debate Rounds (5)
My opening statement is, Security guards should carry guns to better equip themselves so in dangerous situations, they can defend themselves.
The bad thing about tazers is they don't shoot that long of a distance. Although, the security guards are not getting the guns so they are more capable of shooting a far distance, but so they are more capable of defending themselves from other people with firearms.
It is very important that are security guards are safe.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
well they can call backup and yeah if they had guns they really wounldnt be security anymore they would be Police cause security guards are for securing places not for shooting guns and if they had guns there wouldnt be any security guards anymore.
In the security business, lots of sites are a 1 to 2 man job. (around construction sites etc.) So you cant really call for backup when there is only 1 to 2 officers on site.
So if guns were given to security guards all of them would be gone?
Security guards in British Columbia, Canada have to go through the JIBC (Justice Institute of British Columbia) BST (Basic Security Training)
Mandatory BST training is 40 hours in length, and focuses on the following content:
Professionalism & Ethics
In all of Canada, there are similar things to the JIBC.
In these training programs, they would have to add a part for gun training.
I guess it was a good debate, you need to take it more seriously in your future.
Thanks for debating with me!
MUSHROOM TIPS EVERYWHERE
ROSENLEY HOPE U BORN IN H3LL
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Is RFD really necessary? Pro had good conduct and no argument Pro made was refuted. Also, BANANAMEN, trolls should at least entertain their audience.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Ordinarily I wouldn't vote on something like this, but you definitely deserve some extra points for Bananamen's atrocious conduct. I happen to disagree with you on the gun issue, and my understanding is that Canada probably doesn't have a sufficient violence problem to justify their issuance. In a debate with a stronger opponent you would be expected to employ statistics, historical, criminal and social evidence to support your case. That being said, Pro is the clear victor. I hope your future opponents are more interesting and respectful.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.