Florida nighclub shooting scene (courtesy pantagraph.com)

It’s important to note that the Pulse nightclub killer exchanged gunfire with a police officer working security at the venue. The officer was unable to stop the murderer, who proceeded to kill 50 and wound dozens more. This backs-up our conclusions drawn from our school shooting simulation. When a killer attacks, the first person he targets is armed security. Given that action beats reaction, the chances are high that the perpetrator will neutralize the security first and proceed with impunity. Unless, of course, he or she encounters further armed resistance.

Specifically, armed civilians. But that wasn’t an option here. An Orlando police officer interviewed this morning by Fox News stated that all customers at The Pulse nightclub are patted down as they enter.

Here’s Nick’s write-up:

Results: Scenario 1

Scenario 1 consisted of a single armed guard seated behind a desk, facing the entryway. This position is consistent with many current configurations for schools, enabling the security guard to watch the front door and challenge visitors to the school during the day.

Unarmed participants were then walked out an opening in the wall and past the guard until the shooter emerged from the opening and engaged the guard. The guard was not aware of exactly when the shooter would emerge and therefore had no specific advanced warning.

[This type of scenario attempts to replicate situations where the shooter is carrying the firearm concealed into the school, or the security guard does not have sufficient warning through cameras or other means to alert them that an armed intruder is about to enter the school.]

According to the results from our testing, in this scenario the armed security guard appears to be ineffective at interdicting the active shooter. While the “shooter” can choose their moment to attack and prepare themselves to fire the moment they are seen by the security guard, the guard has insufficient time to respond.

In future experiments we would like to investigate the effectiveness of an armed guard when there is advanced warning, such as would be provided if the shooter was visible through a door.

Recommended For You

28 Responses to Florida Gay Nightclub Massacre Proves Armed Security Isn’t Likely to be Effective

  1. It seems to me that any obvious armed security is the primary target of the attacker. Until security is dealt with you would not have a true Gun Free Zone.

    Placing a single security guard in a known position but without visibility sufficient to warn of an attack is useless and suicidal. At the very least place a clear Lexan shield between the guard and the entrance that will stop initial gunfire and allow some possibility of reacting to the threat before you die. Seems to work okay for banks. There is no good reason for anyone walking in the door to have a clear field of fire to the only armed security officer.

    • “Placing a single security guard in a known position . . .”

      The guard’s purpose at the front door is basically symbolic. He’s there more to remind the customers of the bar that security is on hand than he is to actually protect anybody. If a terrorist wants to enter an otherwise “gun-free” zone to kill people the guard is the first target. But, if there’s even a few people inside who are armed and carrying concealed, the equation changes dramatically because, suddenly, the shooter is facing a defense-in-depth. Just getting past the security guard is the beginning of the conflict and not it’s end. Considering the number of people in the building, it reasonable to conceive that under difference circumstances there might have been two or three people there who were armed. If only that were the case.

  2. The armed security at the club is to protect against more typical street crime or random fighting. A calculated assault is going to have a much higher rate of success. The only way to ensure that we are protected is to have draconian security measures in place, something I am absolutely NOT willing to endure. I’ll take freedom and risk over oppression any day.

    • Armed citizens inside most places can certainly make an attach less effective. Also controlled entry should be used when possible. An magnetic door that you have to be buzzed through by somebody one the other side adds a huge benefit. Also lets NOT have the armed cop out front. Let’s have a bouncer wand people while the cop watches.

      • It would have been 100 percent legal for designated club staff to carry concealed.

        For club customers, in a bar in Florida, not so much…

        • Do you have a citation for your claim that owners/employees can carry? I looked up the law and it says no open or concealed carry, period. I’m sure there is an exception at the beginning for law enforcement personnel and possibly licensed security personnel but for everyone else no.

        • Matt any employee of a business if aloud may carry a concealed weapon with no permit. It is no different then carrying concealed in your home.

        • Which would have helped the terrorist, who was a CHL holder, legally pass security and get into the club with a gun, even if security knew he had one.

          From which he could do the same thing without having to take out the security guard first.

          How does this make it better?

  3. This show first that 51% liqour/bar places (often felonies still for permit holders in a lot of states) must removed from off places same as any other “no gun zone” and if you can t ban blacks, genders and other etics from your buisness gun carry must forced too !!

    The idiot chinema from colorado shooting still banned guns that s near an criminal act in my eyes of view

    http://www.bilderload.com/bild/386966/barcarryWP62M.jpg

    Texas Pink = Felony
    Orange = Only conclead ore open
    Arkansas Pink Art looks misdaemor “only”

    And for florida second it means that 2017 the strengthen deadly force bill and open carry bill must comeback together white remove off places + the biggest goal remove portiaz !!

        • Yes. So what? As this very case shows, armed terrorists will get in even if carry is forbidden. The whole point of gun free zones is to make sure the attacker is the ONLY ONE armed and all law abiding people can’t defend themselves with best possible tools – firearms.

  4. Experiences with terrorist attacks at hotels in places like Kabul and Mali have demonstrated that point security, particularly by a single guard, is completely inadequate for a venue like a club or hotel. There must be several layers or rings of security for it to be effective. Otherwise, it is too easy for the terrorist to neutralize the security at the time of their choosing.

    • Does anybody know if, in Florida, the club could have designated customers known by them to carry concealed?

      Perhaps if they weren’t consuming alcohol?

      • Legally, no customers were allowed to carry, drinking or otherwise. So presumably, no. There was one guard with one gun.

  5. It would not have mattered if everyone in there had a CHL, alcohol and firearms don’t mix. You cannot responsibly carry and drink at the same time.

    This asshole had been under FBI watch for 3 years and no flags went up when he buys an AR? Why am I paying for NICS again?

    • Drinking and driving don’t mix either, but it’s legal to drive to and from a bar. Why is that? Because presence in a bar does not equal drinking alcohol or getting drunk. If it did, the concept of a designated driver would be literally unthinkable.

      There’s a rationale behind restricting drinking while carrying, but it doesn’t make sense to make it location based. Someone drinking diet Cokes all night at a bar is going to be completely unimpaired, while the guy who goes to his buddy’s house party and pounds beers all night will barely know his name after a couple hours.

      • so maybe a designated shooter who isn’t drinking is reasonable similar to DD? Then how do you determine who is really the DD or DS… I never drink since I am the sole driver everywhere I go and I don’t take that kind of risk because the public doesn’t deserve to have me taking risks with their lives.

        • Many bigger clubs offer armbands or wristbands that say “Designated Driver” on them.
          So why not for the Designated Shooter too?

  6. Did club screen it’s security people?how did shooter get in w/weapons? How many security were in the club? Some should be @other places, not just entrance. & so many more questions. Inc. why is our govt. taking so long 2 take lethal action?

  7. I believe FL law is close to VA law – no permit is even required to carry concealed on your own property or place of business, Up to an employer if he wants to allow employees to carry. The security guard would have been well served if a partner in plain clothes was present also. Awful thing to happen, but we’ll see more of it. And some will only see it as an opportunity to ban guns.

  8. Maybe what is needed is “effective security”?

    Have not heard anything about the level of training the lone security guard had. Makes one wonder how proficient that guard was? So before we say this event proves armed security is ineffective, we better define what “armed security” means. Until we have a standard we cannot say this event proves anything.

    • If what I’ve read is correct, the “lone security guard” you speak of is an off duty police officer. So essentially you are impugning the training offered by the Orlando PD, you may have a valid cause to but that is what you are doing.

  9. I’d like to see laws changed to have a penalty if you’re armed and drinking, but allowing carry if you don’t drink at all. I don’t drink in public very often, so I’d be happy to be the “Designated Defender” for the evening.

  10. The worst part the killer was employed by G4S as a Armed Security Guard and was on a govement watch list
    Sad day

  11. It would only take one well-placed shot to stop the attacker.
    Chance plays a much larger role than people want it to. But, chance doesn’t care what people want.

  12. If only there were some way that civilians could carry their own weapons legally. Perhaps some sort of a license that law-abiding Americans might be eligible for..

    “We disarmed everyone but one faggot wearing a uniform, and he wasn’t able to do anything! Clearly this means guns don’t work! Now excuse me while we protect our celebrities and politicians with guns!”

Leave a Reply

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