Asked about what kind/ how many I own...


PDA






GrizzlyGraves
April 29, 2008, 05:04 PM
I was applying for a security job recently. There was an exam administered to applicants to measure cognitive ability and personality. At the very end of this exam, which is also administered to Police, Sheriff, Fire Fighter applicants in this state, I was asked if I had ever applied for a CPL, if I had carried a gun in my vehicle for protection, if I owned any handguns and if I owned any "assault type weapons (i.e. Uzis and MAC-10s). Additionally, I was asked how many of each of the said weapons I owned. :scrutiny:

I know this is a liberal state, but I do not see what relevance these kinds of questions have to working as a security guard.

The icing on the cake is that your answers are printed off and given to the company for review. My positive responses to some questions were printed like this, star and all

*Has applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon

*Has carried a weapon in vehicle for personal protection


Strange??

If you enjoyed reading about "Asked about what kind/ how many I own..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jrou111
April 29, 2008, 05:34 PM
Maybe they're trying to weed out mall ninjas :D

GrizzlyGraves
April 29, 2008, 05:37 PM
Of course!:banghead:

gym
April 29, 2008, 05:43 PM
All I can say is they have some nerve asking you to take a test, for a security position. But seriouslly they are more than likelly trying to see if you "may" in thier opinion, Carry a gun, even if you aren't allowed to do so. Dosen't mean they won't ask you to, but they probablly have some liabily insurance, that require it.

JesseL
April 29, 2008, 05:57 PM
, but they probablly have some liabily insurance, that require it.

It seems like that's the stock answer for explaining everything stupid these days.

North of 49th
April 29, 2008, 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gym
, but they probablly have some liabily insurance, that require it.

It seems like that's the stock answer for explaining everything stupid these days.

++ you have a point there.:mad:

Dope
April 29, 2008, 06:03 PM
I'm sure they're trying to see if you're the mall ninja/rambo-wannabe type. I'm sure that owning an assault weapon(s), concealed carry and all that are all red flags to them that you might end up being a liability to them.

Especially since your answers got bolded. I'm assuming this is an unarmed security position, no?

Dope

Treo
April 29, 2008, 06:17 PM
I may be paranoid but I'm not sure I'd have answered those questions at all.

Certainly, I would have asked the relevence of such questions.

AndyC
April 29, 2008, 06:32 PM
Perhaps they just wanted to see if you have some experience for a future armed position.

CountGlockula
April 29, 2008, 07:20 PM
AndyC may be correct.

The same questions were asked when I was applying for the Police Reserves.

DoubleTapDrew
April 29, 2008, 08:43 PM
At least you didn't have

*Has duct taped multiple SAPI plates to torso

*Has attempted to conceal carry M249 SAW

Hopefully it's for future consideration as an armed guard and not trying to weed out people who own firearms or carry. Can't have people like that going up against armed bad guys!

Standing Wolf
April 29, 2008, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by gym
, but they probablly have some liabily insurance, that require it.
It seems like that's the stock answer for explaining everything stupid these days.

Bingo! Very well said!

GigaBuist
April 29, 2008, 11:09 PM
Additionally, I was asked how many of each of the said weapons I owned.

Heh, that might take a while. It's not uncommon for it to take me a full 20 minutes to remember every gun I own... and that was back when I knew the total number off the top of my head.

Ash
April 29, 2008, 11:11 PM
Well, as I do not own any sub-machine gun style weapons, I would answer "none." Of course, this begs the question, what would happen if you went out and bought an AK that same day after you left the facility?

Ash

akodo
April 30, 2008, 12:25 AM
as assault is a behavior and not a firearm feature, you can safely answer that one as "no"

ArfinGreebly
April 30, 2008, 01:21 AM
I know a fellow who used to drive for an armored car company.

They all carried, but unless actually attacked they were not permitted to draw their weapons.

One day, while they were making a pickup in a particularly "tactically unsound" location, he saw a fellow wearing an unseasonably heavy hoody, with the hood up, and his hands concealed in the front pouch, change course and walk directly at his partner in order to bump into him with his shoulder -- basically an "interview" -- and the guy didn't respond to commands to stop. Our guy drew down on the hoody dude who finally put his hands up and backed out of there.

Sounds like proper use to me. Not so.

The armored car outfit fired him for pulling his weapon.

No shots fired, but they dismissed him anyway.

You have to wonder what their threshold criteria would be for actually shooting defensively. "Employees may not shoot in self defense unless they have already taken fire and suffered at least one bullet strike, where said strike has resulted in a wound with actual bleeding . . ."

"No, son, you miss the point. The entire objective of letting our guys wear guns on the job is to make the customer feel like they're being protected. You don't actually get to USE it, son. Guns are dangerous, you know."

JesseL
April 30, 2008, 01:40 AM
What's really amazing is that the management at security companies like that could be naive enough to actually expect an employee to stick to their policy.

What sort of person can ponder on that kind of dilemma and come to the conclusion "following company policy is likely to get me killed, but at least I'll still have my job and the company won't get sued.":confused:

Catherine
April 30, 2008, 03:35 AM
Wow... they fired that security man?!?

STUPID in my not so humble opinion.

I used to see our Brinks man and sometimes TWO BRINKS MEN pack heat when I worked in the 'money room' in the early 1970's. Sometimes I had an early first pick up and later on, the same day, a second one from them. I had another courier service for when I worked in audit later on or a day a week if they needed my help.

I don't think that they should have asked you those questions but, HECK, they ask all kinds of stupid questions in this P.C. and law suit happy society! UGH.

Sincerely,

Catherine
PS: Is there a QUOTE function on this board or only paste/copy? If there is one... I still don't see it here. Thanks!

p2000sk
April 30, 2008, 03:45 AM
Potential employer wants to know whats in your closet?
I wonder why.
What reasons would oblige me to divulge that information?
I know what I'd do.
Did you get the job?

p2000sk
April 30, 2008, 03:51 AM
This employer wanted your weapons registered (for their record).
But don't worry, you can trust them...

Powderman
April 30, 2008, 03:56 AM
Hey, Griz...

I think by your signature that you live in the great State of Warshington. If so, you would have been perfectly OK to ask of the tester, "Why do you want to know about my personal firearms?" As for this being the same test that they administer to police, let me assure you that I have taken written tests, polygraphs, psychs and oral interviews for a few Departments. The subject about privately owned firearms NEVER came up.

Eightball
April 30, 2008, 04:00 AM
I'd question the relevance that any of that information had to the job to which I was applying. Or the usual "do you/have you?"

Baba Louie
April 30, 2008, 07:17 AM
Catherine
PS: Is there a QUOTE function on this board or only paste/copy? If there is one... I still don't see it here. Thanks!Yes there is a QUOTE function Catherine but it involves some "copy" and "paste". When you reply to thread, above text box you will find the quote icon (fourth from right.. little text ballon). I right click 'Copy' text you wish to quote, left Click icon, bracketed quote will appear, right click paste between brackets... good to go.

Back to topic... I agree with those who espouse a "liability" issue. Whether you're working or no, should you become involved in a defensive shooting situation while employed and become ensnared in civil litigation (a safe bet), good attornies will always go after deepest pockets and it is probably safe to assume that the Company has deeper pockets than their individual security guards.

One of my cousins was working as an "unarmed" security guard in Tucson. My Uncle, who is Phillipino, had taught him some escrima (stick fighting). One night, while "guarding" a construction jobsite, cousin was set upon by three ner-do-wells. He used a stick and fought them off. Was allowed to join the "unemployed" the next day. Life can suck at times such as that.

GrizzlyGraves
May 1, 2008, 09:36 PM
Yeah, this is an armed position. It is with a large corporation who deals in government contracts and their officers apparently have to qualify with Glock .45s, M-4s, and Benellis. (According to a former co-worker who works there now)

Powderman, yep Warshington it is. Sadly, though, not my beloved Eastern side. I should have asked the fella why they needed to know those things. I just shouldn't give the Westies enough credit to understand that there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" so, naturally, I answered in the negative on that one......:D

2RCO
May 1, 2008, 09:48 PM
Yeah, this is an armed position. It is with a large corporation who deals in government contracts and their officers apparently have to qualify with Glock .45s, M-4s, and Benellis. (According to a former co-worker who works there now)


They use Glocks --Enough said about that company---Heheh!

revjen45
May 1, 2008, 11:01 PM
Like the test that says "Read all the way through before beginning," read all the questions, analyze them, and determine what they want to hear. Then give the answers you think will help your case, don't answer those that are none of their copulating business or answer in the negative, and answer only those that can be documented ("Have you ever applied for a CCW?") In WA there is no registration law, so they can't document what guns you own, and it's none of their business any more than whether you whizz in the shower.

"They use Glocks --Enough said about that company---Heheh!"
I am NOT a Glock fan (used one loaned to me in a qualification for irrelevant reasons, and it short-stroked regularly- my Steyr never malfunctions) but the universal popularity of Glocks speaks well of them. The fact that they are as ugly as Janet Reno is irrelevant in a defensive handgun. A bulldog's butt serves its purpose- so do Glocks and janet Reno (although I haven't figured out what purpose J.R serves other than to remind the Peons that those who decline to grovel before the might and majesty of the Fedgov will die a fiery death.) :cuss:

Killermonkey21
May 2, 2008, 12:20 AM
Having that much trouble over on the West side, mmm? Move to the east side, my friend. I'm transferring (hopefully) to Ft Lewis at the end of this deployment, but my family lives in the Yakima Valley, so I spend a lot of leave there. East side isn't that bad, especcially with Idaho right there.

But on topic: An explanation is warranted. When you file paperwork in the Army, with sensitive information on it, the header always tells you what that information is going to be used for and if the release of that info is voluntary or not, so we know the reasons for the paperwork we fill out...well...most of the time anyway.

Best of luck to you. Show those King County Leftie's how it should be done.

Carry on.

If you enjoyed reading about "Asked about what kind/ how many I own..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!