Question of the Day - 24 July 2017

The main reason for the disarming of security is, as you might imagine, money -- money saved from having to shell out in settlements for shootings, money saved from the cost of the training required for each and every guard, and money saved from the high premiums charged by insurance companies to allow private security to carry heat.

Insurance? We've heard of instances where security guards have misplaced their weapons, dropped them in the casino pool, pulled them in beefs with fellow officers, had them stolen, and discharged them negligently. So you can see why the insurance premiums are so high.

In addition, the guns are usually the property of the casino and the weapons are stored on site (this raises the insurance cost even higher and potentially lowers the safety of the environment).

Another thing about the casino's money is, perforce,  the casino's money: It's insured, for max value. Factoring in insurance settlements, a casino never lost a dollar to a robbery. So given the potential for harm and lawsuits, the casino has little incentive to arm its guards to prevent getting ripped off. 

Finally, the whole purpose of carrying a sidearm is negated when, as started happening toward the end of the armed-guard era, the security officers were told to never use or even present their weapon. Should they unholster a gun, they're completely on their own. For example, if a security officer tries to help an elderly woman being attacked by using deadly force, he can be sued (civil) and prosecuted (criminal) as a private citizen.

All in all, any losses a casino sustains from a criminal action that an armed security guard might (or might not) be able to prevent are more than made up for by insurance covering the loss and in the savings from an unarmed staff.