>>190836186>Okay, let me judge the efficacy of what you're doing>Let's check against all murders and amok runs including underpaid security guards going nuts or shooting the wrong people by accident, not just gasoline fires.Do that then, retard. Ask God how many people would have commited a crime, but did not because of a guard, compare that to an alternate universe where there was a guard but the crime was commited anyway, then claim that security guards don't do anything.
>>190836429Where doesn't it work is a better question. You are banking on the fact that it is impossible to know if a guard prevented someone from attempting a crime, and then you're going to try and imply that because it isn't proven to work, then it must not work.
>What fucking retarded idea is that - who would guard every workplace with one guard that probably gets murdered first anyhow?Pretty much every bank in the world. Use google and you will see that just hours ago, a robbery was foiled by security.
