I received a link to a Security Magazine article from a colleague who simply said, "Interesting read" in the subject header of the email. Naturally, my curiosity caused me to click on the link. Perhaps it's the same thing that caused you to start reading this blog post.
In my situation, I was glad that I clicked the link.
The article was well-written (I've come to expect this from the folks at Security Magazine). It featured the summary of a webinar about whether or not to arm security officers in hospitals. What caught my eye, however, was the disparity between the term "armed" and the alternative (nothing). Implied in the article is the idea that "armed" only means lethal force and that the alternative is to “Take a zero incidence philosophy; or consider a mix of policies such as having a licensed police officer on site, particularly within the ER; and develop strong 911 ties.”