The 1984 Hallcrest report found a dramatic decrease in the carrying of firearms by contract guards over the last decade, with less than 10 percent being armed. This article first examines whether the protective value of guns is greater than the dangers they can pose to innocent parties. Also discussed is the debate over whether arms intimidate customers and employees. Situations that clearly call for armed protection are described, such as nuclear power plants and financial institutions. One insurance company executive comments that arming security officers is appropriate around money and not appropriate around people. Insurance companies also discourage firms from arming guards because of liability concerns. Interviews with security managers reflect a common belief that armed guards must be more carefully screened, rigorously trained, and better paid than unarmed guards. Several security managers interviewed also expressed concern for officers' safety and suggested that arms might be crucial for an officer's self-defense.