The shift of the authority for the traditional service of the government towards the private sector is indeed a complicated matter particularly for the public whom will bear both the advantage and disadvantage of the situation. Considering first the positive, allowing the private sector to perform the traditional service of the government particularly on the field of peace keeping and law enforcement will indeed promote the effectiveness in the implementation of this aspect.
The important resources and capacity of the private sector can help greatly towards the maintenance and promotion of peace and order for the benefit of the public. However, on the other hand, it is also important to consider the purpose of the situation towards the private sector as to why they are interested in performing the traditional service of the government. As their basic nature, private sector is particularly interest on the gain or benefit of their actions towards their organization particularly the economic profit they can gain.
In their role of performing the traditional service of the government, it is to be expected that the private sector will likely require an adequate commensuration in exchange for the service mainly on the financial concern. Thus, this will create further imbalance and bias in the social system as financial capability will become the moving factor for the implementation of the traditional service of the government. Indeed, this traditional service must still reside with the government as they ideally symbolizes fair and equality among the public regardless of the financial value.
3) Should private security personnel be given the right to use deadly force? Should they carry guns? When is the use of deadly force by a private officer justified? Private security agencies are mainly privately-owned organization that are formed to provide added security for people requiring such attention due to the immediate threat and danger to the involved person and his/her family. As such, these organizations are mainly developed for the purpose of securing an individual against this threat through resorting to the use of force and other security measures.
Considering their duty, allowing private security personnel to carry firearms and use deadly force will indeed promote their duty and service thus, this move will indeed benefit their purpose. However, in this argument, the possible consequences must also be considered particularly the use of the security personnel of their firearms and the deadly force attributed to their weapon. Some personnel can indeed abuse this deadly force in the society to gain certain advantages. Thus, it is important to put a strict limitation or sanction in the granted privilege to use firearms.
The use of the weapon must be critically considered and limited to their purpose and responsibility such as allowing them to carry firearms only while they are in duty and regulating the weapon they are allowed to carry. Likewise, this provision must be petitioned in the legal system and properly coordinated with the criminal justice field. In addition, the firearm must only be used during an imminent danger and for the purpose of self-defense only. Given these aspects, the use of firearms for security personnel is given on the argument of their tasks and responsibility.