Private Security- Time for India to have one?

After the Mumbai terror attacks there have been lot of talks of private firms having security for themselves. But the kind of security that is needed (seeing the sophistication of terrorists) involves arming private security guards with AK-47's and even heavy firepower like machine guns and not to talk about the defensive requirements like shields etc. But there are number of problems associated with this:

1) What if the weaponry for security is used for non-security purposes like personal score and flaunting (we all know how people love to flaunt their status). We see lot of that happening with just guns that are distributed among people.

2) What if these weapons fall into wrong hands. When police cant protect itself from naxalites how to ensure that these weapons go to their hands.

3) If a private security guard is armed with AK-47 then its but obvious (to me atleast) that the police if not better atleast be equally armed. Otherwise what is gonna happen if any incident happens.

So not only do we have to ensure security for the client but also secure the security (pun intended)
I dont think any method can be foolproof but here is a structure within which it may work:

1) Give only few agencies right to provide security, preferably government corporation (will talk about this later)
2) Security is to be provided only to establishment. No security for any person or any moving vehicle.
3) The security must have minimum standards. Like minimum of 20 guards, control room, securing all entry points etc. This is again more for protection of guns than for the establishment.
4) Mandatory trainging and checking of credentials of all agents working in the agency. Army personals would have been preferable but it would be below their dignity to guard a private property.
5) All corporations or agencies to remain under Defence department. A senior defence personal to have a say in their functioning. And a team of senior officers to regularly conduct surprise checks of any establishment.
6) Revoking of licence of the agency if in any way security of guns is compromised. Now in continuation of this I will explain why a government corporation would be a better option.
I agree that in no government agency can be as efficient as a private one. But any private agency is more prone to compromise standards for more money (there is a counter example also- private agency will fear revocation of licence more than a government one so less prone to corruption). But if there is an option between less security or free distribution of AK-47's, I'd prefer the former.

My aim while formulating the above was first ensuring security of guns and then allowing security for private frims.

I'd surely like to listen to more ideas of implementing private security.