Unpossible

[Fallguy]

Maybe, but if I were in a bank as it was being robbed, unless I am personally in danger, I am not initiating a gunfight. In this situation, I have no interest in being a hero. He can take all of the bank's money that he wants.

+1

[vontar]

Maybe, but if I were in a bank as it was being robbed, unless I am personally in danger, I am not initiating a gunfight. In this situation, I have no interest in being a hero. He can take all of the bank's money that he wants.

True, the bank has insurance for the money.

Kinda like defending a 3rd party, it can be risky.

My family and myself first. The bank should have had better security in the first place.

[Worriedman]

True, the bank has insurance for the money.

And I am sure they pick the dollars for their premiums off the government cash tree out back, instead of taking it out of the customers via service charges, did not cost us a dime, huh?

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

True, the bank has insurance for the money.

.

Most banks self-insure for these types of theft.

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Personally I think the reason these places is post is then they have the right to freak out whenever they catch a glimpse of a gun rather than having to wait and see if anything actually comes from the fact the person is armed.

[Guest Red5]

"And I am sure they pick the dollars for their premiums off the government cash tree out back, instead of taking it out of the customers via service charges, did not cost us a dime, huh? "

So, you would engage the bad guy even if you were not his intended target?

Whether the bank paying insurance premiums or self-insuring, I agree that ultimately the cost incurred when they are robbed is passed on to their customers. I just don't think that having to pay higher service charges justifies swapping bullets.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Red5
Include original quote

[Fallguy]

Personally I think the reason these places is post is then they have the right to freak out whenever they catch a glimpse of a gun rather than having to wait and see if anything actually comes from the fact the person is armed.

I do think that is a large part of it too...

[Guest tnxdshooter]

So, you would engage the bad guy even if you were not his intended target?

The only time I would engage would be if the dude opened fired and started shooting innocent people. If he wasnt looking my way yet I would blast him as soon as I got a clear shot. Odds are banks are small so you really would have no where to run if one did start opening fire so its best to engage at that point if they start shooting I believe.

[Punisher84]

Kinda reminds me of "The Town" when the manager is stalling with the safe and Ben Affleck says "It's not your money. It's the bank's money." There are many situations in which I would shoot, this would not be one of those.

[Worriedman]

So, you would engage the bad guy even if you were not his intended target?

Whether the bank paying insurance premiums or self-insuring, I agree that ultimately the cost incurred when they are robbed is passed on to their customers. I just don't think that having to pay higher service charges justifies swapping bullets.

I did not so indicate. My point is that when the management creates a "gun free" zone, it will by necessity foster a more likely atmosphere conducive for criminals to ply their trade. By so doing, it is going to cost the customer more, not the Bank.

I do not like being disarmed anywhere, be it bank, grocery store, Dr.'s office. There has been a rash of robberies and beatings at hair salons in Jackson, no place is safe from thugs.

It is my own personal belief that if banks (and any other business type) had signs saying in effect "Legal permit holders and their weapons welcome here" it would have a much different consequence. If our society promoted the ability of the legal weapons holders to provide for their own defense at large, I truly believe we would see less crime of all types.

[Guest strelcevina]

Here is the email I just fired off to William burch at william.burch@regions.com

###

Send questions or comments about

all i can say to this Bank robber is

[BlackHawk93]

At Home Federal, the branch by my house is not posted against carrying a gun but they have signage to not wear hats, sunglasses or a hood. The branch in Bearden is posted to not carry a gun and also no hats, hoodies, or sunglasses.

I wear a hat and may or may not have sunglasses on, I am not taking them off, and I have yet to see a metal detector at the Bearden branch.

Bank robberies are bound to be declining with the postings they are coming up with now. If a robber gets turned away by not being able to wear a hat or sunglasses, along with already not being able to carry in a gun, they will soon look for other ways to get their money. Shame.

[Guest drv2fst]

Maybe banks should post a "Robbery Note" buster sign.