Bank Bans CCW, gets robbed FIVE TIMES!

First Merit Bank of Ohio banned Concealed Carry on its premesis about two weeks ago. The criminals learned very quickly. They have been robbed 5 times since the ban went into effect. This is much more than they normally get robbed. Who'd have thunk it. Criminals don't obey gun bans, and places that ban get robbed.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/8771646.htm
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3345196/detail.html
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/8720811.htm
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/2004/05/15/news/local/8673668.htm
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/2004/05/18/news/local/8692273.htm

Police presence is the solution to bank robbery, not concealed carry. If you rely on other patrons who happen to be carrying guns, well. Our society has degenerated into vigilantism.

Businesses that ban put their employees and patrons at risk. Criminals target the banned locations. Police presence? Get real. Cops are reactive, not proactive. They can't be everywhere at once.

A deterrent is meant not to be used. Our culture doesn't understand things that are meant not to be used... We're supposed to shoot the bad guy, right?

Mark my words--if concealed carry were allowed everywhere in this country, for everyone in this country (who passed the test, of course), cases of rape, murder, robbery, etc., would in fact dwindle, but violent gun-related deaths, self-defense and not, would skyrocket.

One last question--if you were in a bank being robbed and you had a concealed firearm, would you shoot the assailants? Even if they hadn't yet taken any violent actions? Would you shoot to kill or to wound?

On edit: I suppose that's three questions.

If I were in a bank being robbed, and I had a concealed firearm, I would shoot to stop the threat if the following condition were present.

1. There was iminent danger.
2. I could safely draw and shoot


I will never shoot to kill, I will only shoot to stop the threat. If stopping the threat ends the criminal's life, that is too bad for the criminal.

I would consider robbery to be a violent action. The fact remains. Criminals prefer unarmed victims, and target places where victims are disarmed. For your information, I agree with you deterrent statement. We who are armed to not want to use them. However, we will use them if necessary. As far as "marking" your words goes, I hate to break it to you, but 38 states have shall issue or better concealed carry laws. That means that they "shall issue" you a license or permit if you meet certain requirements. An additional eight states have "may issue", where the government chooses if you get one. Only four states, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Kansas have no concealed carry.

But I still think concealed carry is a bad idea. Course, I'm a pacifist, so what do I know. :hippie:

I think violence is terrible. However, IF there is a danger to life or limb, and IF there is no other way out that doesn't substantially reduce the risk, THEN I will fight to preserve life. The firearm is the last resort. I don't want to use it. I pray I never have to use it. However, I WILL use it IF there is no other way.

I don't belive there is ever 'no other way'.

But stand prepared for the eventuality that there will be no other way. Very similar, you and I.

can always "lie back and enjoy it"...

</sarcasm>

if you think the bank's being robbed, you're going to start blasting at whatever you can hit.

"I will never shoot to kill, I will only shoot to stop the threat. If stopping the threat ends the criminal's life, that is too bad for the criminal. "
And, hey, if a few innocent bystanders have to go down, that's the price they pay for living in a "free society" where the gun lobby can ram crap like this through thanks to the GOP.

I don't think Mr. Fat Slob is one of those guys who would shoot indiscriminately and with great relish. He seems to be intelligent and earnest, even if we might disagree with him.

I'm more worried about others who don't have the moral fiber Fat Slob does.

I appreciate your thoughts.

But you'll notice there's not a word in any of these stories he's posted in which law enforcement, bank management or anyone else said "If only some poorly trained customer on the premises had had a gun!"

You are also allowed to wonder how bank guards are expected to separate ordinary gun-toting yobbos from people wandering in off the street with guns planning to rob the bank...the somewhat silly answer was that cops, etc., would somehow just "know" the good guys from the bad....

"Mark my words--if concealed carry were allowed everywhere in this country, for everyone in this country (who passed the test, of course), cases of rape, murder, robbery, etc., would in fact dwindle, but violent gun-related deaths, self-defense and not, would skyrocket."

kind of like in Vermont, where there is no permit required to carry? or any of the other states that are shall-issue?

<<One last question--if you were in a bank being robbed and you had a concealed firearm, would you shoot the assailants? Even if they hadn't yet taken any violent actions? Would you shoot to kill or to wound?>>

hell no i wouldn't shoot the "assailants." why would i want to start a gunfight, go to jail, and have to defend myself against murder charges, just to protect some stupid bank's money? it's all FDIC insured.

now if the robbers were doing more than robbing, and shooting at me or a loved one, and were truly "assailants," yes, i would do whatever it takes to defend myself. i would not "shoot to kill." i don't want to kill anybody. but i would shoot until they stopped posing a threat to me or a loved one.

the vast majority of States have shall-issue CCW laws in place. There has been no upsurge in crime, and gun related deaths (except suicide) have decreased, not increased.

As for shooting a bank robber, it would depend on the situation. If they looked like they were going to shoot somebody else, I'd be willing to shoot them. IF they announced that they had a gun, but didn't show it, I wouldn't, since there would be no real threat to the life of others.

One last question--if you were in a bank being robbed and you had a concealed firearm, would you shoot the assailants? Even if they hadn't yet taken any violent actions? Would you shoot to kill or to wound?

Having been in such a situation, I can assure you that one aims for the center of mass; roughly the center of the chest if the opponent is in full view. Why? Because one must make every effort to stop the opponent and because the odds of a hit are far greater if one aims at the center of mass. Leave the shoot to wound scenario to the filmmakers who haven't a clue about armed combat. (Where else teaches us that when faced with insurmountable odds, the attackers will politely take individual turns against the hero rather than piling on en masse.)

O.K. I'll answer two of them: Brandishing a weapon is by definition a violent act. One must assume that anyone brandishing a weaon during a robbery intends to use that weapon. I would definitely shoot if I could do so without needlessly endangering innocents.

edited to repair HTML

"Criminals target the banned locations."

A criminal will look to minimize the risk of being captured or killed. A place that bans guns will have a lower risk than a place that does not.

is built on nothing but childish fantasy.

Besides do you really think that a criminal wouldn't make the obvious choice? Get real.

What's obvious to you isn't obvious to people who see things differently.

A criminal will be safer at a posted location, rather, he will have a lower risk of encountering resistance.

Not that it matters. I'm just curious.

"criminals are dumb and will try to buy a gun where a background check is required as opposed to somewhere where they aren't" arguments?

I don't know about you, but if I were going to rob a bank, I think I'd rob one that had a sign informing me that the law abiding occupants of that bank were unarmed. Now, granted, there's no guarantee someone isn't going to ignore the sign and carry a gun in anyway, like me while I'm robbing the bank, for example, but I think the odds are better of not running into another armed person in the bank without the sign than in the bank with the sign.

I'd hit ATM servicers at a remote shopping mall.

That's a matter of public record.

On edit: Removed excessively large graphic.

An insane person might make a different one. What don't you understand? Any rational crimnal will choose the place with the lower amount of risk.

Do you dispute that?

It's people giving in to their paranoid fantasies about being able to save the world with their gun. It's like the dream Ralphie had in "A Christmas Story" when he saves his family from the bad guys with his Daisy BB gun....

The same guy who is claiming CCW is "rational" thought four bank robberies were five....

I believe you are also against self-defense in general, if the defense is violent, correct? I'm sure that you support passive defense, like attempting to run away, pleading, locking the door, etc, right?

I am not a pacifist. I will defend vigorously. I will carry the best tools. Feel free to be a pacifist, there is nothing wrong with that. You hold to your beliefs, I hold to mine.

A firearm is the best tool to defend myself with. I will carry it.

But even if I didn't, a prejudice remains a prejudice, no matter how many people share it. It doesn't magically become a fact because people agree.

It is the rational choice. There is no disputing that.

Putting a chip on your shoulder and daring people to knock it off doesn't make you right, even if no one knocks it off. It still doesn't magically turn a prejudice into a fact.

How many times to I have to repeat myself before it sinks in?

When's THAT going to sink in?

Nine, by the way.

Targeting a place where you are less likely to meet resistance is the rational choice. What part don't you understand?

Bank robbers and other criminals target all kinds of places for all kinds of reasons.

everyone knows criminals are so stupid that they'll walk into a gun store and try to pass a background check even if they have a criminal record. Surely they're dumb enough to avoid robbing banks with signs claiming its patrons are unarmed.

You can't. Plain and simple. I find it foolish that you refuse to admit the rational choice.

It's your assertion, you support it. The word "rational" does not magically change your prejudice into a fact.

Eleven, now.

Deal with it.

Twelve.

When are you going to admit that a rational criminal, when faced with the choice of robbing a posted place or a non-posted place will choose the place that has a higher probability of safety for him? It is obvious to any person who has any reason, rationality, or logic, that a place that prohibits firearms will be safer for the criminal than a place that does not. The human instinct of self-preservation fits in here nicely. Frankly, your attempts at denying this are quite amusing and hysterical. Anway, I've pointed this out to you a baker's dozen times. There is no point you can make that disputes the rationality of the choice. If you do not yet comprehend, you are beyond help. If you understand now, great, I'm glad I could be of service.

I say your assertion is bullsh*t. I don't have to prove a thing unless and until you prove something. And elaborating your prejudice in a lot of words isn't proof. Saying "rational" a hundred times doesn't establish anything as a fact. I comprehend perfectly - you're wrong and you can't admit it.

I don't think any explanation here will help, then.

I understand perfectly. You guys are wrong. It's not that complicated.

You don't have to be a Ph.D in criminology to understand the very basic premise we're laying out here.

And two wrongs don't make a right.

You both would do well to get over this idea that people who disagree with you don't understand your arguments.

You actually denied the rational! Good work, I've never seen that done by an allegedly rational person before.

between your prejudice and "the rational." I have to wonder where you get the idea that they are one and the same.

Sorry I'm late. Long weekend off.

I took an informal poll at the block party over the weekend. 46 people agreed that my postulation was the rational one. Sorry. You are flat out wrong. Rational is rational. The rational choice is for a criminal to choose the place where he is less likely to get shot. That place would be the place that bans guns. Plain and simple. Obvious as the sky. Indisputable. Plain as the nose on your face. It doesn't get any easier than this.

...thinking it's a prime opportunity to get some PR...

Folks with a CHL are among the country's most law abiding. To get mine, I had to go through a twelve hour course of training, undergo a background check by the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, have records checked to show that I've never been adjudicated mentally defective, and have no drug convictions, and no misdemeanor crimes of violence. How much do you know about the others you come in contact with?

Suuuuuuure, bench.

The fact that you would think it probable that people with jobs, families - All of the same responsibilities that you do - no criminal history whatsoever... You think these people are going to say to themselves "Hey, I think I'll rob a band and risk a 20-year prison sentence just to make a statement on national gun policy." That you find such a thing would be likely just displays your insane lack of rationality on the issue.

In other states the requirements vary wildly, as we demonstrated last month sometime.

all that "training" is "certified" by the yobbos selling guns...who as we see from story after story are as honest as the day is swiss cheese....

Instructors are trained and licensed by the State.

The bozos themselves wandering the streets with popguns in their pants are certified only by the instructors...who are employees of gun sellers.

And in Ohio, it's the NRA who certify instructors....and I wouldn't trust anyone connected to those fuckwits as far as I can throw them.

The instructors are certified by the state, regardless of who issues their paycheck. They must follow the requisite sylibus. Having taken the course a few times (once to get the license and then for the required renewals) I can testify that all of my instructors followed the required lesson plan - Which is dictated by the Department of Public Safety.

who certifies the instructors that teach the Po-lice? Isn't that the NRA, too? Where does THAT leave you?

pointing out that a gun nut was full of crap...AGAIN

However in all states CHLers are overwhelmingly law-abiding. Therefore, it really doesn't matter. A criminal, by definition, disobeys laws and rules.

but I find the idea of arming more people absurd. We already have, as stated so many times on this board, a violence problem in the good ol' USA. Most acts of violence that involve a weapon are accomplished with a gun.

As we allow more and more to carry, it only stands to reason that less and less will be as upright and law abiding as they presently are. Why add deadly force to what is already an epidemic of violence.

Kudos to the first crop of CCW folk - its the subsequent rounds that trouble me.

on edit - those next rounders is what causes me concern about the non-standardized training.

I don't blame you. However, the facts and trends should put your concerns to rest. Well, Lunabush, I don't expect a difference with the later rounds. They will still be under the same requirements as the initial ones.

thanks

Standardized training would require federal licensing, which would then mean that CCW would be legal nationwide. I'm all for that! However, it is not an issue with interstate commerce, so I am therefore against it.

Its a common sensible approach to insuring minimal standards for those states that do support CCW. I don't follow interstate commerce or its involvement in this discussion?

would require federal licensing. I suppose there may be another way. However, assuming federal licensing, it would be unconstitutional, as it is unrelated to interstate commerce, therefore it is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government. I would love to see standardization, though, if voluntary by the states.

much like No Child left Behind (which wasn't horrible in intent, just mucked up in delivery), folks oculd adopt them if they were CCW enabled.

Thank you.

According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, the vast majority of violent crimes involve no weapon at all - 70.3%

Only 7.2% involve a firearm of any kind.
6.0% involved a handgun, leaving 1.2% involving a rifle or shotgun.
The rest involved knives or some other object.

And somehow you think letting neurotics wander in with guns would be some help?

That is pathetic hilarious....especially since one of your cases occured on the street....

you want bank employees and customers to get killed in the crossfire! I will never go in any damn bank that allows just any person to start shooting.

Also, since when did the Ohio state government become overrun with gun nuts? When did they start allowing just anyone to carry those things?

Criminals are targeting First Merit. Posting against concealed carry is the same as putting up a sign that says:

ATTENTION CRIMINALS
First Merit is a Gun Free Zone
All law abiding patrons have been disarmed for your convenience.
Enjoy, The management

I'd think if they had an armed guard, they'd no longer be gun free. And nobody would have to wonder 'hey, think anybody here has a gun?'

However, most won't pay the expense. Whats the difference between a legally armed guard and a legally armed individual?

Is that we shouldn't be forced to rely on an armed individual/bystander to provide protection or policing, beyond every citizen being alert and bringing threats to the proper authorities.

We're past the days of frontier justice.

who think a few hours training qualifies them to be judge, jury ,and executioner, thanks to a bunch of tough guy fantasies and the GOP kowtowing to the gun lobby.

The police have no obligation to protect anybody. There are numerous court cases backing that up. Legally, we are responsible for our own safety and protection. However, in the 46 concealed carry states, a legal theory exists that states that if a business bans, and does not provide armed protection, then it is liable for the customers' safety from criminal attack. Frontier justice has nothing to do with it. Frontier justice involved summary executions by hanging or other means. Modern man going armed legally is for protection, not extra-judicial means of "justice". I agree that if I see a threat, I'm calling the cops. However, the cops may not be there in time, or the situation may preclude the use of a phone, or the crime might be happening right now. Calling the cops is always the first option, drawing the weapon and using it is always the last option.

I'm glad you're here. Haven't seen you around before. Welcome Welcome Welcome to the Gungeon!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of you to characterize people you've never met as "a flabby neurotic with a rambo fantasy and a popgun in his pocket" simply on the basis that their views on a given policy differ from yours.

And (just curious) why is it that a private citizen has only a "popgun" but an employee of the state has a weapon?

NOT doing so is saying "c'mon in with your guns, guys"....

What a mind-numbingly stupid state of affairs, thatnks to the GOP and the gun lobby.

I'd like to see the statistics, if anyone can provide...

How many bank robberies, or robberies at all, are violent in nature? How many are 'everybody get down on the ground or I'll blow your fuckin heads off!!!' vs. how many are a guy handing over a note saying 'I have a gun, give me thirty thousand dollars, don't make a sound or I'll kill you'...

In the latter case, would the fact that some patrons are packing even help?

However, a criminal, playing the odds, would still be safer in a banned area, either way.

are more than a dozen years old...but they show that most bank robberies involve a note, not a gun...

"If the two Sacramento robbers were "typical" of the 11,439 persons known to have held up banks during 1991 they would have struck on a Friday (23%); in the afternoon between l:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. (27%); and they would have hit a commercial district branch (67%); in a downtown metropolitan area (52%). They would have robbed a single teller from across the counter (93%); by passing a demand note (50%); and walked away with part of the $61,582,712 taken in bank heists during the year. "

Out of the 9,381 bank robberies that year, there were just 338 acts of violence, with shots fired in only 134 instances.

http://www.bankersonline.com/articles/bhv03n05/bhv03n05a2.html

as they have in some other states. (In Missouri. voters rejected it at the polls, but got saddled with it anyway.)

all the way down here in Texas.

If you did ANY banking around Virginia Tech, you were in banks that allow licensed people with guns in them. They ALL allow it. Virginia has a "shall issue" CCW law in place. There are a LOT of CCW permits floating around in the Blacksburg area. They wouldn't DREAM of banning CCW holders, since it would drastically curtail their business.

Not reliance on people who just might be carrying a gun.

Sorry, FS, you still haven't convinced me of the value of CCW.

Bullet-resistant plexiglas shields to protect the areas where cash is kept.

It's expensive, but it works.

I personally do not claim or believe that shall-issue laws have any measurable deterrant effect on crime. The reason for going to shall-issue is equal protection under the law; fairness and individual choice.

However, posting a place like that is still a bad idea, as the criminals will then target the patrons on their way out of the bank. They'll do this knowing that, since the patrons were just in a posted place, that the patron will therefore be unarmed and unable to defend against attack.

That requires the criminal to assume that every patron without fail is a law-abiding citizen. I don't think any of us would believe that every person we meet is a law-abiding citizen, and criminals probably see worse in people.

They try to minimize risk. Who is more likely to be unarmed? 1. A person on the street? or 2. A person just exiting a business that bans guns? The obvious answer is 2.

I'd do business elsewhere. I don't want to be someplace that's marked as being a crime zone.

...I'd go in. I don't want to be around anyone who might get the urge to play Dirty Harry.

If you want to patronize victim zones, feel free.

that does not trust me enough to carry my CHL after my qualifications will lose my business. Also, I'd simply not feel safe there unless there were active cops around. Why would I want to risk my life and go someplace I wasn't trusted?

Nope, I'll hand them a card saying I'll take my business elsewhere until they remove the sign. Works well here in Texas, lots of places have lost the signs.

Funny, no Dirty Harry moments either. Funny how that never happens despite so much hand waiving that it might. Hell, I suppose a cop could go postal too at their police station. I'll take my chances with the real world, not phobias.

Where you have to lug a gun around everywhere to feel safe?

:shrug:

People get mugged, attacked, carjacked.. Not only with guns of course.

It's not a big deal to me. I just have one on me. It's like wearing a watch.

People get killed by guns every day.

I can't save my life with a watch either, but can with a pistol.

Something you can't do with a watch.

Unless you swallow it and choke on it....

that I am not phobic of guns, and if I have one on me it's no big deal. I'm only a threat to anyone that's up for killing me.

It's just not a big deal to me, in any sense.

How sad....

That's not what he said, and you know it. Carrying a gun is "no big deal" to him. It's not to me either. It's as natural to me as carrying my cell phone.

Carrying daily is like wearing a watch to him, it is no big deal.

I would hope that anyone who choose to carry would realize the awesome responsibility they have, knowing that a split-second decision on their part could end another person's life.

To say carrying a gun is "no big deal" seems like a very cavalier attitude to me.

I could feel all worried about my car. I can feel this 'awesome responsibility' and so on that I could potentially run someone down.

I'm not going to, and I'm not going to misuse a gun anymore than I'd bash someone over the head with a bowling ball at an alley.

Fear of potential is the root of phobic thinking. It's not worth the fear or energy.

I can feel my blood starting to boil, and I may post something I'd regret later. Simply put, you're just not worth my getting banned from DU.

that you think it's wrong to be used to carrying. I've done it for 2 years now. Sorry you feel that way though, no need to get angry.

I'm a safe driver -- never had a ticket or an accident -- but I'm much more likely to kill or seriously injure someone with my car than I am with my sidearm.

I take driving very seriously. I would take very seriously the need to ever use a firearm in self defense. Carrying the firearm is second nature. It's comparable to having my car parked outside.

The carrying is "no big deal" as in it is normal, everyday behaviour. It is not an extraordinary event. I carry eight to twelve hours a day, so it is not extraordinary, it is normal. I believe there is a disconnect here. Hope this has cleared it up.

Carrying a gun on me is no big deal! Do you think cops should feel guilty for having them too? C'mon!

It's no big deal for me to have a Glock 32 on me. Period.

Period.

Those are nice. I carry an almost identical G23 most days. What made you pick the .357 caliber?

Mostly cause they have such awesome stats. The .357 Magnum has about the best stopping power there is, and the .357 Sig emulates it well. Fun shooting.

I'm going to pick up a G32 barrel when I get a chance so I can shoot .357Sig out of my G23. The barrel is really the only difference. Even the magazines are essentially interchangeable.

I used G23 13 rounders in my G32, since there are pre-bans I get. The G32 came out after the ban. I just use standard G32 followers in the mags, and it works fine.

I also have 2 barrels for my Sig Pro 2340. One in .40, one .357. Very cool.

I just use standard G32 followers in the mags, and it works fine.

Before anyone gets upset ;), the BATF has ruled that modifications to pre-ban magazines are OK as long as the modified magazines still work in the original firearm. Without the modifications the G23 mags would be 99% reliable in a G32. With the modifications, the mags should be 100% reliable in a G32 and 99% reliable in a G23. Perfectly legal. :)

I'll probably just stick with my G23 magazines and the G32 barrel. They'll be reliable enough for range use, and I don't plan on carrying with the G32 barrel.

Come on be serious. If you have two hands you can kill someone.

What matters is the why and the will.

show that most robberies involve a note...not a gun...

http://www.bankersonline.com/articles/bhv03n05/bhv03n05a2.html

Who cares though? Bank robbers aren't going to follow the laws that say 'no guns here', now are they?

...how many times "law-abiding gun owners" violate the law.

that CHL holders have some of the lowest criminal rates of any group you measure.

You may think permit holders are a better class of people - I think they're just people, and have the same potential to harm others as anyone else.

they aren't infallible. Neither are cops. However I trust my fellow citizens enough, and I'm not afraid of guns.

Again, it's just such a nonissue to me that I can't believe people are for taking away my right to protect myself. It's unbelievable.

...that many people think you don't.

Plain and simple.

Side is just so alien to me. It's like some sort of bizarre logic from another dimension. Oh well. My rights are my rights. They are *yours* as well. And we should fight to protect them.

who argue that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion or people that that argue that there is a right to privacy or a right to drive. You could say the same thing about any issue that people disagree about.

(or disingenuous) to call any of those issues a "non-issue." Which was the statement that CO Liberal was responding to.

Maybe you should reread this subthread.

In reply, CO Liberal said that many people disagree, implying that it is therefore NOT a "nonissue."

Then you said that many people disagree about abortion, etc.

Then I pointed out that those are also NOT "nonissues." Therefore, it is ridiculous to call gun control a "nonissue."

Cliff's Notes charges for service like this, but a simple thank-you will suffice for me.

I believe lamorat was saying that having a gun for protection was such a nonissue to him, meaning that it's no big deal, that he's can't believe people want to prevent him from protecting himself.

The rest of the conversation makes sense if you start from there.

And the rest of the conversation already made sense, up until post #156.

You said: Lamorat said that gun control is a "nonissue"

lamorat said: Again, it's just such a nonissue to me that I can't believe people are for taking away my right to protect myself. It's unbelievable.

He's clearly not talking about gun control.



Of course I entered this conversation in reply to CO Liberals:u Think You Have A Right.....
...that many people think you don't.
Plain and simple.

And as I said, you can say the same of any issue that you disagree with someone on from abortion to driving.

Then you entered the thread, and I'm still pretty sure you misunderstood lamorat's post.

that doesn't mean they were correct, does it?

In fact, I see bad cops on the evening news a helluva lot more than bad licensees.

Wow.....interesting to see just how screwloose the rhetoric from gun wankers will get, isn't it?

the people who go throught the bullshit to get a CCW license are not the kind of people who tend to commit crime. If they were, they'd just throw the pistol in their pocket WITHOUT jumping through the legal hoops.

The fact that a person has a CCW permit is a good indicator that they are LESS likely to be involved in criminal activity than the general populace.

And in RKBA fantasyland, there are never any innocent bystanders either.....

...that CCW is needed to prevent bank robberies. AS you and I have pointed out, there are other methods that are far more reliable.

I say that a business that bans is more likely to be targeted by criminals. First Merit is an example propping up my hypothesis.

I see the thread as showing a disconnect between "No Guns Allowed" signs and the behavior of criminals.

NO GUNS = Criminals Welcome (in the criminals' eyes)

Sign or no sign, as long as they don't see a uniformed person with a sidearm. I do not believe criminals in a no-issue state like Kansas think any differently than do criminals in a free carry state like Vermont.

Just my opinion. I haven't seen any hard evidence to the contrary.

They can assume that there are PROBABLY no guns in any situation, however that certainty becomes much greater in a place that where guns are banned. Criminals want to minimize the risk of capture or death, therefore, the business that bans is a better target.

Any data out there on gun stores that were robbed during business hours?

How many people get robbed while at a shooting range?

:evilgrin:

"How many people get robbed while at a shooting range?"

Or robbed while at a gun show? (and no, I don't mean paying too much for something :evilgrin: )

How many gun show massacres have there been?




:evilgrin:

The experts say that people who rob branch offices are typically trying to make a quick score for drug money. If they're thinking halfway straight they try to minimize the amount of evidence they leave behind. That means wearing a disguise and/or hitting the branch at time when there are few if any customers present. More timid or inexperienced ones who aren't wearing a disguise may be scared off by an employee making eye contact and greeting them verbally. That's why bank empoyees seem so obnoxiously friendly. They're taught to act that way.

Robbers will usually pass a note and may have a gun visible. More often than not the gun is a toy. Many robbers are convicted felons and either can't afford a real gun or can't get one due to background checks. But from the banker's perspective, if the robber (or his note) says he has a gun, a bomb, or any other weapon you have to take him seriously.

A really sharp robber wanting to make a BIG score would hit the weakest spot, which is typically a remote ATM. Those get serviced by pairs of unarmed employees in plain vehicles; only the most vulnerable have armored transport service. An ATM at an airport or busy shopping mall might have as much as $160,000 (using the IBM 3624 as an example) in cash at the start of a busy holiday weekend. A day like, uh, TODAY.

:evilgrin:

gotta run - ya'll have a nice weekend!

:evilgrin:

Are you serious? Those guys who service those atms are unarmed.

Jesus Christ. Talk about a walking target. $100k in cash and only a cell phone to protect you.

During the seven years I worked for a major savings bank that had hundreds of ATMs all over the western US, the ONLY employees who were allowed to carry weapons on the job were the uniformed guards placed at high-security areas and a few high-risk branches, the Security Director, and his three senior security officers. Uniformed guards carried openly, security officers concealed. The very top management people may have been allowed to carry concealed if they had permits. Only Very Special People get to take strong measures to defend themselves here in California. Most people who service ATMs are at about the same pay level as experienced tellers or branch supervisors.

BTW - In the facility that housed the mainframe computers and cash vault, the guards had several selective-fire M16 rifles in a cabinet. They never used them. I as an ordinary citizen in California have not what used to be called a "Chinaman's chance" of getting a permit to buy an M16. So much for the 14th Amendment.

No other employees, including people who handled cash, were allowed to possess a firearm on the job or on company property at any time.

Jesus Christ. Talk about a walking target. $100k in cash and only a cell phone to protect you.

I worked for that company from 1983 to 1990. Nobody carried cell phones.

When I went off to college and first visited a bank in the northeast and saw the bandit barriers I was freaked out. I had never seen anything like it. I never saw any growing up in Texas, and they are still very rare in Cincinnati.

They do seem like a more effective deterrent than posting no-guns signs.

Provident bank In Tri county just outside Cincy has one. Its funny that you mentioned being freaked out by it...I felt pretty much the same way.

See my post below.

I can understand why..they have been robbed several times.

However that damn thing is intrusive as can be. Between its intrusiveness, and a blaring reminder that Im in a crime area, I decided to change branches after several visits. (still bank with the same company, I just avoid that branch at all costs)

Call me weird, but I highly dislike going through a TSA like environment, just to deposit a check.

Btw, they installed this about a year before CCW in Ohio was passed. Seems the criminals started carrying concealed long before the law abiders.

The bank has also implemented additional anti-fraud measures. Every teller window has an ink pad on the customer's side, so that non-customers negotiating a Wells Fargo check can provide a thumbprint as additional ID. I think any self-administered print would be a very weak from of ID.

is being victimized in a particularly horrible manner.

I'd rather have you against CCW than for it.

from the one large Cincinnati bank that I know has posted signs, 5th-3rd, to one of the many local banks that has not posted signs and has openly welcomed license holders. I hardly ever go inside the bank anyway -- direct deposit and ATM withdrawals -- but it is a matter of principle.

For what it's worth, Cincinnati has had one of the highest bank robbery rates in the nation for the last few years. Now we'll have an opportunity to see if the robbers pick posted banks preferentially over non-posted banks.

Ahem....

The first story in this silliness remarks on four bank robberies, only three of which are at this bank that so cruelly keeps armed neurotics from playing Barney Fife on its premises...

"In the latest holdup, a man entered the FirstMerit Bank at 727 N. Main St. about 12:40 p.m. Wednesday. He passed a note saying he had a gun and demanded money.
Authorities believe the man and his two accomplices also robbed the FirstMerit at 1060 Kenmore Blvd. on May 20, the FirstMerit at 840 Brittain Road on Monday, and the National City Bank at 1727 Goodyear Blvd. on Tuesday."

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/8771646.htm

The second one reports on a First Merit robbery...

"Two white men dressed in camouflage reportedly robbed the First Merit Bank at East Powell Road and Polaris Parkway at about 2:45 p.m."

http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3345196/detail.html

The third story refers to one of the same bank robberies as the first story does....

Akron police are investigating an armed robbery at the FirstMerit Bank branch at 1060 Kenmore Blvd. About 2:30 p.m. Thursday, a man entered the bank, handed the teller a note that said he had a gun and demanded money.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/8720811.htm

I'll skip the fourth and go to the fifth story for a moment...which AGAIN refers to one of the same bank robberies as the first story does....

""A man already wanted in connection with a pair of robberies at the same Bank One branch appears to have struck again Monday, authorities said. An aggravated robbery warrant has been issued for Jon Baumgardner, who is considered armed and extremely dangerous.
Monday's holdup occurred about 9:40 a.m. at the FirstMerit branch at 840 Brittain Road. Bank employees reported that a man with a gun entered the bank and demanded money. He fled on foot once he got the cash."

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/2004/05/18/news/local/8692273.htm

That's FOUR FirstMerit bank branches, not five...as well as various other banks, and it appears they know the guy who masterminded them...Good thing that he could have strolled into any gun show in Ohio and bought weapons without a background check, eh?

Oh yeah, that fourth story...turns out the person (not bank, but bank patron) was on the street....where, presumably she could have been carrying legally. Guess those claims that criminals would be turned to sniveling mush for fear that any citizen might be lugging a popgun around were just so much bullshit, weren't they?

AKRON - Police are investigating the robbery of a woman at an ATM on South Arlington Street.
The incident occurred around 6 a.m. Friday at the FirstMerit Bank in the 1400 block.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/2004/05/15/news/local/8673668.htm

Anytime we have a story, is important to see the other side to view it in context.

We owe you a big thankyou for defending the bank robbers and mugger and helping us see your opposing viewpoint.

and pretending that toting a popgun in your pocket is big medicine...

But if a fair society everyone needs a voice.

While I have no interesting in defending criminals, it is important that they have a voice. You perform that job quite well and should be recognized for it.

so criminals can get guns without background checks.

Meanwhile, it's hilarious to have you try to pretend that pointing out that there are just four and not five bank robberies is somehow defending criminals. But then what about the whole idiotic CCW movement is NOT based on childish fantasy?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just responding to your rambling patch of distortion and dishonesty....

I mean it.

You are the most entertaining person in this forum.

over and over and over....

Look it up funny guy.

It's still gun nut horseshit...utterly dishonest.

You are the funniest man on this board.

You have to wonder why someone who can't tell the difference between four and five ought to be trusted with a weapon of any sort.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

why is it that anti gun people always seem to think they can rationalize their point of view and apply it to removing the rights of law abiding citizens? to get a CHL you are required to show a degree of competency, as well as no prior felony or record of violent behavior. these people are american citizens with no reason to believe they would misuse their ability to carry guns, and if one comes up a representative of the state is there shortly to relieve them of said license. the rates of CHL holders committing crimes is seriously low, ive seen the comparison that in the state of florida which has had CHL's for years, you are three times more likely to be bitten by an alligator than attacked unlawfully by a CHL holder.

as far as the comment "where are you that you require a gun for personal protection?" i reply, where are you that you do not. not all of us are so lucky to live in nice affluent areas with bored overstaffed cops and low crime rates.

where i live, by the time the cops show up (if they come at all) the only duty they have at that point is to make a report for the stats and clean up the mess.

i guess because i cannot afford to live in an area where the cops have time to respond, and the crime rate is lower and the odds of something bad happening to me are slim, i should not be afforded the same protection for my family?

i have been shot in the gut, had my skull cracked open and robbed simply walking home from work. where were the omnipresent cops? they scraped me off the pavement 10 minutes later and told me better luck next time.

hence my point. YOU do not require a CHL for your own safety and protection, therefore you assume that others do not also.

if you want to be a sheep who cries to the shepherd when he sees a wolf and hopes the shepherd can help you, go ahead, but i value mine and my family's life more than that.

While I agree that no amount of signage will stop a criminal I also doubt the posting of the sign encouraged them either. Also, I doubt too many handgun carrying customers would draw down on a bank robber...I sure as hell wouldn't. It's not my money and it's insured. He can have it, it ain't worth my life.