Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

BB&T Again Proves Cause & Effect

By Greg L | 2 December 2006 | Crime | 8 Comments

Friday evening as I was coming home I encountered a crime scene around the BB&T Bank on Sudley Road. Immediately a bank robbery came to mind, not only because of how things appeared, but because BB&T is one of the few banks which prohibit customers from bringing their defensive firearms into the bank. Their posting of a “no firearms” notice on their doors is the equivalent of placing a sign that says “please rob us, none of us have the ability to resist.” Don’t believe me? Then put this sticker on your front door for a month or two, and tell me how it works out:

The Manassas Journal-Messenger reports that the robber carried in a fake explosive device which he used to threaten the bank employees. In a concerning number of other robberies of BB&T branches the criminals were armed with real weapons. Not only does this affect the businesses who are foolish enough to believe that their clientele and employees will somehow be safer because they post these signs, but it puts our communities in danger. Entice crime, and it’s not only the perimeter of the crime scene that is endangered, but everything that surrounds it.

Patronizing BB&T encourages crime in our communities. If this is where you do business, really consider making a change.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

8 Comments

  1. Maureen Wood said on 3 Dec 2006 at 9:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    It would be interesting to have some statistics. Does BB&T get robbed more often than other banks? Have they lost customers as a result of their “no firearms” notice? It would be interesting if we could find these things out.

  2. Greg L said on 3 Dec 2006 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    BB&T and Wachovia are the only two banks in the area which have “no firearms” signs in their branches. The only instance of a different bank being robbed in the area that I recall was the “cell phone bandit”, otherwise all of the robberies have been at BB&T and Wachovia. I’ve heard that at least some First Union Bank branches have “no guns” signs and Langley FCU has them as well.

    I don’t know if anyone’s done a study on this, but the empirical evidence must be overwhelming. Every time I hear about a bank robbery, I expect to hear about BB&T or Wachovia and rarely am I surprised.

  3. James Young said on 3 Dec 2006 at 11:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is certainly an ill-advised practice by BB&T, but, lest we not forget, the institution is deserving of Conservative regard owing to its refusal to subsidize takings abuses under Kelo and its perversion of the principle of eminent domain.

  4. anonymous said on 4 Dec 2006 at 11:16 am:
    Flag comment

    First Union and Wachovia merged, as far as I know all former First Union branches are now Wachovia.

  5. Guy said on 6 Mar 2007 at 7:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Are you retarded? I can’t say for sure, but I believe about 90% of bank branch employees are women. My wife is one of them. A person who is going to rob a bank doesn’t care about a little sign. ALL types of banks get robbed. The reason Wachovia and BB&T have more robberies is simple, they are on every corner. The signs saying no guns just mean in their store. You have to be an idiot to think it is a good idea for people to be able to bring guns into banks. How many times has a bank employee had to deal with an irate customer? How many people have guns who cannot handle the responsibility that comes with it? I am not for GOVERNMENTAL gun control, but I believe everyone has a right to make their own company policies. Signs are not the problem, criminals are. You sound like an extreme individual and have the right to your own beliefs but to say doing business anywhere that doesn’t allow guns is promoting crime is ridiculous. You should really step back, clear your head, and look at the way you view things. I am certain you won’t, and I am certain I have wasted my time.

  6. Greg L said on 6 Mar 2007 at 8:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, I’m not. I just think it’s been clearly demonstrated that these signs do not improve safety, and signal to would-be criminals that a bank displaying this sign will be a soft target full of docile and compliant victims.

    In another post I relate the story of how a man who was openly carrying prevented a robbery simply because he was displaying his firearm. The perp saw the man’s holstered firearm and didn’t even enter the bank. You might want to take a deeper look at this and see how misguided policies like these have real impacts on folks like you and me.

  7. Guy said on 6 Mar 2007 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    How often do you think “Joe Schmo” carrying a gun would try to be a hero and make a bad situation worse? How often do you think banks without this policy have been robbed. You can’t say not at all. Most of the time it is an insignificant note passer. Sometimes it’s not. Armed security guards are the only answer. Then it is still only a temporary deterent to some robbers,(keeping honest people honest). Thieves are opportunistic pieces of dung, they don’t care what happens to anyone who gets in their way. I am all for gun rights, bash politicians, bash bleeding heart liberals, but don’t bash honest people trying to make a living for policies you don’t agree with. Even if you place armed security guards in banks, how many do you think will do what it takes to stop someone with nothing to lose. I am a former Marine and I know what it takes…a little more than most people possess.

  8. Greg L said on 6 Mar 2007 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    One thing I’ve noticed is that most criminals are cowards. There’s not much you can do about the very few who will exhibit some misplaced bravery, but for the norm, anything that marginally increases the appearance of risk for them really makes a difference.

    Just think about that sign in the post. Would you put that on your front door? You might not put up a sign that says you’re sitting inside your door with a 12GA waiting for someone to try to break in, but you’re certainly not going to advertise that you don’t have the means to defend yourself. It would be a pretty dumb thing to do.

    When a bank does this and doesn’t have visible armed security it’s the same thing as putting that sign on the door of your house. If there’s someone out there looking for an easy target, that sign tells them they just may have found it. If every house on your block put “we don’t allow guns” signs on their doors, you’d probably be a pretty nervous neighbor. When local businesses do this, I become a rather nervous customer. We’ve seen time and time again if you roll out the welcome mat, so to speak, someone’s going to accept the invitation.

    It’s not only that one house with the dumb sign, or the one business with the dumb sign that suffers here. Everyone around a place where criminals are effectively invited to prey are made less safe by these ill-advised and counterproductive policies.

Comments are closed.


Views: 4370