Comments on: BB&T Again Proves Cause & Effect

By: Greg L

Greg L — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:51:43 +0000

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.

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:52:38 +0000

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.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:55:30 +0000

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.

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:54:42 +0000

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.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:16:37 +0000

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

By: James Young

James Young — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:29:07 +0000

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.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:50:53 +0000

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.

By: Maureen Wood

Maureen Wood — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:37:24 +0000

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.