Comments on: No Guns, More Crime http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/03/09/no-guns-more-crime/ Blog-Fu for Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park politics. Tue, 22 May 2012 02:15:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Jackson Landers http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/03/09/no-guns-more-crime/#comment-7871 Jackson Landers Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:30:45 +0000 http://www.bvbl.net/index.php/2007/03/09/no-guns-more-crime/#comment-7871 While I agree that policies such as that of the bank in question are idiotic and fail to contribute to public safety, I do not believe that the rule makes it any more likely that a criminal will rob the bank. So few people carry personal weapons (unfortunately) that it's usually a safe assumption almost anywhere on the part of a violent criminal that he will be the only one packing. Consider how deeply stupid all bank robbers are. Bank robberies actually net less cash typically than robberies of many retail outlets. I won't name any names, but I happen to be aware that certain well-known chain stores in the greater Richmond area typically close on a Friday night with up to $5,000 on hand. So the bank nets less money, even while it is automatically a federal crime that gets the FBI on your tail and poses far greater consequences for the criminal than robbing almost any other business. I don't care how desperate someone is; robbing a bank is a sure sign of total incompetance on the part of any criminal. Such people, unable to do a basic calculation of risk versus reward, would not be swayed from their purpose by the removal of the 'no guns allowed' sign and in fact probably can't read it in the first place. It's nice to hear about that appeals court ruling, on the other hand. I wonder if that same dissenting judge would be willing to uphold a ban on all free speech in the Capital on the same basis. No more marches, no more protests, no more right to petition the government for redress of greviances. The Capital is pretty much the last place where we could bear a suspension of any portion of the Constitution. While I agree that policies such as that of the bank in question are idiotic and fail to contribute to public safety, I do not believe that the rule makes it any more likely that a criminal will rob the bank. So few people carry personal weapons (unfortunately) that it’s usually a safe assumption almost anywhere on the part of a violent criminal that he will be the only one packing.

Consider how deeply stupid all bank robbers are. Bank robberies actually net less cash typically than robberies of many retail outlets. I won’t name any names, but I happen to be aware that certain well-known chain stores in the greater Richmond area typically close on a Friday night with up to $5,000 on hand. So the bank nets less money, even while it is automatically a federal crime that gets the FBI on your tail and poses far greater consequences for the criminal than robbing almost any other business.

I don’t care how desperate someone is; robbing a bank is a sure sign of total incompetance on the part of any criminal. Such people, unable to do a basic calculation of risk versus reward, would not be swayed from their purpose by the removal of the ‘no guns allowed’ sign and in fact probably can’t read it in the first place.

It’s nice to hear about that appeals court ruling, on the other hand. I wonder if that same dissenting judge would be willing to uphold a ban on all free speech in the Capital on the same basis. No more marches, no more protests, no more right to petition the government for redress of greviances. The Capital is pretty much the last place where we could bear a suspension of any portion of the Constitution.

]]>