Shouldn't Bank Tellers Be Armed? - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Shouldn't Bank Tellers Be Armed?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052

    Robbery is a threat to lives or nothing should be turned over

    Bank tellers are working with money, which can be replaced, hence why they have insurance. If they are allowed to be armed, they should use the firearms only to protect life, not defend property.
    I tend to disagree. If a robber threatens life to get property I see no reason that he should not be shot. If he doesn't threaten life to get property, there is no reason to give him any property (or money). It is this, you can't shoot someone just because he is stealing your car or whatever attitude, that encourages robbery.

    Now given the majority of bank tellers I have run into, I would probably not want them to be armed.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I'm really surprised that all banks don't have bullet-proof glass, floor-to-ceiling if need be. I guess that would make too much sense. Another thought, does that type of glass protect against only low-velocity bullets or also against high-powered rifles or other types of explosives? (Patricia Hearst and the SLA, as well as the North Hollywood shootout, come to mind.)
    The system used in Europe would stop bank robberies. The door is a double door with a chamber in the middle. They are bullet-proof (plastic if I remember correctly). You have to be buzzed into the bank and buzzed out of the chamber between the doors to get out of the bank. The robbers go in, but they can't go out (until the cops arrive, of course).

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I tend to disagree. If a robber threatens life to get property I see no reason that he should not be shot. If he doesn't threaten life to get property, there is no reason to give him any property (or money). It is this, you can't shoot someone just because he is stealing your car or whatever attitude, that encourages robbery.

    Now given the majority of bank tellers I have run into, I would probably not want them to be armed.

    Too funny! I too have run into many bank tellers that would make me very nervous if they were armed. With that said, suppose a robber comes into the bank, shows no weapon, but simply slides the teller a demand note that reads something like "I have a gun, give me the money." It would be safest to simply give the BG the money and let him go on his merry way. Shooting a BG at this point would be excessive force IMHO. Now if the BG points a gun or fires shots, that would be a different story.

    BTW, welcome to the group.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    I tend to disagree. If a robber threatens life to get property I see no reason that he should not be shot. If he doesn't threaten life to get property, there is no reason to give him any property (or money). It is this, you can't shoot someone just because he is stealing your car or whatever attitude, that encourages robbery.

    Now given the majority of bank tellers I have run into, I would probably not want them to be armed.
    Welcome to USA Carry, maybejim.

    I like how you think. However, because the law treats people who use deadly force to protect property as criminals, I'm not sure I'd do it.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Thanks for the welcome.

    With that said, suppose a robber comes into the bank, shows no weapon, but simply slides the teller a demand note that reads something like "I have a gun, give me the money."
    The answer should be "I'm not authorized to do that, I'm so sorry".

    It would be safest to simply give the BG the money and let him go on his merry way
    Sure it's the safest thing but wouldn't stopping bank robberies be the safest thing in the long run?

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Thanks for the welcome.



    The answer should be "I'm not authorized to do that, I'm so sorry".

    Now you're challenging the BG and possibly escalating the situation. Supoose the BG does have a gun, is doped up on some substance and decides to go on a shooting spree. Now you have innocent lives in danger/lost, where handing over the cash may have been the simple solution.



    Sure it's the safest thing but wouldn't stopping bank robberies be the safest thing in the long run?

    At what cost? Aggrivating BG into being more violent, actually firing off a few rounds when the enter the bank? Maybe even more "invasion" type robberies like the ones where the BG jump over the counter and grab the cash themselves. As long as there are BG in this world, there will be crime. Don't think we'll ever be able to "stop" bank robberies. Minimizing injury/deaths are far more important IMHO. Based on the new tactics adopted by banks, it seems like the number of robberies has gone down here in PRHI. Not sure about nationwide, but I'm sure hearing a lot less about BG doing "invasion" type bank robberies.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052

    Stopping bank robberies

    Aggrivating BG into being more violent, actually firing off a few rounds when the enter the bank?
    Why would it be a publicized policy? Even if it were why do you think it would cause anyone to come in shooting if they wouldn't anyway?

    Minimizing injury/deaths are far more important IMHO.
    I agree in the long run that has to be the goal. I'm not too sure that making that the short term goal is always the best policy.

    Don't think we'll ever be able to "stop" bank robberies.
    Most all strong arm bank robberies could be stopped as I said using the system used in some European countries. A door, a space, another door. You have to be buzzed in and you have to be buzzed out. Policy is no one is buzzed out after a robbery until the police arrive.

    Not sure about nationwide, but I'm sure hearing a lot less about BG doing "invasion" type bank robberies.
    There's still lots of bank robberies in Kalifornia. But then there is lot's of crime in Kalifornia and lot's of gun control (hmm, think there may be a connection?).

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Why would it be a publicized policy? Even if it were why do you think it would cause anyone to come in shooting if they wouldn't anyway?



    I agree in the long run that has to be the goal. I'm not too sure that making that the short term goal is always the best policy.



    Most all strong arm bank robberies could be stopped as I said using the system used in some European countries. A door, a space, another door. You have to be buzzed in and you have to be buzzed out. Policy is no one is buzzed out after a robbery until the police arrive.



    There's still lots of bank robberies in Kalifornia. But then there is lot's of crime in Kalifornia and lot's of gun control (hmm, think there may be a connection?).

    You know what buddy, think what you wanna think. I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you. There have been many folks like yourself that have come and gone since I've become a list member. I've got other priorities.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I'm sorry you want to be testy. I thought we were simply having a discussion.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Thanks for the welcome.



    The answer should be "I'm not authorized to do that, I'm so sorry".



    Sure it's the safest thing but wouldn't stopping bank robberies be the safest thing in the long run?
    As I was once a person working with money in a business. If I was ever being robbed, even IF the BG did not show a weapon, I would still not risk my life for $7.25 an hour. Id carry the load to the guy’s car before I resisted or told him I can't comply.

    -Capo-
    "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast