Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[url=http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20150921/updated-bank-robber-shot-by-customer-in-warren]I guess the lefties...oppssssss, anti gunners think this 63 year old should have fought him fist for fist....
I was talking to a friend of mine who's a retired bank executive just the other day about this. He said they'd discontinued armed security guards at all but a few locations.
However, they've got other deterrents like security cameras, dye packs, alarm systems, etc.
I was talking to a friend of mine who's a retired bank executive just the other day about this. He said they'd discontinued armed security guards at all but a few locations.
However, they've got other deterrents like security cameras, dye packs, alarm systems, etc.
Of course, and how many robberies has that deterred, not just in banks, but everywhere...
I mean, if what you say is true, then there never should have been the robbery in the first place, right?
Of course there are instances where having a gun has stopped a crime - and protected life - no question - but there are many more incidents where the presence of a gun has made things worse. Just compare gun deaths with those in other developed countries - no comparison.
This scares me, too. When there are stories here about mass shootings such as in the movie theatres, someone always says "too bad the movie goers weren't all armed" and I just think, yes, that would have made it so much better, 50 armed panicked people all shooting at once in a dark theater.
I'm not anti-gun, but I am glad NJ's laws are stricter.
I was talking to a friend of mine who's a retired bank executive just the other day about this. He said they'd discontinued armed security guards at all but a few locations.
However, they've got other deterrents like security cameras, dye packs, alarm systems, etc.
My guess would be the insurance costs for the robbery are lower than the costs of the liability of the security guards.
If you have a bank that is robbed and two of your employees are murdered by the robbers, unless there is some crazy extenuating circumstances, it would be difficult for the employee families to get much of a judgement against the bank. However, if a guard roughly handles a disruptive minority, you're going to see quite the judgment and insurance increase.
I believe the decision to remove guards is based upon financial concerns and not employee safety. That is must my opinion though.
My guess would be the insurance costs for the robbery are lower than the costs of the liability of the security guards. If you have a bank that is robbed and two of your employees are murdered by the robbers, unless there is some crazy extenuating circumstances, it would be difficult for the employee families to get much of a judgement against the bank. However, if a guard roughly handles a disruptive minority, you're going to see quite the judgment and insurance increase. I believe the decision to remove guards is based upon financial concerns and not employee safety. That is must my opinion though.
In the past few years I have seen fewer armed guards inside banks but I've seen more armed guards outside banks in the area where ATMs are located.
My guess would be the insurance costs for the robbery are lower than the costs of the liability of the security guards.
If you have a bank that is robbed and two of your employees are murdered by the robbers, unless there is some crazy extenuating circumstances, it would be difficult for the employee families to get much of a judgement against the bank. However, if a guard roughly handles a disruptive minority, you're going to see quite the judgment and insurance increase.
I believe the decision to remove guards is based upon financial concerns and not employee safety. That is must my opinion though.
I would agree that financial concerns rule.
A complainant would have to show that armed guards demonstrably reduces the probability of deaths occurring with robberies...and I'm sure the insurance companies have done the statistical calculations to prove that having no guards and just handing over the money is less dangerous to employees than armed guards trying to prevent it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
