[pingman274]

Bob, I pray that no one ever gets shot, but I would certainly take 7 or 8 rounds of 22, 25, 380 or anything being fired by another customer over begging for mercy from a confirmed felon. That would give me time to find cover and present. I carry and train as best I can to maintain whatever control I can over the situation.

I hope you are never in a situation where you understand their policy but wish you had the lifesaving tool you needed.

 

[BurtGummer]

Captcave, your comments about me being an anti gun owner in camouflage is incorrect. I am a realist and would like to clarify why I can understand a credit union posts a no guns sign. Would I prefer people be lawfully able to carry everyplace and without concerns over our very screwed up civil legal system, of course. But that is not the laws we have to live in. I agree with you Pingman that any returned fire against a felon is better then begging for your life. Anyone would agree to that.

My point is this. I do not want to be in the middle of a shootout in the bank because Joe Citizen escalated the situation. I don't care if any honest Joe Citizen has a gun with him anyplace he goes, I just don't want him trying to be a hero to save the cash and getting me or someone else hurt. Stepping up against an active shooter, kidnapper, rapist or for a life and death situation is the right thing to do and is a whole different story.

The majority of bank robberies are with a note, some with the threat of the firearm in the note but most robbers in the real world do not display a firearm. Why would that be the case? It is because the perpetrator wants to keep a low profile, his motive is to get the money not to kill. He knows that there are cameras, so killing witnesses is not as important as being as quick and discrete as possible. Get in, get the money, get out and don't get caught is all that is running through their head. They do not want to deviate from that mission.

The real killers go for easy targets like malls, schools and churches. Those peoples mission is not about the money and it may not even include getting away. All of those places should allow qualified citizens to carry legally.

If a robber is in the bank for the money, the bank will give them the money and let them leave the building quickly. If that plan changes by a guard, LE or an armed citizen trying to stop them, it is human nature that they will kill or take a hostage to get away or to keep from getting killed themselves. So if Joe Citizen pulls out his gun and tells the guy to drop their gun or just starts shooting at the guy, the situation has just escalated dramatically. I do not want to be in line for that situation.

I have been on line in convenience store in Maryland that got robbed by a guy with a gun displayed. That robber told everyone to take what they had and leave the store. We all quickly left the store and I am sure he got his money. Had there been someone in the store that tried to stop the crime, the outcome could have been worse.

These companies have these policies in place to protect the company and also to protect employees and other customers from someone who may feel obligated to stop a robbery. I am not saying these policies are great but all of our laws and policies are written to the least common denominator. There are those that don't get the concept that being armed does not make them the Lone Ranger.

If you look at an example of the FBI crime statistics from the first quarter of 2011.
Bank robberies: 1081
Weapon displayed: 268
People hurt: 24
People killed: 3 (all of which were the perpetrators)
Credit Unions robbed: 0
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/p...-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011-q1

So statistically, the risk of being killed in a Credit Union or even in a regular bank robbery is very minimal. It is not ideal that they have to write the policies in such a way that people can't legally carry a weapon inside to protect themselves and others from being killed. In the end, it is their property and their rules.

It comes down to this. Guy robs the bank, armed citizen shoots robber, saves cash, no lives lost. Robber goes to jail and armed citizen is charged with failing to comply with gun law, risks jail and most certainly his right to carry a gun. Who wins?, the bank, because banks always seem win.

I think if you have a permit you should not be restricted by corporate policies but I do see why banks feel they need to reduce their liability with not allowing firearms. There is a fine line for citizens to stay lawful and protected at the same time.

 

[B00GER]

I have dealt with Bob enough to know that not only is he not a "camo-anti-gunner", but also enough to consider him a friend and someone I would want with me if I needed backup. He is a very conscientious user, marksman, and an asset to both this community, and the gun community at large.

Although I disagree with him in this regard, as even though I too fully understand the institutions logic, I do not agree with it. Even though I dont want to be in a bank thats being robbed, I had far less rather be in a bank thats being robbed when a John Wayne wanna be starts busting off caps...but what trumps both of the above, and why I am against >anywhere< being a gun free zone is that it takes away MY personal and specific freedom to carry.

Just because you post a sign doesnt stop people from disobeying. There will still be cowboys toting hidden, there will still be bad guys robbing joints. Adding a sign just gives the attorneys something to pin on people, whether good or bad.

In short, I disagree with Bob, but I fully understand where he is coming from. But resorting to insulting his integrity as a gun owner or 2A supported is laughable.

 

[Sandman_NC]

Really believe the BG's would do this?

 

[Shellshock1918]

with the law change on dec 1st you can carry concealed in banks that arent posted.

wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?

Where have I been?

 

[BurtGummer]

Really believe the BG's would do this?

People understand this message but politicians and company lawyers don't.

 

[slick]

I thought the idea of CCW was that its not seen? So if you're in the bank and no one sees it big deal.

 

[JohnQ]

I am OK with their policy. There are a lot of people who have their CCW permit but do not take the time or expense it takes to become proficient with all the pistols they carry. I am not saying that specifically about you Pingman. I really would not like to see a teller get shot by mistake by a pistol carrying customer who decides that they are going to be a hero and stop a bank robbery. If there was a policy that every permit holder had to qualify at least annually with every gun that they want to carry with
minimum caliber standards, then I would have a different opinion of the banks policy.
I would not feel comfortable counting on a guy who took the CCW class with a .22 because it was cheap and easy and is now carrying his buffed out used Kimber that he last shot ten rounds through two years ago.
Do you really want to be in that bank with another person going for a .380 against a robber who will certainly have more firepower, more to loose and at least another person with them?
Just my two cents. Guns are great but I can see why they have that policy.

I don't disagree with you that there are some people out there that are not proficient with their chosen carry pistol. However-
Your scenario about being mistakenly shot by a pistol carrying customer could be applied to any business couldn't it? Gas station, department store, walmart, etc.
Frankly, I find your comments on this to be remarkably similar to antis screaming "there will blood in the streets if we allow people to carry handguns".

Let me add-
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000 despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year. Source- http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf pg. 71

In addition, what difference does it make if a person chooses to take the CCW class with a .22? Are you not aware that many, many people supplement their training with .22 caliber pistols everyday? Have you noticed the market flooded with all manner of .22 pistols with a lot of them now modeled after their larger caliber brothers?

 

[hardluk1]

It does make me wonder if bob carry's at all and if he does why? If you ever need to pull that handgun chances are someone will be down range or simply around you beside the BG and open you up as being liable to others if only metal anguish. If its legal to carry in a buseness then do so or don't carry at all. Maybe my local bank stays on the path of allowing us to carry in there business.

 

[pingman274]

As soon as we receive the payment info for our recently refinanced, recently sold mortgage, I will be moving accounts from TFCU. It would be helpful if anyone could post a few examples of small to medium sized banks that are NOT posted in the Triad. Not interested in Wells or BOA.

 

[BurtGummer]

No, I am just saying anything about limiting guns, blood on the street, every gun owner is incompetent, etc. I am saying that I see the banks point on the reasons behind their no-gun policy. Of course criminals will not care about a gun sign but because of the law, if you walk past those signs armed, now you are the criminal. It is their building, their rules. Don't like the rules, complain and go someplace else. They are only concerned about limiting their own liability.

I would rather not have to leave a gun in the car because of these laws, but they are the laws we have to deal with. With the laws as they are, I have to take my chances going in a bank with a no-gun sign being unarmed. If I have to deal with a guy who wants the money then that is the threat. Being in a situation were a robbery escalates to a shootout because a good intentioned customer changed the game now makes that threat worse. If the robber was going to kill me or others, then it just sucks that I was not breaking the law too by bringing a gun in with me. Your chances of actually getting shot in a bank robbery is certainly going to be less if the guy was only there for the money and not trying to escape without getting shot.

It would be great if the laws and company policies did not put limits on where people could lawfully carry a gun. It would also be great if everyone who carried a gun had Monday morning quarterback judgement and was an ace with their guns. We don't live in that world. We live with people who make stupid rules, bad decisions and people who want to be hero's that probably shouldn't be.

If you have never been robbed or in a place that is was robbed, you might not see it the same way as me and that is fine. I do advocate being armed and proficient. Throwing out comments about me being anti-gun is just not accurate. Being law abiding and expressing my opinion about why I can see the banks reasoning is fine.

As far as this comment "Your scenario about being mistakenly shot by a pistol carrying customer could be applied to any business couldn't it? Gas station, department store, walmart, etc.". This could happen anyplace but at least in those places, I would be legally armed and able to defend myself. In a bank or store with no-gun signs then anyone but a cop or guard with a gun in the bank is a criminal, that is just how it is.

The problem is that laws need to be fair, breaking the law to be protected all the time should not be OK.

 

[flightorfight]

I have dealt with Bob enough to know that not only is he not a "camo-anti-gunner", but also enough to consider him a friend and someone I would want with me if I needed backup. He is a very conscientious user, marksman, and an asset to both this community, and the gun community at large.

Although I disagree with him in this regard, as even though I too fully understand the institutions logic, I do not agree with it. Even though I dont want to be in a bank thats being robbed, I had far less rather be in a bank thats being robbed when a John Wayne wanna be starts busting off caps...but what trumps both of the above, and why I am against >anywhere< being a gun free zone is that it takes away MY personal and specific freedom to carry.

Just because you post a sign doesnt stop people from disobeying. There will still be cowboys toting hidden, there will still be bad guys robbing joints. Adding a sign just gives the attorneys something to pin on people, whether good or bad.

In short, I disagree with Bob, but I fully understand where he is coming from. But resorting to insulting his integrity as a gun owner or 2A supported is laughable.

+1 Bob is a great guy and someone whom i consider a friend and a good resource of gun knowledge. His opinion is his own and doesn't merit the name calling.

 

[captcave]

It's like reading the brady bunch's website in this thread.

Do they pay per post, or per word?

 

[B00GER]

It's like reading the brady bunch's website in this thread.

Do they pay per post, or per word?

Not really sure what you are getting at.

 

[mekender]

The location in S. Charlotte is not posted, I was there today

 

[vaskeet]

A.". This could happen anyplace but at least in those places, I would be legally armed and able to defend myself. In a bank or store with no-gun signs then anyone but a cop or guard with a gun in the bank is a criminal, that is just how it is.

The problem is that laws need to be fair, breaking the law to be protected all the time should not be OK.

I dont see the differance between walmart and a bank you say in those places you can be legally armed and able to defend yourself why should a bank be any different and what is you views on resturants. I feel that in credit unions we THE OWNER/MEMBERS should be able to express out concerns about their policies I am sure I would enjoy a cup of coffee and a good matured argument with you Randy

 

[Brevard]

I think alot of people really need to stop watching TV shows and movies with bank robberies in them thinking that is how it goes in real life. Bob was right though. The vast majority is done with a ntoe of some kind. Tellers are told to cooperate. Very, very seldom are shots ever fired and hostages taken. Does it happen....yes.

Should people who can legally carry be allowed to...yes. In reality I see where Tom is coming from. It worries me to think there are some people with their CHP that are just itching to use their gun, and "be the hero". Alot of people think just about themselves in a situation that might involve them pulling their gun, but how many have sat down and thought about others. What if the BG had his gun pointed at the teller? What happens if you shoot the BG and as a reaction to being shot be it a jerk, or a sharp pain that makes every muscle tighen up and causes him to pull the trigger and shooting the teller? There are alot of things that can take place.

So why I think I should be able to legally carry my gun with me, and while I don't agree with it. Like Bob I can see what they are thinking. You are thinking about protecting yourself, or your family if they are with you. As CEO's and bank owners they are thinking of protecting their customers and their employees. What they are hoping is for full cooperation and no one getting hurt. While it maybe foolish that in reality is the best way to go about it.

I have a bunch of friends that work at banks. They are told to cooperate fully then take actions after the BG leaves. 4 of them have been in bank robberies while they were working. Of those 4 times only once did the gun show a gun. It was in the waist band of his jeans and he raised his shirt showed her that he had a gun. He got his money and was gone. No one was hurt in any of those incidents. Not one time (around here) with the bank robberies has anyone walked in yelled "this is a stick up", "hands in the air this is a hold up", etc, etc. It was done discreetly as to not draw attention.

What Bob was saying is if someone who had been armed would have been in there "wanting to be a hero" and escalates the situation things could have changed for the worst. That isn't counting if the "good samaritan" is a bad shot, or extra bullet penetration and what not.

I also think their are alot of people with their CHP that in all reality shouldn't be able to carry. My wife just took her class. 3 people with .22 target pistols missed at 1 yrd...1 yrd no stress. I honestly don't want those same people pulling a gun on a BG and starting a shoot out.

Also, my gun posted the gun buster sign on the door. I didn't change banks. I have my paycheck direct deposited. If I need to do any banking I do it through the drive thru portion. My gun stays with me the whole time.

 

[mekender]

I think alot of people really need to stop watching TV shows and movies with bank robberies in them thinking that is how it goes in real life. Bob was right though. The vast majority is done with a ntoe of some kind. Tellers are told to cooperate. Very, very seldom are shots ever fired and hostages taken. Does it happen....yes.

Should people who can legally carry be allowed to...yes. In reality I see where Tom is coming from. It worries me to think there are some people with their CHP that are just itching to use their gun, and "be the hero". Alot of people think just about themselves in a situation that might involve them pulling their gun, but how many have sat down and thought about others. What if the BG had his gun pointed at the teller? What happens if you shoot the BG and as a reaction to being shot be it a jerk, or a sharp pain that makes every muscle tighen up and causes him to pull the trigger and shooting the teller? There are alot of things that can take place.

So why I think I should be able to legally carry my gun with me, and while I don't agree with it. Like Bob I can see what they are thinking. You are thinking about protecting yourself, or your family if they are with you. As CEO's and bank owners they are thinking of protecting their customers and their employees. What they are hoping is for full cooperation and no one getting hurt. While it maybe foolish that in reality is the best way to go about it.

I have a bunch of friends that work at banks. They are told to cooperate fully then take actions after the BG leaves. 4 of them have been in bank robberies while they were working. Of those 4 times only once did the gun show a gun. It was in the waist band of his jeans and he raised his shirt showed her that he had a gun. He got his money and was gone. No one was hurt in any of those incidents. Not one time (around here) with the bank robberies has anyone walked in yelled "this is a stick up", "hands in the air this is a hold up", etc, etc. It was done discreetly as to not draw attention.

What Bob was saying is if someone who had been armed would have been in there "wanting to be a hero" and escalates the situation things could have changed for the worst. That isn't counting if the "good samaritan" is a bad shot, or extra bullet penetration and what not.

I also think their are alot of people with their CHP that in all reality shouldn't be able to carry. My wife just took her class. 3 people with .22 target pistols missed at 1 yrd...1 yrd no stress. I honestly don't want those same people pulling a gun on a BG and starting a shoot out.

Also, my gun posted the gun buster sign on the door. I didn't change banks. I have my paycheck direct deposited. If I need to do any banking I do it through the drive thru portion. My gun stays with me the whole time.

Sorry but I dont know that I would be willing to risk my safety and the safety of my family on the whims of a felon. Just because they dont typically USE a gun does not mean they wont...

Does that mean that I would immediately draw and shoot, nope... But I would be prepared to do so if needed.

 

[captcave]

It's like reading the brady bunch's website in this thread.

Do they pay per post, or per word?

i say again

 

[B00GER]

i say again

And I say again, no one knows what the world you are talking about.