I've heard that argument. I'm not buying it.FastCarry wrote:Something to consider, some post the 30.06 sign not because they dont want guns in their establishment, but they dont want bloodshed. If someone hop skips into a bank and hands a teller a note, non violent, Joe Chlo could whip his pistol out and shed some blood. Most companies have a no hero policy, the money and items are insured, let the perp go to prevent escalation.
I shy away from gun busters but I do see the other POV.
1. When was the last incident where a citizen was in a bank, gun fire broke out and that citizen with his personal firearm wounded or killed an innocent? I'm not saying that it cannot happen. I can get hit by a meteorite, too, but the likelihood goes way right of the decimal point in the odds scale. I don't have any statistics to back it up by my guess would be that customers of banks get shot by robbers more than 10x more often than any citizen shoots anyone but a BG.
2. In most places that I go, I figure that my odds of needing to protect myself are greater during the walk from the parking lot to the building than inside the building itself. When was the last time that you saw a news story about someone getting attacked INSIDE of a Wal-Mart while there are dozens of stories in Wal-Mart parking lots. I don't see the bank situation differently from a customer perspective. Disarm me inside and I'm also disarmed on the way inside.
3. The bank (or any other business) is welcome to make decisions about how they want to control their environment. But when they take away my right to defend myself, they don't assume any liability to fill that gap. They are hoping that the BG does no harm to customers or employees but if they guessed wrong, there are no consequences to them. That is a loose-loose deal for me. That is one of the main reasons that I don't frequent posted businesses besides my aversion to giving money to anti-gun organizations.