Raise Security measures?

[Blackbird.]

A thought just went through my mind as i'm watching this program. It's a video of a bankrobber that was wielding an AK-47 while the security guard had just a handgun. He was able to fire off one shot before he had to flee behind a door but not before being struck in leg by one of those 7.62MM rounds. So that had me thinking. Why shouldn't banks and other high risk places like a bank's security guards use more powerful weapons? Like say an MP5? The security guard stood not a chance in the world against an AK-47 versus his handgun. Or would having big guns like this in banks put too much of a psychological effect on the population? I'm basically asking for opinions on the topic.

 

[TopHat]

I'd feel safer if the guards had large guns tbh. Bigger guns = Theft deterrent.

 

[hellnback]

I'm not one to play devils advocate... ok maybe sometimes I am...

My very first reaction was to go, yeah that sounds fair enough... but then I thought...

The guards MP5 can be seen to trump the robbers AK-47, so will they now bring something bigger or have more than one person with AK's??? Making the situation even more potentially volitile???

This is not to mention there's more nerves on the edge with higher powered guns, especially if the robbers know they're going into a bank with a MP5 or similar (granted they may not go to it because of it, but if the prize is big enough...), these nerves could break quicker...

Also if the guard is armed better is he now feeling obliged to play hero and defend more readily???

All scenario's don't really make me feel safe... akin to Cold War mentality, you've got 5000 nukes??? Impressive, pity we have 10000...

Mind you am I allowed to comment? coming from New Zealand we don't have many armed robberies...

 

[Submerged]

Alternatively one must remember that you only need one bullet to hit the thief to actually have an impact on them.

So if you had a small peashooter type, you could theoretically have more of an effect if you were amazingly accurate with that than a grenade at preventing a very determined thief.

This also brings into another question. Most security forces (I'm assuming here) use small handguns for stealth so the customers of the businesses are not left feeling uncomfortable about large weapons in a small area. I mean, if you go to an airport where all the armed police are using MP5's or whatever they use now, you do feel significantly uneasy at first, before relaxing (as they're there to protect you, not kill you...technically). Therefore it's more to do with the balance of perception in this case I believe. Plus, most robberies would be opportunistic. One shot and most people would stop, regardless of whether the bullet actually hit or missed!

I'm tired so the above may not have made a lot of sense and I hope I got across the meaning.

 

[Wenders]

I work in a bank, we have no security guard. We have screens that pop up if alarm is activated( and on the odd occaison pop up when not activated).
Pretty much these days, at least in Australia anyway the bank is more concerned with the safety of the staff and customers. The money can be replaced lives can't. If someone walks in with a gun you do exactly what they want, no questions asked and no heroics are allowed. If security guards have bigger and better guns that a bank robber it is unlikely to deter the bank robber but quite likely to force the robber to use his gun.

 

[Sureboss]

Bank robbers wouldn't stop because the guards have bigger guns. The most likely outcome would be a higher chance of a shoot-out. Also pistols are easier to conceal, I think if the guards had MP5s then the customers would be more nervous.

 

[Omnis]

Bigger guns are not better. Secret guns are.

 

[niky]

Well... an MP5 isn't exactly a powerful gun compared to an AK47... but it certainly is much better than a pistol, and possibly much better than an AK47 in a CQB situation, due to the higher mobility and accuracy this affords the security personnel over a traditional long-arm. Would it deter an AK47-toting maniac? I don't think so. Quite a few of the most famous bank shootouts involve robbers with high powered long-arms and bulletproof vests, which render the 9mm or .40 caliber rounds of the MP5 nearly ineffective in a standing shootout.

Personally, I'd like to see more deterrents than a better armed security guard. Better to have fast response security personnel to engage the robbers outside the bank than to risk a shootout inside in the presence of civilians.

 

[Omnis]

Might as well carry an M4 instead of an MP5. The MP5 is actually a damn big gun, or at least the local PD's SWAT ones are.

 

[Danoff]

I don't like the "just don't have security, give the robber what he wants, it's safer" solution - it invites crime. And I don't like the "it makes customers feel safer" line because I think half the customers would prefer the guards had bigger weapons. I also don't like the "secret guns are better" line because security guards are usually armed and usually easily identifiable.

But I can come up with 2 reasons not to give security guards automatic assault rifles.

1) They usually aren't all that competent at shooting. Giving them something that can do that much damage is a bad idea. Better to keep the likelihood they'll hit something they don't intend to a minimum.

2) Rifles get in the way, and I think security guards are more often needed to tackle, apprehend, or administer first aid than they are needed for a gunfight. A pistol doesn't get in the officer's way for those duties like an assault rifle.

 

[Sureboss]

I've never seen an armed guard at a bank in the UK (Maybe the posh banks in London have them?), infact I've not seen a guard in a bank, that I can think of.

 

[Blackbird.]

1) They usually aren't all that competent at shooting. Giving them something that can do that much damage is a bad idea. Better to keep the likelihood they'll hit something they don't intend to a minimum.

Yeah I thought about that... they'd definetly need to have better training that and/or a background with experience.

 

[buickgnx88]

I've never seen an armed guard at a bank in the UK (Maybe the posh banks in London have them?), infact I've not seen a guard in a bank, that I can think of.

It usually seems like in movies that the guards are at the larger banks, such as in New York and Chicago. I know the small banks around me don't have guards, just cameras.

 

[Omnis]

I don't like the "just don't have security, give the robber what he wants, it's safer" solution - it invites crime. And I don't like the "it makes customers feel safer" line because I think half the customers would prefer the guards had bigger weapons. I also don't like the "secret guns are better" line because security guards are usually armed and usually easily identifiable.

Yeah, I meant it was better to have visibly armed guards, but with other concealed firearms available. It would be better than having your guard carrying a bigger gun, anyway.

Remember in The Dark Knight movie prologue the bank manager with the shotgun in his office. I hate to be referencing Hollywood, but he would've been just fine had he stayed in his office with his gun pointed at the door.

Today, I think it's safe to assume that most bank robbers are small fry thieves. When the big boys want to rob a bank, they'll do it digitally.

It usually seems like in movies that the guards are at the larger banks, such as in New York and Chicago. I know the small banks around me don't have guards, just cameras.

That's because they're insured.

 

[YSSMAN]

Again, we have a simple solution in Detroit:

 

[Omnis]

Lols! Nice one, yss.

 

[Prosthetic]

Guards should have a .45 if anything. Oh yeah and some training... Duh!
Not only would a .45 be smaller then a mp5, it has a more powerful bullet (MP5's shoot a 9mm round right? I can't remember) It would be easier to shoot, and easier to conceal.
The problems you have with a large weapon is that it takes longer to take out and get ready, and if the robber sees the guard getting ready, of coarse they are going to shoot.

My friends mom (who is a really tough women, and would brake you and half ) used to work as a Oakland Police officer, and later after back injury was a guard at a Oakland hospitol that was in the "ghetto" she was armed with a .45 Revolver. But the only training real training was her police training.

I think that the thing to security is training; Because almost all bank robbery's are planned ahead.

 

[Josh]

I'd like to see more armed, and properly trained, civilians. I'd hate to see a bank get held up with 40 or so hostages inside - with only 1 or 2 security guards who make $8/hr to protect them - while they beg for their lives.

Most banks around here have security guards similar to all of our local malls. 99% of the time it's some young teen/early 20's kid who is armed with nothing more than a walkie-talkie. Me and my wife can't help but chuckle to ourselves as we walk by them in the mall/bank carrying [our firearms concealed] wondering what the hell a guy with a walkie-talkie is going to do when SHTF...

 

[Wenders]

I don't like the "just don't have security, give the robber what he wants, it's safer" solution - it invites crime. And I don't like the "it makes customers feel safer" line because I think half the customers would prefer the guards had bigger weapons. I also don't like the "secret guns are better" line because security guards are usually armed and usually easily identifiable.

Before I start, I will say that I am basing my opinion on 25years experience in banking industry in Australia and have been in 3 bank hold ups (all over 20 years ago) and had a gun pointed at my head during one of them. (and I have the pictures to prove it )
It's not necessarily a case of "just don't have security, give the robber what he wants, it's safer" but more a case of having guns at all or bigger guns is not always going to be the safest option.
A bank robbers prime objective is to get in and out as quick as possible, very few bank robbers do it for a full time job, they are scared, they want things to go as smoothly as possible, they don't go in planning to shoot anyone and chances are their guns (if they really have one) aren't even loaded.
The banks prime objective during a hold up is to keep customers and staff safe. It's not up to the bank to catch the bank robbers, that's the job of the police. But that doesn't mean banks take no precautions at all to protect the money. When I started in banking many moons ago there was next to know security, alarms, a dye bomb that got handed out with the money and thats about it. Bank robberies were a lot more common back in those days. These days most banks have some sort of security barrier, anti jump barriers or risings ecurity screens, time delay safes as well as alarms. These measures have drastically reduced the number of armed hold-ups in banks. Where I worked at my previous branch the bank next door had a guard but no security screens and got knocked off twice in the couple of years I worked next door. We had screens so they were a much easier target.
I guess what I am am trying to get at is I, as a bank worker, I feel a lot safer knowing that what is a very high pressure situation isn't made worse by potentially becoming a 'my guns bigger than yours' shoot em up. Just get them out the door and let the police worry about the money later.

 

[Danoff]

I guess what I am am trying to get at is I, as a bank worker, I feel a lot safer knowing that what is a very high pressure situation isn't made worse by potentially becoming a 'my guns bigger than yours' shoot em up. Just get them out the door and let the police worry about the money later.

That's what I said. You're putting safety in a single isolated incident over the deterrent of having armed officers. Going into this discussion from a point of view of "I'm going to be robbed, how would I prefer it to happen", is going to skew the results because it assumes that any deterrent hasn't worked.

That being said, if I'm in a bank that's being robbed and I have the choice having a gun in my hand or not, I'll choose having it every time.

Edit: ...though, I may not want to use it. I'd still want to have it. Perhaps what you'd really prefer is that security guards carried two sidearms. One for show, and one to actually use - but only to prevent violence.

 

[Omnis]

Edit: ...though, I may not want to use it. I'd still want to have it. Perhaps what you'd really prefer is that security guards carried two sidearms. One for show, and one to actually use - but only to prevent violence.

That's getting at what I was saying.