No, they are counting on complying with robbers, giving away your money, and making an insurance claim should they ever get robbed. The last thing they want is anyone, including their own guards, to be shooting at anyone in their building, because the liability for lawsuits for injured or killed patrons is far greater than their liability for however much cash the teller can hand over to a bank robber.asleepatthereel wrote: maybe they are counting on having one or two legally armed customers in there should they ever get robbed.
And even though I usually agree with you, Liberty, in this case, I do not. The bank is going to do what is in their best financial interest. They will count the cost of putting up the signs. They are not ill-informed about the law or the statistics. This is not a mom-n-pop business who is clueless. They are armed with the statistics and have chosen to roll the dice that losing a couple of customers because of their anti-gun policy is going to cost less in the end than any potential lawsuit or other liability should anyone get shot on their premises. So the only way we can impact their business practices is by denying them our business, and then we will see if there is enough loss of business from their gun policy to make them change their ways, or to make them go out of business.
As a customer, the ONLY leverage you have is to take your business somewhere else. You are deluding yourself if you think that by staying on with a bank you are going to influence the way they do business. Now if the government would stop bailing out banks that are failing for one reason or another then this whole idea of rewarding businesses with good practices and punishing those with bad practices might actually work.