Armed vs. Unarmed Guards -- The Debate Goes On
An incident this week involving an attempted robbery of the Credit Union Service Center in Midwest City, Oklahoma, adds fuel to the debate over whether armed security guards in financial institutions are more likely to curtail violence, or provoke it.

This particular facility had been robbed twice in recent months. As a result, the institution had hired an off-duty police officer to provide security. When a 27-year old man walked in with a mask and a gun, the alert officer immediately approached him. The result was a gun battle. The thief, who had been released from federal prison about seven months ago after serving time for two bank robberies, was wounded and remains in critical condition. It's doubtful anyone (other than the guy's family) will be shedding too many tears over that. However, a customer was also wounded in the process, and that's precisely the kind of problem opponents of armed security guards point to when defending their view.

It is believed the 71-year-old female customer sustained a gunshot wound to the knee via one of the bullets that hit the would-be robber first.

One has to wonder what might have been different if the CUSC had had an unarmed guard, or no guard. The fact is, one gun that would have still been present was the one in the hands of the bad guy. Perhaps it would have been a quick in-and-out, no one hurt, and Aaron Kennedy would have continued his serial bank robberies. In the land of the Make My Day law, however, a customer could have pulled a concealed weapon and sparked a bullet battle that ended in a much worse tragedy.

Click on the # below to tell us what YOU think.