Interesting article in the News-Press (Southwest Florida), talking about arming of clerks in convenience stores. At the end of the article a 7-11 representative advocates disarming clerks:
Chabris said 7-Eleven takes steps to reduce robberies. The stores can’t have more than $50 in the register during the day and $20 at night in their registers and make sure surveillance cameras are always on.
Clerks receive training on cooperating with robbers and memorizing details about a robbery so that they can better help police in an investigation.
Clerks’ fears may not be eased, but she said the policies have helped reduce the number of robberies that occur. Since no-weapons policies were put in place in the mid-1970s, Chabris said, robberies at 7-Eleven stores have dropped 65 percent.
65%!! That sounds great!! We should all disarm, yes? Well, not really. It turns out that robberies in general have dropped by 2/3 since the mid-70′s, so all 7-11 has done is keep up with crime trends. Here’s a graph that I lifted from the Bureau of Justice Statistics site:
I think the case for disarming employees is lacking.
UPDATE: A commenter who must remain anonymous on this subject points out via email that there are liability issues that would still inhibit companies from allowing employees to carry. This is undoubtedly true, but is beyond my competence to address. Perhaps someone with a legal background could take that point a bit farther, because it would certainly be nice if the choice ultimately fell to the employee.
But the point of this post is that 7-11′s self-congratulatory assessment of the effect of their policy on their robbery trends was ill-founded. A point I probably should have also made was that I can’t believe the reporter missed that point. The first question you ask when determining the efficacy of a policy is how the effects compare to the population in general. At least that’s the first question I asked.

December 14, 2006 at 8:26 am
I’d still rather be armed than not. If I work for 7-11 at $8/hr. and someone wants money I’d probably give it to them and only go for the weapon if it looked like they were going to go crazy. Of course, then I guess I would be fired. If it’s my own gas station/convenience store and a robbery is going to take food off my table, given a chance, I’m going to pull it.
December 14, 2006 at 12:14 pm
A more telling statistic might be the battery/homicide rate per robbery. I’ll bet that hasn’t declined. There is a reason that gun shops are rarely robbed.
December 14, 2006 at 10:00 pm
I’d rather be fired than dead.
December 16, 2006 at 5:19 pm
More Guns, Less Whine, Part II
Part one looked at a couple of cases of the natural right to self defense applied to England, and to courtrooms. Today we see more about that at Uncommon Misconceptions. Seven-Eleven claims their “no-guns” policy actually makes their stores get…