That at least is the implication of Professor Rothfield's suggestion that armed guards police archaeological sites and museums in places like Egypt and Iraq. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jul/10/arm-museum-guards-looting-war?mobile-redirect=false
While our own museums like the National Gallery of Art have some armed guards, I agree with Dorothy King that this particular proposal may lead to unnecessary deaths. See
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2011/07/arm-museum-guards-to-prevent-looting.html Most "looters" in places like Egypt, Iraq and Peru are "subsistence diggers" who remove treasures from the graves of their ancestors in order to put food on the table. Do we really want to encourage them being killed in the name of archaeology? As for the armed gangs of archaeological lore, to the extent they exist at all, wouldn't they likely be better armed than the guards?
Of course, every country is free to address this issue in its own way, but I also suspect that Professor Rothfield wants Western countries to fund these armed guards.
And let's not forget. Shoot the looter was the practice in Saddam's Iraq. Is this really who we want to emulate?