I have to admit that if I heard a newscaster say something like, “Five gunmen entered a bank,” I’d at least briefly scratch my head as to precisely what that meant. It would be a strangely indirect way of saying that five men who were armed with guns had entered it. I probably would edit “armed gunmen” in either speech or writing, but I would be more likely to change “gunmen” to “men” than to delete the “armed” part, unless it was already clear from the context that several men carrying guns had entered the bank. So, “Five armed men burst into a bank this Wednesday, and one of the gunmen threatened to shoot the bank manager unless he complied with their demands,” would strike me as perfectly natural, but just referring to “five gunmen” doing something, without prior context, would be a bit odd.
As to ATM machine and PIN number, I think it is a similar form of redundancy for emphasis and/or clarity, but I think there is an added twist, there, which is that ISTM that acronyms have a way of becoming treated as if they were simply words rather than an abbreviated way of referencing several of them, and people not uncommonly forget what the letters in an acronym stand for even if they use the acronym every day (I have run into this when I ask expert witnesses to explain what an acronym that is part of their professional jargon means: it seems like, more often than not, they either can’t quite remember what all of the letters stand for or, at a minimum, they have a lot of trouble recalling what some of them refer to.). And sometimes something that used to be an acronym ceases to be so: IiRC, KFC is the official name of a fast food chain, and while it used to be short for Kentucky Fried Chicken it is no longer short for anything.
How many people, I wonder, think of “PIN” as an abbreviation for “Personal Identification Number” as opposed to simply thinking of it as “one of those little codes you have to enter in a keypad when you use your debit card”? Of course, “PIN number” is redundant either way (since the type of “code” you use is composed only of numbers, AFAIK), but it is much more obviously so if you consciously recall that the N in PIN is (was?) “number.” And perhaps “PIN number”, as redundant as it is, nonetheless has some utility, as it helps clarify that one is referring to the specific number that comprises a specific PIN, as opposed to PINs in general or a PIN as an abstract concept [Scratches head, wondering if “abstract concept” is redundant. Decides it probably isn’t, and doesn’t care if it is.]