An article in today’s Boston Globe reports that Wal-Mart has made the choice to stop selling guns at 40 of their stores along the Gulf Coast: “The move infuriated some Wal-Mart customers in this fiercely progun region, some of whom said the big chain left them without protection as the violence increased after Hurricane Katrina.†Why would Wal-Mart make this decision, when they never had a problem selling guns in the past, to suddenly stop? Presumably it was a precautionary tactic reacting to the mounting tension in and around New Orleans and the sudden increase in demand for guns. But if the decision was made because multitudes of people simultaneously opted to purchase a gun, what does that say about the company’s true sentiments towards who should own a gun? There was no comment made on their website, though they do state in their news section that they have given 16 million in relief money to the effort to aid Katrina victims.
Apparently, Wal-Mart isn’t the only organization to suddenly become gun-shy. In a New York Times article from Sept. 8, it was reported that local law officials had begun to confiscate guns from civilians as they prepared to force evacuations in the area. Strangely, hundreds of security guards (also civilians) who had been hired by businesses to guard property were allowed to keep their guns, and were “openly carrying M-16s and other assualt rifles.â€
It is a horrifying reality that the present climate has made so many feel an urgency for gun ownership, even as government officials reported to the NYT that "they had made significant progress over the weekend toward restoring calm, control, and some services in New Orleans.†While I am a proponent of increased national gun-control regulations, I find it odd that in a state where you do not need a permit to purchase or carry a hand gun some people could be stripped of their right while others, the security guards namely, would not be. I can’t help but think that class and status are playing a role in this decision. If the police were taking everyone's guns, why would they leave some people armed, simply because they were hired to protect businesses by private parties? That should afford the security guards no more rights than a person who wishes to protect their own belongings. Nor am I saying that I believe the answer to the situation is for everyone to buy a gun, though I think this scenario speaks volumes for the pervasiveness of the culture of fear that happens in our society, especially at times of heightened terror and/or disaster. Perhaps if the relief response had been better from the start, then faith in officials would not have been shaken so violently, and the mass mentality would not be so prominently concentrated on the need to bear arms.
Erica Martinson @ September 12, 2005 - 9:59am
My first instinct in trying to check out LA's state gun laws was to head to their state legislation site, but just a note-- that's still down. The Brady Campaign , often known as Handgun Control, has a good State Laws section. What it says is that virtually the only gun control that exists on a state level is the power of Attorney General to set safety standards (this usually means requiring locks, etc on guns in the home). I wonder if there is any legal basis at all for taking away these people's guns? More than that, I wonder if the ACLU will jump on this one... That would be interesting to see.
»