Citibank Goes PC
Who gains by such policies, and who loses?

By T. Dave Gowan, Ph.D., a biologist and computer consultant who moderates
four e-mail listservers devoted to firearms issues, & Dave Kopel of the
Independence Institute

his summer, Citibank announced that it would close all the accounts
of customers who owned firearms-related businesses. Citibank quickly
relented under a boycott threat from the Second Amendment
Foundation.

Citibank’s short-lived policy of political correctness, while mean-spirited,
did not threaten anyone’s safety, other than the safety of profits for
Citibank shareholders. Other businesses, however, have taken far more
dangerous steps in order to be politically correct.

In many states which allow law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for
protection, some banks and other businesses exercise their property
rights to exclude lawful gun carriers. Some of these business have
relented under strong and immediate pressure from firearms owners,
while other businesses cling to the exclusionary policy.

Who gains by such policies, and who loses?

Suppose a bank posts a sign on the doors of every branch saying “No
Firearms Allowed.” A customer approaches the door. She is a
law-abiding citizen who carries a concealed weapon with a permit for
good reasons; she has been mugged in the past. She sees the sign on the
door. Does she enter? No, but she realizes she can’t do business with
the bank if she can’t enter the premises. She puts the firearm in her car,
enters the bank and does business, and as soon as possible moves her
savings, checking, and investment accounts to another bank.

Later that day, two men drive up to the bank door, and double park
with the engine running. One of them approaches the door with a
sawed-off shotgun, a hooded sweatshirt ,and sunglasses. Does he read
the “No Firearms Allowed” sign, and say to himself, “Gee, I can’t carry
my gun in there. I guess we’ll have to go down the street and rob that
other bank”?

The robber who reads the sign laughs, robs the bank anyway, terrifies
15 customers, then brags to his friends afterwards about the stupid sign
the bank put on the door.

Do criminals prefer to rob businesses where the victims are unarmed?
Athena Research’s 1996 study of 310 Seattle armed robbers found:
“Many robbers said their biggest fear is the victim will pull a gun. It is the
reason they are reluctant to hold up ‘mom and pop’ stores where ?
unlike chain stores ? the owners may be armed.” The robbers’ advice
to potential victims: “A number of robbers recommended having a gun.”
(News Tribune (Seattle), Apr. 2, 1996.)

In 1967, rising rates of store robberies in Kansas City prompted a police
program to train store owners in gun use. The next year, as Gary Kleck
details in his award-winning book Point Blank, while the robbery rate in
Missouri and the United States continued to rise significantly, the rate fell
in the Kansas City metro area. The trend of increasing burglary in the
area also came to an abrupt end, contrary to state and national patterns.

The irony is that in the attempt to look good to the establishment media,
corporations are creating self-defeating policies: Many desirable
customers take their business elsewhere because of anti-gun policies.
And the people you’d rather not have on the premises of your business
aren’t deterred by the policy at all; they’re actually encouraged to visit.

Another irony is that when the media report the new policy, more
firearms owners and criminals read the news. Customers leave, while
criminals arrive to victimize the business and its remaining customers.

Who responds negatively to businesses discriminating against firearms
owners and businesses? Most gun owners do. Many newspapers
portray NRA members as plaid-shirted, grass-stem-sucking,
kill-everything country hicks. Actually, the ranks of the NRA are
weighted towards armed-services veterans, street-level police officers,
and others who traditionally hunt and carry firearms in daily life. NRA
members include government employees, teachers, lawyers, bankers,
and even newspaper staff and editors. (This latter type of NRA member
tends to be pretty quiet about membership, since the media’s obsession
with “diversity” and “tolerance” doesn’t include tolerating diverse opinions
about Second Amendment issues.)

Firearms-rights activists are extremely well-connected, with web pages,
clubs, business organizations, associations and grassroots groups all tied
together by an array of e-mail listservers and newsletters which spread
the word. Indeed, next to Internet privacy activists, gun-rights activists
have the world’s best network of e-mail, websites, fax lists, newsletters,
and other modes of rapid communication. All those years of being shut
out of the establishment media have led Second Amendment supporters
to develop powerful alternative communications systems.

Are there business opportunities in accommodating firearms owners?
There are many. Firearms owners experience discrimination by
uninformed businesses every day. Any business facing tight competition
from many others in a well-defined market can expand its market share
by taking advantage of the niche created by firearms owners looking for
services. One such corporation is Wal-Mart, which provides many
citizens an introduction to sport shooting, hunting, and competitive
shooting. The chain sells sporting firearms and supplies, and firearms
owners and their families and friends are particularly loyal to the
corporation.

Do you need new customers? All your company has to do is announce
that you want them. Send the message, We Believe in the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms, to a shooting association. You might want to start with
the Florida State Shooting Association listserver: [email protected]