Open Gun Carry Activists Let Their (Freudian) Slip Show

Share This Story

KING 5 in Seattle reported today on the Brady Campaign’s petition to ask Starbucks to keep guns out of its coffee shops — a petition with over 25,000 signatures and counting — and quoted John Pierce of OpenCarry.org as applauding Starbucks’ non-responsive answer thus far.

From the KING 5 story:

“It is refreshing to see yet one more company not requiring law abiding gun owners to go to the back of the bus,” says Pierce.  “Importantly, Starbucks joins most American corporations in deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers.”

Notwithstanding that Peet’s Tea & Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen immediately made their “No Guns” policies clear after the Brady Campaign’s California chapters protested “open carry” gun activists at those establishments, you may have noticed Mr. Pierce’s bigger mistake.

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

Come on guys, if your “bigotry” play is going to work you can’t make rookie mistakes like that.  Unsuspecting onlookers might run this thought experiment and see that you’re all full of beans

Say you are a business owner, and you want to provide the safest and most comfortable environment for your staff and customers in order to grow your business and make money.

Which of the following hypothetical statements to prospective customers make sense, and which are to be rejected as wrong and discriminatory?

1.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your skin color outside.”
2.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your sexual orientation outside.”
3.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your religious affiliation outside.”
4.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your gender outside.”
5.  To the paraplegic: “You can come in, but you have to leave your wheelchair outside.”

Versus

6.  “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer.”

Clearly, the first five statements are racist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, sexist and discriminatory against the physically challenged and are unacceptable.

Why?  Among other reasons, they are all impossible to comply with.  All of those traits are immutable characteristics of individuals and cannot be separated from the person.  It is impossible to comply with those statements because if you exclude one, you exclude both.

The sixth and last statement, however, obviously does not fall into that category, because guns can be separated from people.  A gun is a thing outside human identity.

And by accidentally acknowledging this obvious fact, Mr. Pierce let his (Freudian) slip show.

The business owner who says, “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer” says nothing about the gun owner but everything about carrying the gun on their property.

A business owner can decide to invite every gun owner in the zip code to take advantage of a store-wide sale and say that they can’t carry their guns in the store, and be entirely consistent.  There is no such thing as “discrimination against guns,” only against people. Let’s say it again: Guns don’t have rights because guns are things.

Believe it or not, even the NRA knows the difference.

When Senator and presidential candidate John McCain spoke to the NRA convention in Louisville in May 2008, the Secret Service barred all guns from the convention hall.  (NRA accepted that policy for a presidential candidate speaking to its own members, but apparently doesn’t think that’s such a good idea for a mom picking up her coffee at the local Starbucks with kids in tow.)

At the end of the day, “open carry” gun advocates understand as well as NRA strategists the silliness of their claims of “bigotry” and “discrimination” after business owners enforce “No Guns Except For Police” policies around their customers, and on their private property.

Some gun advocates are just better at hiding it than others.

Share This Story

`
TB3's picture

So, now that people cant bring guns into Starbucks, then all the bad guys that want to kill these people (with concealed weapons ) need to do is go to a Starbucks because their 'target' will be defenseless...right?

livefree's picture

You offend me by implying that because I am a gun owner, that I am some kind of evil person. That is the dictionary definition of prejudice. Your argument has no merit, and you do not have my respect. Therefore, I do not care what you think.

Paul Helmke's picture

You know, I looked through the Constitution and couldn't seem to find this "right to not be intimidated" mentioned anywhere in it. I did, however, find the right to keep and bear arms listed. This seems to make it....A CIVIL RIGHT! HOLY COW! I guess the Rosa Parks reference IS accurate! Law abiding citizens, who are obeying the law , are being kicked out of the lunch counter because it "makes people uncomfortable". Hmmmmm. Maybe we can get those intimidating, law abiding, civil right exercising, gun carriers their own water fountains, huh? Oh. Except for police . Nice qualifier tossed in there. Somehow, this wonderful shiny metal disk or "badge talisman" suddenly makes a human being's life valuable enough for self protection. Just ask Palo Alto Detective Roderick Tuauson who would like to shoot these open carriers on sight and "pow!" ......"2 weeks off!". Yeah. This sounds responsible.

sesquiculus's picture

When I was in medical school (yes, many gun-owners have advanced degrees ), I learned the definition of a "phobia". This is an "irrational fear of an object or situation."

Typically phobias arise because the object generates uncomfortable feelings in the phobic, who the abolishes those feelings by getting rid of the object. One example is that persons with suicidal thoughts or poor control of aggressions may develop a defensive phobia against firearms .

And yes, phobics are often adept at rationalizing their phobias-- people do fall from heights and get killed , snakes and spiders do bite, etc.

Most of the time, phobias are recognized for what they are and dismissed. Unfortunately, political pandering has meant the gun phobics occasionally do get to legislate their neurosis.

Zmoney187's picture

So you're telling me that it is irrational believe that there is a direct relation between guns -per-capita and gun-injuries-per-capita. Fine, granted. I guess it is a phobia that I will have to work through.

The most effective support group I can think of to help me with my paranoia is the U.S. military , since it is the most heavily-armed group in the world. Unfortunately, joining up with them would actually reinforce my irrational belief. Could you please suggest a better support group for me?

brolin1911a1's picture

Zmoney187, there are several support groups that will help you get over your irrational hoplophobia. You could try the 4-H Shooting Sports (approx. 900 youths 8 - 18 at the last Missouri State match,) or something like the Wild Turkey Federation or Ducks Unlimited. Or you could go directly into desensitization therapy by attending some IDPA or IPSC matches then visit a few of the bigger gun shows (noted for their lack of crime --go figure.)

Rural America is noted for its relative lack of violent crime and near universal gun ownership and those cities most noted for crime also are noted for the most restrictive gun laws . Pens and pencils don't spontaneously start writing letters, hammers don't suddenly start pounding nail on their own, and guns don't leap out of the holsters of honest folk and suddenly start shooting bystanders. There's no need to fear them unless you're threatening those who own them.

Zmoney187's picture

Thanks for the feedback!

brolin1911a1's picture

You are welcome. I can understand how someone living in a region where gun ownership is not taken for granted might have a media -induced fear of them. But where I live in southern Missouri gun ownership is taken for granted.

Our local daily paper routinely publishes the photos of hunters as young as eight or nine alongside the deer or turkey they harvested and the gun they used to do it.

One occasionally sees someone carrying openly in Wal-mart or a local cafe but it's not really noticed anymore than noticing that someone is wearing a holstered cell phone. And when an " open carry " meeting was held Dec. 1st at the Red Apple Grill, the place was packed and the management's only reaction was to welcome the business.

I forgot to mention the easiest way to overcome your acknowledged phobia: simply go up to one of those people wearing a gun, express your concerns, and ask if they'd be willing to teach you to shoot. The majority of them will be more than happy to set a range date to explain gun safety rules and let you try shooting .

sesquiculus's picture

I live in an upper middle class neighborhood in Texas. Most, if not all, of my neighbors have a firearm around somewhere. In the middle-western farming communities where my ancestors come from, gun ownership is essentially also 100%. Guns are farming tools just like a tractor. Yet our firearms crime rates are vanishingly small.

The real variable is cultural and socieconomic factors, not gun ownership. E.g., according to DOJ statistics, firearms crime rates among inner city minority males are 7-8 fold that of the rest of the population. This is in spite of the fact that their rate of firearms ownership is comparitively rather low. This is why the murder rate of Washington DC is several-fold higher than any state, even though guns are essentially outlawed.

In fact, if you discount this group, the US firearms crime rate drops to about that of a typical European country, especially if you also subtract other groups with a high firearms crime rate such as hispanics and traditional southern whites (don't mess with them ).

I.e, the high US violent crime rate is an artifact of the fact that certain readily-identifiable groups have a much incidence of violent crime. BTW, I don't feel some racist "white mans burden" to give up my rights because of the "special problems of the inner city". OTOH, economic improvements and an end to the War on Drugs might help some.

shawninMo's picture

How about breaking it down a little further. There are areas in the United States where gun ownership is very high, and crime is very low. You could also look at areas in africa where people don't have firearms , but hundreds of thousands die at the end of a machette. If it's not a gun or machette, it will be a stone.

It's not the weapon nor the access to weapons, but rather the person weilding the weapon.

I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social

 

randomness