Starbucks Sticks to its "Guns"
By Denis Henigan
In case you missed it, last Saturday was “Starbucks Appreciation Day.” No, it was not a gesture of support from lovers of strong coffee (like me). The “appreciation” was on behalf of Americans who believe it is their sacred right to have a handgun with them wherever they go – even to carry it openly to make sure the rest of us know who are the real defenders of the Second Amendment.
The “open carry” movement has been convening groups of its followers to meet up at restaurants and coffee shops, with pistols, revolvers and ammo hanging from their hips. Two major retail chains who were “open carry” targets (so to speak) – California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee & Tea – reacted quickly by announcing strict “no guns” policies. Starbucks, on the other hand, has earned the “appreciation” of the gun-toters by becoming the “safe house” for the “open carry” movement.
Starbucks’ official response has been to offer the assurance that it will “continue to adhere closely to local, state and federal laws” on this issue. This is an evasion, not an answer.
The fact is that Starbucks would also “adhere closely to local, state and federal laws” by prohibiting guns on its premises. The law allows Starbucks and other retail businesses to make their own policy on guns. Starbucks has made a choice to recognize the rights of a few gun extremists to show off their weaponry in its stores and ignore the rights of the vast majority of its customers to enjoy their coffee and muffins free of the fear, intimidation and risk of violence inherent in the “open carry” experience. Starbucks seeks to hide behind “local, state and federal law,” but in truth, there is no place for it to hide.
For a glimpse into its future as the corporate best friend of the gun-toters, Starbucks should consider the experience of a California restaurant chain, Buckhorn Grill. On February 6, a Buckhorn restaurant in Walnut Creek, California, was visited by about 100 men carrying their highly-visible guns. A recent The New York Times editorial said this must have “looked like a casting call for a Sam Pekinpah shoot-’m-up.” Shortly thereafter, Buckhorn’s management made clear that the restaurant had always had a “no weapons” policy and apologized for the “misunderstanding” that had led to the “open carry” event. How many gun carriers need to show up at Starbucks for the company to realize what a nightmare it is creating for its customers and employees?
The issue here is much bigger than Starbucks and involves more than just “open carry.” Starbucks’ new gun-wielding friends envision an America in which guns permeate American society. A pitched battle is underway that will determine whether their vision is realized. It started with the gun lobby’s largely successful campaign to make it easier to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons in public. Now the “gun rights” extremists are trying to break down the barriers limiting where concealed weapons can be carried. As of this week, with the shameful acquiescence of the Obama Administration, loaded guns will be allowed in national parks for the first time since they were banned by the Reagan Administration. In over twenty states, the gun lobby has tried, and thankfully failed, to pass legislation to force colleges and universities to allow guns on campus. The battle continues.
It may be that “open carry” will turn out to be the “secondhand smoke” of the gun debate. On the tobacco issue, it was one thing for people to subject themselves to the unhealthy effects of cigarettes. It was quite another for the effects of smoking to be so visibly inflicted on non-smokers. Smoking in public became a new, and transforming, focus of the debate, leading to far-reaching restrictions on where people can smoke.
On the gun issue, although the carrying of concealed weapons in public subjects everyone to enormous risk, the risk is, by definition, concealed. Perhaps this is why my tobacco-growing home state of Virginia now no longer allows restaurant customers to smoke, but will allow them to carry concealed weapons (and may now be poised to allow them even to carry concealed in restaurants that serve alcohol!). “Open carry,” unlike concealed carry, confronts everyone with the risks of guns in public, in a very direct and highly-visible way. We can only hope that the “open carry” movement will backfire, bringing our country back from the brink of the “guns everywhere” vision of America now being foisted on us by the NRA and the most dedicated supporters of its extremist agenda.
Over 27,000 Americans so far have signed the “no guns” petition circulated by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and CREDO Action calling on Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores. Please join them by going to www.bradycampaign.org. Tell Starbucks that, in your America, parents ought to be able to take their families into coffee shops without facing the intimidation and danger of guns.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The reality of the situation is that most of the people in this country understand that carrying weapons in the open is simply not a good idea. Police officers who are sworn in to protect tend to agree. History has shown that this policy had horrendous consequences, just go back to the old west where people were constantly blowing each other to bits, in public, and others simply had to live in constant fear. To say that Quote, "There is absolutely no correlation between open carry and an inherent risk of violence ." when talking about open carry is about as ridiculous as saying there's no interconnection between the sun and light.
Gun advocates seem to miss the point and polarize the situation by going to the extreme ends of the debate. The general thought seems to be that as soon as one brings up responsible gun issues for the whole of society , gun enthusiast act as if you had suddenly ripped up the second amendment and tossed it up like so much confetti. The reality is, is that Americans are largely okay with guns and understand the correlation to our second Amendment and our history , they get it. What they don't get is why people are hell bent on pushing guns into their and their families lives by carrying guns in the open. Most people will feel uneasy about an armed person who is not a sworn in police officer , that is just a fact, there are no safeguards or institutions to tag the carrier for society as to who this person is, his mentality, his maturity or his personality. To the public, he's a guy with a gun. That is inherently dangerous. There are a plethora of scenarios that one could foresee unfolding in a given situation. Under the mask of safety lies innumerable possibilities for complications. One can fabricate infinite notions to cuddle and nurture ones opinion and ideas on open carry but rest assured, society won't tolerate this to any length, that's just a simple matter of reality.
In case management from Starbucks is reading this??
Thank you for being a good corporate citizen.
Never be blackmailed into losing business!!
Here's a timely examination, as found in The American Thinker.
From an essay titled: Handgun Derangement Syndrome Grips Restaurateurs, by Chuck Roger;
"...How does dying at gunpoint stack up against other ways to go? According to the U.S. Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [i], from 1999 to 2003, the likelihood of being killed by lightening was one in 6,061,000, or 28 percent greater than the likelihood of being cut down by a licensed hand -gunner. During the same timeframe, people in America had a one-in-18,700 chance of death by poisoning."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/handgun_derangement_syndrome_g.html
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
Put everyone from the Brady Bunch in one corner of the woods, and everyone from the NRA on the other, then see who wins.
The fact is that if gun owners were not some of the most civilized, polite, tolerant, law abiding citizens on the face of the Earth, the Brady Bunch would have ceased to exist a long time ago. The rabid dogs the Brady makes us out to be simply would have shot them.
That the likes of Henigan can enjoy good health while spewing the most vitriolic lies and ad hominem attacks imaginable, is a testament to the universally, exemplary character of gun owners as a class.
I go to the range for practice on a fairly regular basis. I've yet to meet a single person there that I would be afraid to invite into my home.
I met a 72 year old man at the range last week who was getting in some practice with his .45. I went through a couple hundred rounds of .22 and a couple boxes of 9mm. In between, we sat and chatted about everything under the sun . He was a thoroughly charming old gent and the afternoon was one of the high points of my week. I don't know of many places where I would be as safe and free from the threat of harm. Gun owners as a class are the most meticulously safety conscious people I've ever met.
Should everyone in the nation fear for their lives because someone like this elderly gent exercises their rights as free citizens while having a cup of coffee? The notion is so far beyond ludicrous I have no words I am able to use in polite conversation. If every restaurant in the nation were packed with armed citizens of his character, America would be an orders of magnitude better place to live than it currently is. The only people who wouldn't feel safe are the criminals that have been empowered by the Brady Bunch.
goes home for the weekend. For the casual reader, it's important to note that, buried in the rhetoric, are two important facts;
1. Starbucks has chosen to follow the law , period.
2. Starbucks is being "pressured' by The Brady Group" to conform to its values on firearms . Period. Nothing more. This has been the Brady technique in later years--they use this "boycotting" activism as a means to continue to try to raise donations from like-minded blackmailers.
Don't fall for it.
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
"Starbucks’ new gun-wielding friends envision an America in which guns permeate American society ."
This is not a vision, this is a current reality. Most states with concealed carry have around 5% of the population using those permits. When 1 in 20 citizens is carrying a pistol, guns are already around you all the time every day. Just because you can now see the guns does not mean that they were not there all the time.
The real question is, why on earth is anyone wasting time trying to ban guns when we have bigger issues to deal with in the US. The general populace has resoundingly told The Brady Campaign that it rejects it's lies and nonsense election after election. It's the one right wing issue that any democrat wanting to be elected will never even touch.
Boo hoo for Mr. Henigan. I am so sad that you didn't get your way.
That Starbucks chooses to adhere to the law is not just an answer, it's the best answer.
"Starbucks has made a choice to recognize the rights of a few gun extremists to show off their weaponry in its stores and ignore the rights of the vast majority of its customers to enjoy their coffee and muffins free of the fear, intimidation and risk of violence inherent in the “ open carry ” experience."
1) These people are not extremists any more than the founding fathers of America were extremists.
2) There is absolutely no correlation between open carry and an inherent risk of violence. Most violence is perpetrated by the hand . Does this mean that any establishment which allows people with hands to enter are endangering their customers?
3) The public does not have the right to tell any publicly-traded company how to run their business. If people do not want to "endanger their lives" by being in close proximity to a lawful gun carrier, then they can simply refuse to patronize Starbucks.
Instead of trying to pressure Starbucks to conform to your fool-headed notions, why not organize a boycott against Starbucks?
Good luck with that, lmao.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I guess Starbucks has not given deep thought to this matter. They are not morons. They will not want the open carry gun folks bringing guns into Starbucks. I expect they will give this matter some thought soon and decide the obvious no guns shall be brought into Starbucks. This is a pure no brainer. Starbucks has the legal right to restrict guns being brought into their stores.
Right to create such a policy, doing so is a silly idea. Why would a business like Starbucks choose to act in discordance with prevailing thought? Obviously, allowing its patrons to enter while armed creates no danger to anyone. It might make some people uncomfortable, yes, but seeing two homosexual men kissing could make some people uncomfortable also. It would follow, then, that Starbucks should also ban public displays of homosexual affection on its property. Which, of course, would be plainly be a justifiable cause for public outcry.
So, since the armed community, being openly armed, causes zero public risk, and the homosexual lovers, being openly gay , cause zero public risk; both would-- and SHOULD-- be allowed.
I agree with you. It is a no-brainer to allow open carry patrons into the shop.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.