Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

[NavyLCDR]

I dont blame them at all. All they want to do is pull themselves out of the debate.

If all they wanted to do was pull themselves out of the debate, then why did Starbucks not ask the anti-gun groups to also cease and desist in their activities as well? They even admitted in their letter that it was the anti-gun groups that were "ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners." So where is Starbucks request that the anti-gun groups stop doing that?

 

[Mitlov]

NavyLCDR: the letter also said "For those who oppose 'open carry,' we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores."

BOTH sides were asked to stop their political soapboxing in SB establishments...it's just that the media has not spun the letter as such.

 

[Zach S]

I kinda saw this coming when the anti's started pressing to have policy changed, and the Starbucks Appreciation Days from the pro-gunners. Its been a vicious cycle, both sides have been fueling it. The antis would complain, and there would be another Starbucks Appreciation Day, then the antis would complain more, and then there would be another Starbucks Appreciation Day...

Firearms are not being banned from Starbucks. They're only asking to tone it down, primarily by not OCing or holding "events" in their stores.

I agree. This will satisfy a lot of the anti gunners without ticking off all of the gun owners. He's trying to keep as many customers as he can without choosing a side.

I think the CEO has handled it well.

 

[NavyLCDR]

NavyLCDR: the letter also said "For those who oppose 'open carry,' we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores."

BOTH sides were asked to stop their political soapboxing in SB establishments...it's just that the media has not spun the letter as such.

OK...you've almost sold me on that one . I'm still not buying this claim by some that carrying concealed complies with Starbucks request. I don't see how carrying a concealed firearm into the store is not bringing a gun into the store when Starbucks asked in their letter, "we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." Just because people can't see it does not mean it isn't there - and if it is there, someone had to bring it in.

 

[Black Butte]

Goodbye Starbucks. Hello Caribou Coffee.

 

[lee1000]

This is why we can't have nice things - Starbucks

I found this article on Twitter. It's pretty funny and I agree with everything in it.

http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

Well. We have done it.

I say we, as in the collective gun-owners and 2nd Amendment supporters/enthusiasts of this nation. We win together, and we lose together.

Last week, we shared a major victory in Colorado with the recall of two anti-gun politicians. Thats our Win.

This week, we have finally forced Starbucks to choose a side in the great gun debate. All the sabre rattling, and

 

[Mitlov]

OK...you've almost sold me on that one . I'm still not buying this claim by some that carrying concealed complies with Starbucks request. I don't see how carrying a concealed firearm into the store is not bringing a gun into the store when Starbucks asked in their letter, "we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." Just because people can't see it does not mean it isn't there - and if it is there, someone had to bring it in.

Gotta look at the surrounding context:

"Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws...Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening...For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel."

In that context, "bring" sounds to me like shorthand for "open carry," even though when read in isolation, it sounds like either open-carry or conceal-carry.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Gotta look at the surrounding context:

"Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws...Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening...For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel."

In that context, "bring" sounds to me like shorthand for "open carry," even though when read in isolation, it sounds like either open-carry or conceal-carry.

Well....if you apply that reasoning, then the context would also indicate that their request to not bring firearms into the store only applied to the open carry "activists", and yet Starbucks felt the need to specifically exempt Law Enforcement Officers from their request. So, by that standard, why is it valid to assume that concealed carry would be exempt because of context, even though concealed carry is not specifically mentioned the way Law Enforcement carry is?

If Starbucks only wanted to request that firearms not be "displayed" in their stores, than why not just write the request that way? "therefore, we ask that our customers not display their firearms in our stores when they have the legal option to conceal them." I will offer speculation - because that wording would not appease the anti-gun groups which is exactly one reason for this letter, I believe - to gain the anti-gun groups back as customers. I don't pretend to be a mind reader - I tend to take things as they are written.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The only thing that really bothers me is the 100% blame being cast onto the pro-gun "activists". There were "over the top" activists on both sides. Starbucks says so in their letter, "Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners." But so many "pro-gun" people are way to willing to blame ONLY other "pro-gun" people.

 

[TennJed]

I like the letter. I get the impressions that he "wink wink" doesn't want guns there. What it feels like to me is, normal folks like myself, are perfectly welcome to come in just keep it concealed (don't ask, don't tell). The people that he doesn't want there are the nutjobs bringing in rifles jut to make a statement. He is running a business, not a political platform.

Now that I know the extremist gun nuts are not going there I am more likely to go. They just earned my business. And I have nothing against open carry, I am against people going out of there way to make a political statement in the WRONG place. Starbucks is not the place to wage the 2a war. It is a business that honestly was on our side until we went overboard and hurt his business.

I still think Starbucks welcomes me and my pocket gun. I will stop by tomorrow

 

[NavyLCDR]

The thing that really bothers me is the 100% blame being cast onto the pro-gun "activists" by some people. There were "over the top" activists on both sides. Starbucks says so in their letter, "Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners." But so many "pro-gun" people are way to willing to blame ONLY other "pro-gun" people.

 

[TennJed]

The thing that really bothers me is the 100% blame being cast onto the pro-gun "activists" by some people. There were "over the top" activists on both sides. Starbucks says so in their letter, "Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners." But so many "pro-gun" people are way to willing to blame ONLY other "pro-gun" people.

you make a valid point, but from what I have seen it is a "we started it" kinda of deal. From my understanding the extreme anti gun activist really didn't start their rallies until after gun groups started theirs.

I am not trying to defend anti gunners by any means, just being honest. I really don't think it would have been a big deal if folks hadn't stated flaunting their guns there first

 

[lee1000]

I agree

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

[rhinoh]

I've never set foot into a Starbucks anyway....

 

[jcwit]

Prancing around in stores as shown in picture in post #152 while legal and no laws broken is more than a little ridiculous and helps our cause not one iota. This would hold true whether a Starbucks or any other retail establishment no matter what their policy or what they sold.

Nothing more that a "HEY PEOPLE, look at me, and what I can do."

As far as I'm concerned its little different than the way the other side dresses for their rainbow parades in San Francisco, Legal? Yes. Sensible? No.

 

[rhinoh]

Nothing more that a "HEY PEOPLE, look at me, and what I can do."

Apparently many people today really want to be "noticed".
I see it all the time in daily life be it cars/trucks/motorcycles/behavior.
I've even seen motorcycle ads stating this bike will "really turn heads".

I prefer to run "under the radar" so to speak in all areas of my life. I've never understood the "hey look at me" thing.

I feel some of our fellow gun enthusiasts hurt our cause looking like nut-jobs.

 

[TarDevil]

The thing that really bothers me is the 100% blame being cast onto the pro-gun "activists" by some people. There were "over the top" activists on both sides. Starbucks says so in their letter, "Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners." But so many "pro-gun" people are way to willing to blame ONLY other "pro-gun" people.

This IS a good point, but I can't control anyone else's actions. I'd just like our side to be above the fray and take The High Road.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: The thing that really bothers me is the 100% blame being cast onto the pro-gun "activists" by some people.

The letter would not thave been published, but for the actions of the open carry activists.

 

[Mp7]

Some of these OCer pictures make me ashamed of even
belonging to the same species.

They look like morons without guns.
With guns they look like dangerous morons.

 

[beatledog7]

I have never seen anyone carry a long gun or draw a handgun in a Starbucks or any such place. If I did see this, I like to think I'd be able to calmly address that person and point out why his action is unwise. Yes, I do think intervention by a cooler head would be called for, and yes, I do realize such an intervention might conceivably pose an escalation risk.

That sort of "hey, look at me" stunt is not what OC means. It may be that in the past a man would carry a rifle into a general store, but that would have been to keep it from being stolen off his horse, not to make a political statement.

 

[pezo]

Why blame only pro gun people? I'd say BECAUSE I hold the pro gunners and gun carriers to a higher standard than an anti. Anti gunners by their very nature are either fools or cons in my opinion. Or at least topic ignorant. Pro gunners and gun carriers are more thoughtful enlightened and should behave like ambassadors to the cause. Ultimately normalizing proper carrying of a fire arm so the general public who may not care or be on the fence accepts them and doesn't petition to eliminate them. EDITED because my point was totally lost in my lack of ability to type . I whole heartily believe the over zealous pro gunners biffed it with the star bucks rallies and was trying to say I would expect better from them than a lowly anti. Sorry. P.s I added the because on edit.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by beatledog7: If I did see this [(someone carrying a long gun into, or drawing a handgun in, a retail establishment such as Starbucks)], I like to think I'd be able to calmly address that person and point out why his action is unwise.

Unless I knew that what the person was doing did in fact involve what simply constituted a very unwise display for the purposes of activism, I would likely not take that risk.

To the unprepared, these characters may well, by virtue of the way in which they were handling their weapons, have appeared to pose a serious imminent danger to the people inside. To a citizen who reasonably believed that to be the case, any delay at all would be imprudent.

I would be looking for concealment, cover, and a quick way out.

Should safe retreat not be possible, and should it not be possible to stay in a safe place unnoticed until the true intentions of the demonstrators became clear, the risk level would be very high indeed.

Upon reflection, I am not sure I have ever heard of such unwise deliberate behavior on the part of anyone possessing his full faculties.

 

[beatledog7]

Kleanbore, you make good points.

When I look at the faces of these people (in the posted images), I don't see ill intent. I see something more akin to braggadocio. All the same, maybe just getting out would be the best plan.

 

[jcwit]

Why blame only pro gun people? I'd say I hold the pro gunners and gun carriers to a higher standard than an anti. Anti gunners by their very nature are either fools or cons in my opinion. Or at least topic ignorant. Pro gunners and gun carriers are more thoughtful enlightened and should behave like ambassadors to the cause. Ultimately normalizing proper carrying of a fire arm so the general public who may not care or be on the fence accepts them and doesn't petition to eliminate them.

Problem being their are fools on both sides of the fence. Just because one is pro gun, pro 2nd ad. does not make one sensible. By the same token, just because one is anti gun does not make one an idiot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by pezo: Why blame only pro gun people?

But for the unwise actions of the open carry demonstrators, the confrontations would not have occurred.

Posted by pezo: I'd say I hold the pro gunners and gun carriers to a higher standard than an anti.

That in itself is a good reason to allocate the blame to them.

Anti gunners by their very nature are either fools or cons in my opinion. Or at least topic ignorant.

There's nothing like giving them material to support their arguments.

Pro gunners and gun carriers are more thoughtful enlightened and should behave like ambassadors to the cause.

One would not conclude that from this example.

Ultimately normalizing proper carrying of a fire arm so the general public who may not care or be on the fence accepts them and doesn't petition to eliminate them.

That's not a complete sentence, but the folks waving their guns a round in Starbucks stores had the opposite effect.