• Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops
    205 replies, posted
This shouldn't really be news because as the CEO says - this is a stupid argument that does not belong in Starbucks stores. I, personally, welcome this move. I live in a state where open-carry is legal and I was always a little uncomfortable when people would walk into Starbucks with firearms. [QUOTE]While many U.S. restaurant chains and retailers do not allow firearms on their properties, Starbucks' policy had been to default to local gun laws, including "open carry" regulations in many U.S. states that allow people to bring guns into stores. In August, this led gun-rights advocates to hold a national "Starbucks Appreciation Day" to thank the firm for its stance, pulling the company deeper into the fierce political fight. Locations for Starbucks Appreciation Day events included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were shot dead in an elementary school in December. Starbucks closed that shop before the event was scheduled to begin. Chief Executive Howard Schultz said in an open letter to customers late Tuesday that Starbucks Appreciation Day events "disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of 'open carry.' To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores." The coffee chain did not, however, issue an outright ban on guns in its nearly 7,000 company-owned cafes, saying this would potentially require staff to confront armed customers. The Seattle-based company hoped to give "responsible gun owners a chance to respect its request," Schultz said.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-usa-starbucks-guns-idUSBRE98H04N20130918[/url]
But. where else can I flaunt my MANPAD at?
[quote]The coffee chain did not, however, issue an outright ban on guns in its nearly 7,000 company-owned cafes, saying this would potentially require staff to confront armed customers.[/quote] Do they have to draw straws to determine who does the confronting?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42233550]Do they have to draw straws to determine who does the confronting?[/QUOTE] He specifically stated in his letter (starbucks website is offline right now, can't copy it) that he was not comfortable asking his employees to confront armed customers. I think that's a safe move...
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42233550]Do they have to draw straws to determine who does the confronting?[/QUOTE] They just send out the new guy
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42233550]Do they have to draw straws to determine who does the confronting?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct2AWh-nKSk[/media] Just send in an intern!
[QUOTE=dbk21894;42233491]This shouldn't really be news because as the CEO says - this is a stupid argument that does not belong in Starbucks stores. I, personally, welcome this move. I live in a state where open-carry is legal and I was always a little uncomfortable when people would walk into Starbucks with firearms.[/QUOTE] Why are you uncomfortable? Also note: as long as you live in the U.S., no matter where you are or what State you're in or what the laws are, you will almost certainly pass by people carrying firearms without your knowledge on a weekly if not daily basis.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42233567]Why are you uncomfortable? Also note: as long as you live in the U.S., no matter where you are or what State you're in or what the laws are, you will almost certainly pass by people carrying firearms without your knowledge on a weekly if not daily basis.[/QUOTE] Because I live in a highly populated upper-middle class area and I'm jaded and don't see a need for well-to-do white people carrying guns, they have other people paid for by taxes that do that for them.
So they want to ban firearms from being in store by putting up signs that obviously create force fields against people carrying firearms right? Otherwise the criminal would still walk in and kill everyone with now a zero chance of survival or defense from a trained concealed or open carry. If force field, I'm more interested in that
Because gun free zones are such a great idea. I doubt people who go to Starbucks have guns anyway so this wouldn't really do much.
Wasnt there a woman in starbucks who dropped her handbag with a gun in it? And it went off and shot someone in the leg? [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] Found it [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/gun-in-purse-starbucks_n_3268652.html[/url]
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;42233593]So they want to ban firearms from being in store by putting up signs that obviously create force fields against people carrying firearms right? Otherwise the criminal would still walk in and kill everyone with now a zero chance of survival or defense from a trained concealed or open carry. If force field, I'm more interested in that[/QUOTE] They're not banning them, they're asking politely not to bring them into their stores. They will not stop you from bringing one in.
as far as i can tell the only reason they defaulted to zoning laws in the first place was because they didn't want to make any kind of political statement on it, not because they actually cared about guns or gun control
He mentions around 35 times "open carry". This most likely isn't aimed at the people who are Concealed Carry, or even really straight up open carrying handguns. It's mostly aimed at the people who go in flaunting long rifles and shotguns, and scare potential customers. The whole, "I love guns and coffee" movement started in part with the Moms Against Gun Violence starting a campaign to get Starbucks to ban all forms of firearm carry in their stores, and only escalated in part to the media coverage. It's just to stop the political crap, and honestly, most gun owners I've talked to in the last few hours pretty much welcome it.
They're saying "We'd prefer if you didn't", they aren't saying "don't" They just don't want to be involved. They want no part in it and are choosing the neutral "follow local laws" position and every gun rights group in the area are trying to champion them as the defenders of the second amendment because of it. Its a really nice "fuck off, activists, we aren't grouped with you"
Effective activism is taking a position so extreme that the establishment you are supporting asks you to stop.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42233856]They're saying "We'd prefer if you didn't", they aren't saying "don't" They just don't want to be involved. They want no part in it and are choosing the neutral "follow local laws" position and every gun rights group in the area are trying to champion them as the defenders of the second amendment because of it. Its a really nice "fuck off, activists, we aren't grouped with you"[/QUOTE] they even started holding small rallies outside (and inside) their stores without permission Starbucks just wants everyone to fuck off with the politics and enjoy a cup of coffee in a relaxed atmosphere.
[QUOTE=dbk21894;42233907]they even started holding small rallies outside (and inside) their stores without permission Starbucks just wants everyone to fuck off with the politics and enjoy a cup of coffee in a relaxed atmosphere.[/QUOTE] I feel bad for the people who carry and don't really give a shit about politics who are now in this awkward position.
They are definitely going about this the correct way. Me being a person who carries (mostly concealed, occasionally open handgun), respect his attitude towards it. They don't want the attention, and they don't want to alienate a specific group of people. They did right by not banning firearms, but simply stating they would prefer that events not be held at their location. I respect them fully for their position. In my honest opinion, Open Carry rallies are what create part of the stigma with Open Cary. Open Carriers are almost always labeled as attention seekers, and the rallies just prove that the majority of them are. If people would simply Open Carry, rather than rally for attention, there wouldn't be as much media hype as there is. There are many state groups that have pamphlets about open carry, state laws, etc. Simple carry around a couple of pamphlets, and if you are ever questioned, hand one out. Here is an example of one of the said pamphlets from Louisiana: [url]http://laopencarry.org/images/local-trifold.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42233550]Do they have to draw straws to determine who does the confronting?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=dbk21894;42233559]He specifically stated in his letter (starbucks website is offline right now, can't copy it) that he was not comfortable asking his employees to confront armed customers. I think that's a safe move...[/QUOTE] Contrary to popular belief most legal gun owners are not violent psychopaths just waiting for the slightest bit of confrontation to gun down an innocent, and most illegal gun owners don't openly carry their weapons since they're illegal in the first place. Plenty of restaurants have no-gun policies and it's not a big deal to ask a patron to leave the weapon outside, it happens every day. [QUOTE=dbk21894;42233589]and don't see a need for well-to-do white people carrying guns, they have other people paid for by taxes that do that for them.[/QUOTE] Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house? Most people do, since the people paid for by taxes to put out fires for them tend not to get there until it's too late. Not to mention most people I know who openly carry are plain-clothes or off-duty police or federal agents. Most ordinary civilians tend to go for concealed permits- same armament, less hysteria. If you're in the US you've almost certainly walked by someone who was carrying a concealed weapon in the last month. [QUOTE=CubeManv2;42233593]So they want to ban firearms from being in store by putting up signs that obviously create force fields against people carrying firearms right? Otherwise the criminal would still walk in and kill everyone with now a zero chance of survival or defense from a trained concealed or open carry.[/QUOTE] This is not about preventing firearm violence. Nobody seriously thinks that a sign at the door is going to stop a would-be mass shooter from walking in, and a coffee shop of all places is hardly a place that demands armed occupants for their own defense. It's about Starbucks distancing themselves from politics like the 'guns and coffee' movement and trying to run a business without being used as a political football.
How is this even an argument? If I bring a chainsaw into a store I wouldn't expect to get served.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42234334]How is this even an argument? If I bring a chainsaw into a store I wouldn't expect to get served.[/QUOTE] Unless it's a shop that services garden tools such as chainsaws.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42234334]How is this even an argument? If I bring a chainsaw into a store I wouldn't expect to get served.[/QUOTE] There are not state laws allowing you to carry a chainsaw. There are state laws allowing you to carry firearms.
obligatory edgy joke about hipsters and starbucks "kind of kills the hipster vibe doesn't it, rednecks with guns in starbucks?"
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;42234440]There are not state laws allowing you to carry a chainsaw. There are state laws allowing you to carry firearms.[/QUOTE] Painful. I clearly already know this. The point is they both are capable of inflicting pain and make people feel uncomfortable. At this point we're just rehashing whether businesses should be able to refuse service on the basis of such things.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42234334]How is this even an argument? If I bring a chainsaw into a store I wouldn't expect to get served.[/QUOTE] As long as you're not wearing a hockey mask or making a mess why shouldn't they serve you? Its weird but its also perfectly legal.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42233598]Because gun free zones are such a great idea. I doubt people who go to Starbucks have guns anyway so this wouldn't really do much.[/QUOTE] I am so thankful Australia has strict as fuck gun laws because I actually feel safe everywhere I go knowing I won't see some batshit insane man mow down a group of civilians with a rifle I don't get gun culture but I sure am glad I am not apart of it
[QUOTE=Wazbat;42233612]Wasnt there a woman in starbucks who dropped her handbag with a gun in it? And it went off and shot someone in the leg? [editline]18th September 2013[/editline] Found it [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/gun-in-purse-starbucks_n_3268652.html[/url][/QUOTE] I am not pro gun or anything but even I have to admit that that is more due to her stupidity than due to someone having a gun in a Starbucks.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42234515]Painful. I clearly already know this. The point is they both are capable of inflicting pain and make people feel uncomfortable. At this point we're just rehashing whether businesses should be able to refuse service on the basis of such things.[/QUOTE] Actually I think his point was that if you walk into a Starbucks carrying a chainsaw you're gonna get the cops called on you because unlike with firearms, carrying a chainsaw into a public place like that has no legitimate purpose. Having a firearm on you for self-defense [I]is[/I] legitimate and protected by the law. I can understand where they're coming from here, especially since the fanatics have for some reason latched onto Starbucks as some kind of supporter. I can understand turning them away, yeah, because they soil the company's image. The big thing is, not only fanatics open-carry and it's unfair to lump them all together into one pile.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;42234606]I can understand where they're coming from here, especially since the fanatics have for some reason latched onto Starbucks as some kind of supporter. I can understand turning them away, yeah, because they soil the company's image. The big thing is, not only fanatics open-carry and it's unfair to lump them all together into one pile.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to separate them though, so it's a forced maneuver. So those who isn't fanatic but open-carry should call out the fanatics on their raging bullshit until they quit it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.