Starbucks Seeks to Keep Guns Out of Its Coffee Shops
205 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235871]cars weren't expressly designed to kill persons more efficiently[/QUOTE]
But they are damned good at it, aren't they?
[editline]18th September 2013[/editline]
WD-40 was meant to combat rusting in nuclear missiles, now its one of the most versatile products in a garage.
Texting was meant to alert carriers of network issues, now its one of the most widely used messaging platforms on the face of the earth.
Potato chips were meant to be an insult to annoying customers, and now there are 50 kinds of potato chips in every food selling store in america.
Original intended use doesn't mean a single damn thing.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235871]cars weren't expressly designed to kill persons more efficiently[/QUOTE]
This isn't an argument, it's a statement. It doesn't even deserve a reasoned response.
The semantic discussion in this thread is off the chain
What if you made a Europe out of guns, could you bring that to Starbucks ?
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235710]excuse me if i get a bit uneasy when i go to get my coffee and a man i have no idea of his mental state has a gun slung over his back[/QUOTE]
Because unstable people with guns frequently go to buy coffee with their weapons openly displayed. And then go on a shooting rampage in the store. It happens all the time and is [I]definitely[/I] not a purely hypothetical scenario to try to justify excessive fear.
If a guy means to kill you you won't see the gun until it's too late. Just FYI.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;42235710]the act of having a badge implies that you've had at least a checkup done [/QUOTE]
Good thing we have mandatory background checks on all firearm purchases, right? Not to mention even police have been known to use their weapons to commit crimes. There was a fellow named Dorner in the news recently you may have heard about.
This notion that someone openly carrying a weapon will just snap and go on a killing spree is something that simply [I]does not happen[/I] in real life. If someone means to inflict harm they will either be concealing the weapon (see: common street thugs) or they'll be going to a pre-planned target (see: Sandy Hook), not dicking around ordering coffee in a Starbucks of all places. If you see a handgun poking out of someone's pocket you have far more reason to be concerned than if they are wearing it on their hip. Look at the data rather than the gun phobia and this is clear as day.
There's this ridiculous idea that police can always be trusted to carry a gun but anyone who [i]isn't[/i] a policeman must be some wannabe psycho vigilante killer just waiting for an excuse to pop a cap in some poor civilian, and it's total bullshit. The same factors that (usually) prevent someone from becoming a policeman, like criminal history or mental issues, are the same ones that (usually) prevent someone from buying guns.
Well it's up to them if they want to do it. But they have to put a sign up that says No Guns and it has to be a certain size. Otherwise No legal action can or will be taken if someone does walk in with a gun. They'll just have to say No and not serve them
And just so people know, The majority of gun crime is committed by people who obtained a gun illegally. Regular ol' Citizens just grabbing a coffee open carrying aren't going to shoot up the place. If someone's set on doing it it's going to be concealed when they walk in anyway and no rule that says don't bring a gun in here is going to suddenly persuade them not to. Murder isn't legal yet people do it don't they. Laws and rules don't stop people who want to break the law and rules from breaking the law and rules
This is dumb, but it's a corporation and their stores so whatever
[QUOTE=TheTalon;42235995]This is dumb, but it's a corporation and their stores so whatever[/QUOTE]
I agree, a corporation should be free to serve whoever they want and not serve whoever they want. My argument is against the baseless fear of legal gun owners people in this thread (and throughout modern society) show on a daily basis.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;42233501]But. where else can I flaunt my MANPAD at?[/QUOTE]
It's a starbucks shouldn't you be taking your IPAD instead?
[QUOTE=sgman91;42235723]Here I'll quote myself where I gave actual, real, proof instead of useless opinions:
Sounds like protection to me.[/QUOTE]
People who had a device made to injure other people at hand got hurt less themselves when facing a threat than people who tried to fend off danger with broomsticks and cursing? that's impossible
A firearm is still a tool for killing, or inspiring fear in others because [I]it's a tool for killing,[/I] and it has no place at a food court or other location with trained security guards. This isn't the wild west anymore, and Starbucks isn't some saloon.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;42246207]People who had a device made to injure other people at hand got hurt less themselves when facing a threat than people who tried to fend off danger with broomsticks and cursing? that's impossible[/QUOTE]
A gun is a useful tool, yes. To say that having a gun provides no benefit to you and the people around you is false based on that fact.
[QUOTE]A firearm is still a tool for killing, or inspiring fear in others because it's a tool for killing[/QUOTE]
How does this logically lead to your next point? If this were true then police also shouldn't carry guns in food courts that have security guards.
[QUOTE]it has no place at a food court or other location with trained security guards.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying an unarmed security guard is a comparable replacement to a personal firearm?
[QUOTE]This isn't the wild west anymore, and Starbucks isn't some saloon.[/QUOTE]
The police station isn't a saloon either, therefore police shouldn't have guns. I'm just showing how meaningless this statement is.
It would be similar to me saying, "This isn't some magic fairly land with no crime" as an argument for having guns.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;42246207]A firearm is still a tool for killing, or inspiring fear in others because [I]it's a tool for killing,[/I] and it has no place at a food court or other location with trained security guards. This isn't the wild west anymore, and Starbucks isn't some saloon.[/QUOTE]
Hold on, so having a weapon for self-defense is unnecessary, but having armed people tasked with the sole purpose of preventing crime is reasonable? If you think a gun is unreasonable to see in a food court, why are you okay with a guy standing sentry? Doesn't that clearly imply that there is some need for protection?
And considering security guards put their own safety foremost, the establishment's security second, and your personal safety somewhere down the list, how is having the equivalent means to protect yourself unacceptable? No, this isn't the Wild West. Legally-carrying gun owners do not go shooting innocents because they can. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
can't wait to walk into a starbucks and get shot
[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]
But what if I want to use my chainsaw for self-defense?
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;42251529]But what if I want to use my chainsaw for self-defense?[/QUOTE]
Well, as far as I know, I don't think there are any laws disallowing carrying a chainsaw either. I got to admit, I'd love to see the look on a criminal's face when some guy cranks up a chainsaw and says, "You picked the wrong coffee shop mother fucker!"
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;42251702]Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.[/QUOTE]
This isn't even an argument. 99% of people don't carry, "because they can". There are some fools out there that are like that yes, but they are a minority. Like I've mentioned before, I carry on a regularly basis. Rarely do I carry open, mostly concealed. Why do I do it? Seven years ago I was in a situation where I wish I had a gun.
For the general public to still have guns in america makes no sense to me
[QUOTE=smfE;42253018]For the general public to still have guns in america makes no sense to me[/QUOTE]
It makes you safer and has essentially no negative side. Makes sense to me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;42253270]It makes you safer and has essentially no negative side. Makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]
makes the whole country less safe as a result. America has the highest rate of gun crime out of any developed nation.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42234787]If anyone here saw a person walk into a shop, cafe, business, anything with a firearm or rifle of any sort and wasn't a police officer, everyone would flip their shit, run away, call triple 0 (emergency number) and you'd be locked up for a bit of time
I'm sorry I don't understand America but honestly concealing weapons scares me[/QUOTE]
And yet people carry knives with them, both in the open and concealed around you, and you don't feel the least bit scared? Haha oh boy, someone needs to reassess his daily risk.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253498]makes the whole country less safe as a result. America has the highest rate of gun crime out of any developed nation.[/QUOTE]
You think the guns are responsible for this, or the highest rate of socioeconomic inequality in the western world?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253498]makes the whole country less safe as a result. America has the highest rate of gun crime out of any developed nation.[/QUOTE]
You mean to say a country with guns is more likely to have gun crime? I'm shocked. Call the presses.
If we want to talk about 'less safe', have you seen the UK's violent crime rate recently?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;42253522]
You think the guns are responsible for this, or the highest rate of socioeconomic inequality in the western world?[/QUOTE]
there's more than one piece to the puzzle. making americans less complacent and actually getting them to fight for more income equality is harder to do than implementing gun control.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;42253619]You mean to say a country with guns is more likely to have gun crime?
[/QUOTE]
sgman just said there's no downside, when there quite clearly is.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42235200][t]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/naTSklJmB2o/maxresdefault.jpg[/t]
Not mine, but yeah.[/QUOTE]
I feel like this guy is compensating for something.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253498]makes the whole country less safe as a result. America has the highest rate of gun crime out of any developed nation.[/QUOTE]
Carrying a legal firearm doesn't make the country less safe.
Kind of surprised people are arguing over this..
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253498]makes the whole country less safe as a result.[/QUOTE]
No it does not, and many statistics actually prove the opposite. Several states have been reporting this past year that as the number of CHP holders increases, the total number of crimes are decreasing.
Also, saying it makes the country less safe means you are accusing legal gun owners, and law-abiding citizens, of committing acts that make the country unsafe. This is simply not true. There is absolutely no basis for your statement.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253624] sgman just said there's no downside, when there quite clearly is.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're arguing that getting mugged at knifepoint (not a gun crime) is better than getting mugged at gunpoint (a gun crime) I really don't see your point. Violent crime is still violent crime, whether it involves a gun or not.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;42253950]No it does not, and many statistics actually prove the opposite. Several states have been reporting this past year that as the number of CHP holders increases, the total number of crimes are decreasing.
Also, saying it makes the country less safe means you are accusing legal gun owners, and law-abiding citizens, of committing acts that make the country unsafe. This is simply not true. There is absolutely no basis for your statement.[/QUOTE]
Domestic crime. Husbands killing their wives, suicide rate goes up. Increased chance of innocent people dying during a home invasion. Just because you found s local minimum doesn't mean you found the absolute one.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42254133]Domestic crime. Husbands killing their wives, suicide rate goes up. Increased chance of innocent people dying during a home invasion. Just because you found s local minimum doesn't mean you found the absolute one.[/QUOTE]
You're not innocent if you're invading somebodies home.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42254179]You're not innocent if you're invading somebodies home.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure he means when someone [I]thinks[/I] they're being broken into but it's family/friends/neighbours with no malicious intent. It does happen that home owners shoot harmless people unfortunately.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42253624]there's more than one piece to the puzzle. making americans less complacent and actually getting them to fight for more income equality is harder to do than implementing gun control.[/QUOTE]
If you solve inequality, the guns stop being a problem. If you take the guns away from legal owners, you only solve a small portion of the problem. Sure, you could take the easy way out, but then the age old lesson still stands: you get what you pay for. Solving serious problems requires serious effort.
This can be argued in lots of ways. "You don't believe in the Constitution so I'm not doing business." "I think it's great, it's a coffee shop." "You're going to regret this when you get robbed and no one is there to help." They are almost all valid arguments but when a place denies weapons what usually happens? They get robbed.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42254133]Domestic crime. Husbands killing their wives, suicide rate goes up. Increased chance of innocent people dying during a home invasion. Just because you found s local minimum doesn't mean you found the absolute one.[/QUOTE]
Domestic crimes exist, and will continue to happen, regardless of guns. Guns existing in the hands of civilians does not automatically mean domestic crimes will increase.
The fact you even mentioned home invasion completely kills your argument. More lives are saved every year because criminals are shot or deterred by guns during home invasions. Yes, it's tragic if an innocent person such as a family member were to die in a home invasion. It also appears that you have done little research on this particular subject as well. This is incredibly rare, and when it does happen, are you aware that police are responsible for more deaths of innocent people during home invasions than civilians are?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.