Starbucks becomes latest "gun free zone"

winofiend

And if it's such a huge iussue, as when someone says "I refuse to patronise any establishment that refuses to accept my gun!" then I get an irked feeling from that sort of mentality.

It's a huge issue because it's either stop an attack on the spot or wait 7 minutes for the cops to do it for you.

Every time a place says "you cant defend yourself in here" what they're really saying is "we're okay with you waiting 7 minutes for somebody with a gun and save you. If you survive that long."

One of the more recycled interviews since the Navy yard episode is of this bald guy crying about how he wished he could do more. Well, if he took defense of himself and others seriously and wasnt denied the ability to do so by several layers of regs and laws maybe he could have done more. Maybe he could have saved two, five or ten people.

We'll never know because he had to wait 7 minutes for the police to show up.

I would like to see a store put up a sign saying

"Firearms Welcome, please make sure safety is on and hammer is down".

But I don't think I'll ever see that in my life time.

ObjectZero
I would like to see a store put up a sign saying

"Firearms Welcome, please make sure safety is on and hammer is down".

But I don't think I'll ever see that in my life time.

reply to post by beezzer


reply to post by beezzer



Are you trying to make a comparison between a baker feeling offended at the idea of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple to staff/patrons feeling that their lives could be at risk in a progressively hostile environment?

That is the only thing I could make of that reply. Does the baker feels that his life is in danger from all that gayness of that gay wedding? Seriously? That is the comparison?

Another takeaway from the Open Letter:

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone

reply to post by NiteNGale2


To each his own.

Owning/carrying a firearm is a right stated in the US Constitution.

But I guess not all rights are created equal.

thisguyrighthere

winofiend

And if it's such a huge iussue, as when someone says "I refuse to patronise any establishment that refuses to accept my gun!" then I get an irked feeling from that sort of mentality.

It's a huge issue because it's either stop an attack on the spot or wait 7 minutes for the cops to do it for you.

Every time a place says "you cant defend yourself in here" what they're really saying is "we're okay with you waiting 7 minutes for somebody with a gun and save you. If you survive that long."

One of the more recycled interviews since the Navy yard episode is of this bald guy crying about how he wished he could do more. Well, if he took defense of himself and others seriously and wasnt denied the ability to do so by several layers of regs and laws maybe he could have done more. Maybe he could have saved two, five or ten people.

We'll never know because he had to wait 7 minutes for the police to show up.

Please in that chaos he most likely would have shot some other poor sucker or a even a cop. It would be dumb luck to be in right place at the right time and shoot the right person. Lets stop pretending like this a TV show. The only reason Starbucks is even asking people to do this is because you have those idiots who feel the need to open carry everywhere. I swear my fellow gun owners are biggest collection of idios ever and their own worst enemy. Instead of focusing on gun safety so they can stop shooting themselves or family members they have some stupid need to make a show carring in public. And do not give me any crap about it being for safety because is I was going to rob a place that moron showing off his gun not only is my first target but also is about to donate his gun to me. Even in the wild west open carry was often banned in town because people kept shooting each other.

I'm sorry to hear Starbucks has chosen the path of becoming a safe working environment for criminals and killers. Any robber will know there are no armed citizens to challenge them inside that business unless they break they law themselves. What a way to run a public establishment.

NiteNGale2
Are you trying to make a comparison between a baker feeling offended at the idea of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple to staff/patrons feeling that their lives could be at risk in a progressively hostile environment?

That is the only thing I could make of that reply. Does the baker feels that his life is in danger from all that gayness of that gay wedding? Seriously? That is the comparison?

Actually I made the intial comparison. You stated quite clearly that feelings are involved. I'm sure that the Baker and his wife felt that the Gay lifestyle was opposite to their belief system, and thus a danger to their way of life.

The same can be said here. Why would you feel that a safe and holstered weapon is dangerous?

If the patron were waving it about, then I can see it. But other than that it is as harmless as a wallet if holstered.

reply to post by MrSpad


Well, that's a mess of response. If you really believed any of that (impossible for ignorant hillbillies to function) you wouldnt want the cops on scene either.

Removal of all guns is impossible. We're working within the confines of reality. Not fantasy. Denying people the means to stop assaults is not an answer. Would you tell a bullied kid to just sit on his hands and take the punches? I guess you'd just ban bullies, right? Another impossibility.

Do you want to save lives or just dream of unicorns?

Regarding the fantasy: Collection of footage of the impossible

reply to post by MrSpad


You're free to not carry/own a firearm.

From personal experience, living in a community where open/carry was allowed brought a nice sense of security.

To each his own, I suppose.

TDawgRex

Biigs

But guns are also banned in airports, the post office banks etc and they are generally free from murderous rampages.

Where do you think the term, "Going Postal" came from?

And while banks might be gun free zones, they get robbed daily by some one with a gun.

I know things have happened in those zones at some time, my point is that the recent spate of killing sprees havnt hit those areas. We even had one in a militry base just swimming with weapons, so the no guns allowed thing is far from the only catalyst for an armed madman.

Yes banks get robbed, ROBBED by thief's who dont want to shoot anyone - definitely not the same thing AT ALL. Plus they have armed security (thus the requirement for the guns).

reply to post by crazyewok


Well that would be fine and dandy, if it wasnt a RIGHT to bear arms. Places that make "Gun Free" zones are no different than if I decided to put a "Whites Only" sign outside of my coffee shop.

And to all the people who are going to be saying "You werent born with a gun in your hand," just know that rights are rights, and it 100 years ago I could have that sign up, and noone would care because black people DID NOT have rights.

So basically, if it says it in the constitution, it CANNOT be infringed upon.

reply to post by Biigs


I haven't seen a armed security guard at a bank in years. Here where I live often Cops off duty hire themselves out as security officers around closing time.

Biigs

TDawgRex

Biigs

But guns are also banned in airports, the post office banks etc and they are generally free from murderous rampages.

Where do you think the term, "Going Postal" came from?

And while banks might be gun free zones, they get robbed daily by some one with a gun.

I know things have happened in those zones at some time, my point is that the recent spate of killing sprees havnt hit those areas. We even had one in a militry base just swimming with weapons, so the no guns allowed thing is far from the only catalyst for an armed madman.

Yes banks get robbed, ROBBED by thief's who dont want to shoot anyone - definitely not the same thing AT ALL. Plus they have armed security (thus the requirement for the guns).

Military bases are also "gun free" zones.

Thanks, Mr. Clinton!

beezzer

crazyewok

beezzer


My point is the consequences of their actions.

Price of freedom though right?

You have the freedom to make a choice but also the freedom to suffer blowback from that choice!

Quoted for truth!

Although. . . . . I wonder. . . . . if the unthinkable happens in this new "gun free" zone, will their approach change?

Nope, Then they will put body scanners and guards at the door.

jssaylor2007

beezzer

crazyewok

beezzer


My point is the consequences of their actions.

Price of freedom though right?

You have the freedom to make a choice but also the freedom to suffer blowback from that choice!

Quoted for truth!

Although. . . . . I wonder. . . . . if the unthinkable happens in this new "gun free" zone, will their approach change?

Nope, Then they will put body scanners and guards at the door.

*cough*

TSA

*cough*

reply to post by beezzer


MHHHHMMM

I think if the US took any drastic action against guns, or any of this nonsense, then some of the states might band together and stick up for the second, and the first, and the fourth.

Their coffee tastes like asphalt and their prices are stupid-high. I have since found an independent coffee shop that makes good coffee with prices are about 1/3 less than Starbucks and their staff doesn't constantly screw up my simple order. Oh, and its gun friendly.

Don't worry about Starbucks, they'll be fine without your patronage. Find a place that's locally owned, support your community, has good tasting coffee, while at the same time depriving a corporate and no-doubt government lobbying giant of your hard earned dollars.

reply to post by Galvatron


There is a gas station/coffeehouse that I always frequent. Their coffee is cheaper and 10X's better than Starbucks and they also sell the beans to take home. They're gun friendly as well.

One of the girls behind the counter once told me that she didn't like the idea that the owner was armed and confronted him about it. He told her to quit if she didn't like it, but would prefer that she didn't.

She's still there so I guess she has grown comfortable with it. LOL

Well it makes sense for the company to do this - think of the clientele that frequent your average starbucks.

Think about why a company would make a bold move like this, it certainly wont be to loose money, so how might they make more?

Could it be that starbucks knows a high percentage of its customers are MSM watching, health ignoring consumers - a move like this pay play well with that demographic and potentially attracting others.

Just saying, follow the money logically - you have to with mega business like this.