The "pro-gun" "community standard" seems to be placing the majority of the blame on the "activists" carrying firearms - all in a legal manner, by the way - while the anti-gun "activists" are getting off relatively scott free by this "community standard".
The anti-gun activists are doing what they always do, what we should expect them to do. The goal achieved was completely in concert with their stated goals and with their past efforts. Furthermore, for the most part, Starbucks ignored their input, maintaining their neutral stance even in the face of anti-gun cries for additional restrictions.
Did the anti-gunners play a part? Of course--a predictable part that should have been precisely what we expected of them.
The activists carrying firearms into Starbucks after having been asked not to, were ostensibly supporting gun rights but ended up actually participating in an effort that led to their rights being restricted and which led to an increase in negative perception of the gun community in the eyes of the general public. It wasn't until the OC activists pushed the issue past the point that Starbucks was willing to tolerate that Starbucks finally changed their position.
I'm not trying to discount the effects that anti-gun protest had on Starbucks, but I think it's important to understand that the goal achieved was consistent with what anti-gunners want.
On the other hand, the OC activists actions not only seem to have had a more significant effect on Starbucks than did the anti-gun protestors input, it's important to note that effect was diametrically opposed to the goals the OC activists wanted to achieve.
I think that's a critical difference. The anti-gunners did what they were expected to do and their input (to some extent, however small) helped to effect a goal that
benefited their basic philosophy. The pro-gunners, on the other hand, ignored good advice and participated in activities that ultimately helped to effect a goal that was
injurious to their basic philosophy.
What you're saying is roughly equivalent to saying that when a sports team takes advantage of an error by the opposing team to score, that both teams should share equally in the blame. How do you blame the scoring team for doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing? The REAL blame should be ascribed to the team that made the error and that's the team that needs to regroup and try to determine what was done wrong so that the error is not repeated.
