Guns no longer welcome at Starbucks

[RetiredUSNChief]

I've always had this oddball notion about rights: Rights come with responsibilities.

Oh, stop that right now!

People brandishing handguns and long guns, drawing and handling them when it's not necessary in public places (which increases the risk of an accidental discharge), and generally acting like disrespectful tools to look cool on the internet and scare a couple soccer moms DO NOT represent me.

My children like to push the limits, too. Our son, who as of today has survived to the ripe old age of 15, is still learning valuable lessons in this respect. As a family, the five of us were walking through downtown Louisville, KY a couple months ago towards a restaurant. At an intersection, he kept pushing Mommy's button by acting like he was stepping out into traffic while we were waiting for the light. After a handful of incidents causing my wife to become incrementally more aggrevated, I yanked a knot in his rear end, to which he promptly decided he was going back to the hotel alone and be upset at us.

I took a minute to explain that if he wants to be treated like an adult, he needs to quit doing childish things that require us to treat him like a child. Acting like he's going to step out into traffic REQUIRES us to take action to stop him. Repeatedly acting like he's going to step out into traffic is a deliberate attempt to gain entertainment at our expense and will result in him being treated accordingly. He accepted this explanation, calmed down, and we went on to dinner.

Perhaps this isn't a good analogy...but I agree that some (not all) people who open carry some firearms in some circumstances aren't doing it to "exercise their rights". They're playing the same game my son was playing...the button-pushing, chain-yanking game.

At what point is it inappropriate? It depends on the totality of circumstances and I'll make that decision for myself each time I encounter someone open carrying. Not everybody who open carries is doing so irresponsibly. But there are a percentage who do open carry who are, quite frankly, dorks about it.

 

[BSA1]

Thanks Mods. Methinks this has gone way over my head.

<Deleted>

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: If there is no need to exercise a right then is it needed?

What in the world constitutes a "need" to "exercise" a right?

Or is it ok to have a right as long as you keep it in the closet?

Doing something in a responsible, non-confrontational manner does not mean that one is keeping the right to do so "in a closet".

However, doing something that has the likely effect of antagonizing others is most unlikely to bring about positive support of any right, particularly if it is done in an exhibitionistic manner.

I am aware of many pro open carry actions that have been characterized as "exercising" rights that have engendered unintended consequences.

The Starbucks fiasco is one recent example.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I'm also with Kleanbore on his assessment.


Open carry is one thing.


Exhibitionist behavior intentionally done to provoke a predictible reaction is another.

Those who are doing the latter know exactly what they're doing.

Carrying a firearm to make a political statement or as a "personal expression of yourself" is not behavior I can support. When done for protection and defense - absolutely.


Those 2nd amendment advocates would do well to take a lesson from the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

 

[Arbo]

To suggest that someone doing something illegal or even near the line needs to be supported is nowhere near what I said.

 

[asia331]

I will express my disappointment at their silly policy of course but will continue to buy my small black coffee at Starbucks or anywhere else I choose. Until a business property owner enforces policy IAW state law, my armed / disarmed condition state is none of their business and thus frankly irrelevant.

 

[JohnKSa]

Exhibitionist behavior intentionally done to provoke a predictible reaction is another.

Those who are doing the latter know exactly what they're doing.

I'm really not so sure that they do.

I've become more and more convinced that part of the reason that these discussions often are so heated is because the people we perceive as being exhibitionists intentionally trying to provoke a reaction are, in reality, completely unable to understand how inappropriate and misguided their actions really are.

They are legitimately confused that not everyone agrees with them and often believe that those who chide them and their ilk must be anti-gun or they would support their actions.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If Starbucks "caves" (which term I do not agree with) any further, it'll be entirely because they were pushed too far, and the blame there will not be on Starbucks' management, it'll be shared EQUALLY by both gun owners and gun-grabbers who've turned what was originally intended as a quiet recognition of gun ownership as legitimate into a national three-ring circus.

Denis

I disagree completely. I think you are confusing "blame" and "fault" Will the fault be equally the gun owners and the gun-grabbers? ABSOLUTELY! But who will get BLAMED for it? I guarantee that the blame will not be spread equally. Heck, the blame isn't even spread equally on this gun forum, it seems like the pro-gun people are getting most of it. And I will bet you a paycheck that there is not one single gun-grabber who is saying to another gun-grabber, "SEE! LOOK! You went too far and look what happened because your anti-gun sign was too big!"

 

[JohnKSa]

And I will bet you a paycheck that there is not one single gun-grabber who is saying to another gun-grabber, "SEE! LOOK! You went too far and look what happened because your anti-gun sign was too big!"

Of course they aren't. It was a win for them, they got what they wanted and there's no reason for them to be trying to assign blame to anyone in their own ranks. "I blame you for this big win we scored!" That makes no sense at all. Of course, the fact that they won't be blaming themselves doesn't mean that they don't deserve some of the blame. They just don't see it that way themselves.

Now on our side? Clearly not a win, and there's certainly cause for and need for blame to be assigned so that we, the firearms community, can learn from this fiasco with a view to NOT repeating the same error a third time.

One would have thought that perhaps the lesson would have been learned from the previous screwup last year in CA when gun owners tried pretty much the same tactic with the same results. Basically they pushed too hard with unloaded OC which was legal at the time until the establishment pushed back with a vengeance and banned all forms of OC.

Maybe this time the lesson will start to sink in. Sadly, I think that's overly optimistic. I've really come to believe that the majority of the people who do this sort of thing and who support those who do this sort of thing are simply incapable of comprehending how completely inappropriate the behavior is.

 

[hso]

How did this all get started? In 2010 the Antis discovered Starbucks was neutral on this topic, that their policy was to follow all local laws, and the Antis called for them to change their policy to prohibit firearms on their properties or face boycotts and protests; 2A activists found out, circulated the information, and Starbucks appreciation events were "organized" to counter whatever losses Starbucks might have experienced from the Antis; absurdly some of us identified Starbucks as PRO RKBA simply because they wouldn't change their policy in the face of the Anti attempts to coerce them and members of our community then began to exploit their neutrality; "guns and coffee" products started to be sold violating Starbucks copyright on their "Coffee Maiden" logo, gun groups began to organize theatric visits to Starbucks and then individuals began to make them a stage as well (all while Antis periodically made runs at Starbucks from organized to unorganized local and individual effort just like 2A enthusiasts were doing); complaints and confrontations became more common at stores as Starbucks became a focal point for the more confrontational/posturing elements of both sides; the straw that may have broken the camel's back was at the Newtown Starbucks and the CCDL's intent to publically use it in August while an Anti group, Moms Demand Action ..., called for pressure against Starbucks. That last was a PR/political mistake for the pro 2A side in the struggle since Newtown was too sensitive after the shooting for any public display. As pressure built up from both sides and occasional theatrical displays accumulated Starbucks became a focal point more and more and they inevitably reached a point where they needed to dash some cold water on things. They crafted their statement in an effort to do get the cycle to end.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=503551&highlight=starbucks

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JohnKSa: I've become more and more convinced that part of the reason that these discussions often are so heated is because the people we perceive as being exhibitionists intentionally trying to provoke a reaction are, in reality, completely unable to understand how inappropriate and misguided their actions really are.

I think it is more than a perception on our part. It is abundantly clear that these "activists" do want to be noticed, and that they do in fact want to provoke a reaction.

It's just that they cannot understand what that reaction is likely to be.

They are legitimately confused that not everyone agrees with them and often believe that those who chide them and their ilk must be anti-gun or they would support their actions.

Indeed. Many of the comments on this thread make that very obvious.

I've really come to believe that the majority of the people who do this sort of thing and who support those who do this sort of thing are simply incapable of comprehending how completely inappropriate the behavior is.

I'm afraid you are right.

If the Starbucks debacle does not make the point, it is likely that nothing will.

 

[1911Tuner]

I find this hysteria of having to make a point about 2A
in every possible location - hindering.

It`s provocation that teaches nobody nothing.
And it makes gun enatusiasts look like intolerant nuttery gun-nuts.

This.

Starbucks was initially on board with open and concealed carry into their stores.

Then the idiots and mall ninjas and attention whores started walking in with slung AR15s and AK47s...and a few were sporting spare magazines and such...and Starbucks said "Enough."

Proving that it only takes a few morons to ruin it for everybody.

I can't really say that I blame'em.

 

[DPris]

Agree with #334.
Both sides share the blame, but things would not have reached this point had not OUR side pushed it so far.
There are extremists among the gun grabbers, there are extremists among us.

Anybody who carries an AR into a Starbucks to "make a statement" or "because I can" is braindead.
This is not "exercising a right", this is eye-poking.
This is not "supporting our rights", this is scaring people for no good reason whatsoever.
This is not "advancing our cause", it's harming our cause.
This is not "thanking Starbucks", it's forcing Starbucks to say "knock it off".

And those who are incapable of seeing how "completely inappropriate the behavior is" are doing no favors to themselves or the rest of us who can.

Ostentatious display and in-your-face rallies are simply not in responsible gun owners' best interests, nor do they do anything for Starbucks beyond place them in a position they don't want to be in.

They took an admirable NEUTRAL stance in the beginning, following state law where applicable. I've seen no statements from anybody at Starbucks saying they support gun ownership, merely that they followed state law in allowing open carry in their stores.

Now, when irresponsible actions by people who couldn't display either common sense or restraint had to take it well beyond the constraints of reason, Starbucks is not to be castigated for reacting to an escalating situation they didn't cause, and which is threatening their bottom line.

I can very easily understand them not wanting to be known as "The coffee shop where all the guns are."
People go to Starbucks for expensive coffee, quiet moments to read a newspaper, or socialize.
The largest majority of customers do not go there to sit next to some idiot with a rifle hanging off his shoulder. Or several idiots prominently displaying guns of any type.
It should not be too hard to figure this out.

I've made my living with guns in one way or another for four decades.
I promote their responsible use as a part of my job.
I have been entirely comfortable at every CAS event I've ever attended, surrounded by visibly armed people every time I turned around.
I am armed every time I leave my property.

Even with all that, if I were to see somebody wandering through the mall today with an AR slung, I'd at the very least view the carrier as a fool.
You can't blame people for taking alarm at such things, with new shootings in the headlines happening so often.
I-Don't-Care display does nothing to reassure the general public.

There's a time and a place, and Starbucks does not want to be known as "The Place".
I carry openly. Out in the wilds, for quicker access to my gun if needed.
Around town, you don't know I'm armed.
I don't scare people, I don't draw attention to myself, I don't make myself the first target if I stumble into something nasty.

If the only way you can carry a defensive gun is openly (no possibility of a concealed permit), then do what you need to do. WITHOUT waving a neon sign screaming "HEY! LOOKY ME! I GOTTA GUN!!!!!"

Don't go out of your way to force your gun on people, just because you can.
Don't go out of your way to scare people, just because you can.
Don't go out of your way to negatively impact a business who takes a neutral stance on gun carry, just because you can.
Don't go out of your way to be a jackass, just because you can.

Starbucks isn't "caving", and the request by their top guy not to bring guns in is still remarkably restrained, in lieu of an outright GUNS PROHIBITED policy with signs and bans, considering how the overall situation has gone.

Starbucks is simply trying to quietly go about the business of selling their products.
Those who vilify them for that are viewing the overall picture entirely askance.
Denis

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^^^^^^^

Precisely.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

DPris, that's the best, most thought out post in this thread and 100% spot on.

I've become more and more convinced that part of the reason that these discussions often are so heated is because the people we perceive as being exhibitionists intentionally trying to provoke a reaction are, in reality, completely unable to understand how inappropriate and misguided their actions really are.

If they don't see how, in this day and time, carrying an AR or an AK into a public place with spare mags hanging off them would be viewed as inappropriate or misguided they they are seriously lacking in the mental department. But hey, you can't fix stupid.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

This might be better as its own thread but I think it fits the topic here.

All this hoopla over Starbucks has caused me to reevaluate my perspective on open carry. I believe that responsible open carry has its place I’m just not sure that downtown is it.

I am absolutely positive that walking around town with a long gun is never appropriate and with all due respect to our Naval Service Members I don’t care if you’re in Kuwait or not unslinging a shot gun for a photo op is not appropriate, I’ll go a step farther and say that given the nature of the terrorist threat at the time it’s a pretty stupid thing to do.

I have tried open carry and I’m not comfortable with it so I will never do it again. As much as I want to say that if open carry is your thing go right ahead I’m not sure I can if open carry is what leads to stupid people walking around in public with ARs on their shoulder just waiting for a cop to try to stop them so they can post a youtube video.

The question I have is how do we stop the idiots with the ARs while allowing the guy who is behaving responsibly by simply carrying an unconcealed holstered handgun to continue the practice?

Unfortunately I don’t think we can have both and I think that eventually the extremism is going to lead to laws banning open carry in various cities.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The question I have is how do we stop the idiots with the ARs while allowing the guy who is behaving responsibly by simply carrying an unconcealed holstered handgun to continue the practice?

Wow. So someone who doesn't limit their carrying of a firearm to what you find acceptable is an idiot now? I thought this was The High Road? I must be mistaken.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Interesting development

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-mcdonalds-dunkin-donuts-had-211403243.html

Let's hope McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts, and Baskin Robbins didn't just get themselves into a mess.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Wow. So someone who doesn't limit their carrying of a firearm to what you find acceptable is an idiot now? I thought this was The High Road? I must be mistaken.

I never said that, I said carrying an AR into any business is idiotic and it is. If you continue to support that you are supporting the very people that are going to make it so you can't open carry anywhere

 

[TarDevil]

Wow. So someone who doesn't limit their carrying of a firearm to what you find acceptable is an idiot now? I thought this was The High Road? I must be mistaken.

I tend to share his sentiments about people who damage the image of concealed and open gun carriers.

Same logic applies to any subject... I cringe at some of the public lunacy of people who claim to be spreading the word of God. Makes me look bad as a Christian.

 

[jack44]

The only time I bought from there is when I was in a airport otherwise I don't go there, beside I stopped drinking coffee it gives me hartburn.

 

[hso]

Heck, the blame isn't even spread equally on this gun forum, it seems like the pro-gun people are getting most of it.

You intentionally miss-state the situation entirely when you're referring to the discussion here. Almost every one of us here are "pro-gun people" and yet most of us disagree with you that the people who were making Starbucks into a stage for what the rest of us consider exhibitionist behavior are actually "pro-gun". If most of us are pro-gun and most of us define the exhibitionist behavior as something far from being truly pro-gun, then our definition holds that the exhibitionists are not pro-gun. You can claim that we're not and they are until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is that the community overwhelmingly has set the standard as something you don't like and that's what it is. Like it or not, the members here disagreeing with your contention that the exhibitionists are pro gun and we aren't have defined the community standard. Further, this same reaction is taking place on numerous firearms boards and supporters of the extremists are in the gross minority.

 

[goon]

I never said that, I said carrying an AR into any business is idiotic and it is. If you continue to support that you are supporting the very people that are going to make it so you can't open carry anywhere

There is a good point here.
In some areas, OC is already restricted or totally illegal. I am unaware of any court rulings that have found this unconstitutional and I think you'd be even less likely to get one if there were provisions for legal concealed carry in place.
Public opinion can shape legislation and public outrage can fuel it. A great many members of the public are not gun people and would feel justified in complaining to their reps about this. Anti-gun groups would gladly latch on to this type of sentiment as an opportunity to restrict your ability to carry.
Even among gun people, you will find those who think it should be CCW only. I'm not one of them, but the point I'm trying to make is that being able to OC in some areas is a precarious thing that could be eliminated if people insist on doing their grocery shopping with converted Saiga 12's slung across their backs.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You intentionally miss-state the situation entirely when you're referring to the discussion here. Almost every one of us here are "pro-gun people" and yet most of us disagree with you that the people who were making Starbucks into a stage for what the rest of us consider exhibitionist behavior are actually "pro-gun". If most of us are pro-gun and most of us define the exhibitionist behavior as something far from being truly pro-gun, then our definition holds that the exhibitionists are not pro-gun. You can claim that we're not and they are until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is that the community overwhelmingly has set the standard as something you don't like and that's what it is. Like it or not, the members here disagreeing with your contention that the exhibitionists are pro gun and we aren't have defined the community standard. Further, this same reaction is taking place on numerous firearms boards and supporters of the extremists are in the gross minority.

First, for this specific discussion, my personal definition of activist would be one who was carrying a firearm that they normally would not carry, or carrying a firearm in a method that they normally would not carry specifically for the purpose of political reasons. I do not consider myself to be an activist, even though I have attended rallies and "Starbucks appreciation days" because I carried the exact same gun I carry every day in the exact same manner I carry it every day when attending the rallies and "Starbucks appreciation days."

Do I condone or actively support the "activists" defined in my statement above? No, I do not. Do I feel that share equal fault with the anti-gun activists? Absolutely. But that is where I disagree with this "community standard" that you speak of. 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".

 

[AABEN]

Heck I did not like their coffee any way! Also to high for a retired old fart any way. It is best to have CC permits that way you do not make waves with the anti gun nuts.