Open Carry is Finally Getting Some Attention

[DeepSouth]

Suzanna Hupp.......Luby's......1991

I guess the Brady's liked the incident. Those people piss me off.

 

[Shadow Man]

Superlite27, I appreciate those links; however, I was not accusing you of anything, rather, I was informing Mr. McCoy of the reasons why I refuse to give Starbucks my patonage, but will send them a letter of thanks for supporting my rights.

Jake McCoy, I informed you of several legitimate reasons why I refuse to give Starbucks any of my money, and yet you still suggest that your way (purchasing a muffin) is the only way to show them support...I don't think you fully understand what I was saying, so let me try this again: the Starbucks franchise drove several small businesses to close their doors, forcing otherwise independant small business owners to seek another trade. Because of that, I don't support Starbucks. So buying a muffin from them is simply not an option, nor would it be cost-effective for me to drive over half an hour to the next closest open Starbucks to buy a three dollar muffin. I think a nice letter will more than suffice.

 

[Superlite27]

I was not accusing you of anything, rather, I was informing Mr. McCoy of the reasons why I refuse to give Starbucks my patonage,

I did not take offense. I agree that your feelings about Starbuck's business practices and their detriment to small "mom and pops" stores is probably well justified. I wouldn't suggest that you go against any of your beliefs and actually purchase their products in order to financially support a company you don't morally support.

I was just pointing out that taking the time to offer a "Thank you for supporting my rights" when they "done good by us" doesn't encourage their financial practices, or support them financially in any way, it merely offers positive reinforcement to their attitude on firearms when they are being pressured to do the opposite.

Doing this is just as important (if not more) as offering resistance to businesses that openly disregard our rights. Opportunities to encourage positive behavior are rare compared to opportunities to oppose the negative. I can find a "gun ban" sign in a short period of time if I were to purposefully look. There's all the opportunity in the world to write a letter to management, complain to the manager, and all manner of ways to express my displeasure. Getting that business to change that sign is difficult.

Yet, when a business (whether we like that business or not) does something to support our rights under pressure to not do so.........

...what a better way to help ensure their continued support, than to offer them warm appreciation! This is much easier and more beneficial than trying to get them to change back after they've made their decision to oppose us. Especially...ESPECIALLY since it really costs us very little other than to take a few minutes to type some words on a keyboard. Something we've all taken plenty time to do here, where we pretty much agree that gun rights are good.

If all of us (including me) did half as much typing in an attempt to sway public opinion in favor of gun rights as we did talking to others who already share our opinions, we'd have 90% of Americans packing a sidearm by next week.

 

[Jaxinc]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5367

Just up on NRA.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yeah, no lie. I avoid Starbucks as much as possible...I've found myself to be often diametrically opposed to the other patrons, in dress, beliefs, morals, character, all sorts of critical things.

Same here.

To be honest, if I were to go to a Starbucks to open carry, my primary reason would be the fun of pissing off the other patrons. I live in Ann Arbor MI, so you can imagine the type of elitist lefties that frequent the Starbucks in the area. I don't even like their coffee. I prefer Tim Horton's. But if open carrying in a Starbucks can make some leftists squirm, that sounds like a good time to me.

 

[TexasBill]

Helmke's message is actually kind of amusing in a "Look, Ma! I'm an idiot" sort of way.

The first thing that struck my attention was Helmke's insistence that an exception be made only for uniformed police officers. I guess this means detectives, federal agents and such are out of luck or have to wear their jackets while they enjoy their coffee (there's a Starbucks not far from my house where some county investigators meet early in the morning and they never wear their coats unless it's cold. Never seen anyone bat an eye).

The second thing is that open carrying is supposedly causing some of our fellow citizens to wet their pants. So Helmke wants Starbucks to ban all guns, including those carried by concealed weapons permit holders. So how does a concealed weapon frighten the paying patrons?

Third, Helmke says, "It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried." Which Amendment was that? I must have missed it. Is this in the constitution of any of the fifty states? On the other hand, I would agree that if you're offended by the man or woman at the next table wearing a sidearm while enjoying their meal or beverage, it is your absolute right to leave.

Not sure why everyone gets so inflamed about the patrons at Starbucks, most of the ones I have been in have all sorts of customers.

Since I don't like sweet coffee, I don't spend much at Starbucks. A large black coffee or an iced coffee (ice+coffee) is the limit they can damage my wallet unless my frappucino-loving family is with me.

The big point to me is that Starbucks, at least for now, will allow an armed citizen to come in and have a cup of coffee. Coffee, not whiskey, not beer, just coffee. Where's the harm in that?

 

[wishin]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5367

Just up on NRA.

Read here:

Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

Friday, February 05, 2010

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so. As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

 

[Picknlittle]

I guess I am overly sensitive but I have grown to really DESPISE the phrase "packing heat."
It sounds unimaginative, petty and juvenile. But I guess much of what Paul Helmke dolls out sounds like that .........

I absolutely support the right to carry. What doesn't make sense to me is "open carry" for the sake of making a statement. I can see how people some will be intimidated by a room full adults purposely flaunting their firearms, saying, "look at me, I can, therefore I do!"

I carry concealed, in part because my employer (sheriff) dictates that I do for safety and security reasons, and partly because a concealed weapon is more useful in the long run. Some one who wishes to cause harm, or commit crimes will only use the presence of an openly displayed firearm to his own benefit, by either just waiting, or making the carrier a primary target.
Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter, and instantly has a room full of very compliant subjects. The visible gun has just become an effective tool against the gun owner and the business and patrons.

The other point I'd make is that the statement made by openly carrying does us more harm than good with the general public. I you want to make your gun welcomed, let it be a difference maker at the moment we hope never comes,..when you have to use it to save a life.

 

[NavyLCDR]

and partly because a concealed weapon is more useful in the long run. Some one who wishes to cause harm, or commit crimes will only use the presence of an openly displayed firearm to his own benefit, by either just waiting, or making the carrier a primary target.
Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter, and instantly has a room full of very compliant subjects. The visible gun has just become an effective tool against the gun owner and the business and patrons.

The other point I'd make is that the statement made by openly carrying does us more harm than good with the general public. I you want to make your gun welcomed, let it be a difference maker at the moment we hope never comes,..when you have to use it to save a life.

Retch, *hack*, **BARF**

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Not a personal attack, just how I feel about your non-factual, non-reality based opinion. Except for the portion I highlighted in the quote above. That is what happens in reality, the criminal just waits or goes down the street a block to find a non-visibly hardened target.

 

[Picknlittle]

Retch, *hack*, **BARF**

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Not a personal attack, just how I feel about your non-factual, non-reality based opinion. Except for the portion I highlighted in the quote above. That is what happens in reality, the criminal just waits or goes down the street a block to find a non-visibly hardened target.

Hmmmm,...compelling argument! LOL

When you get your hairball up, tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Picknlittle]

Retch, *hack*, **BARF**

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Not a personal attack, just how I feel about your non-factual, non-reality based opinion. Except for the portion I highlighted in the quote above. That is what happens in reality, the criminal just waits or goes down the street a block to find a non-visibly hardened target.

This would actually depend in the criminal's intent, and the importance of the target.
Secondly, by moving to another target, your exposed firearm has done harm to the secondary target, and kept you from having to be a useful solution to a problem.

 

[Superlite27]

When you get your hairball up, tell me where I'm wrong.

He may be a little congested at the moment, but I'll be happy to dispell the rumors, assumptions, and outright misinformation propagated in your previous statement.

I apologize for taking this thread in another direction other than Starbucks, but I just can't let assumptions and lack of logic pass unchecked.

picknlittle said:

I absolutely support the right to carry. What doesn't make sense to me is "open carry" for the sake of making a statement. I can see how people some will be intimidated by a room full adults purposely flaunting their firearms, saying, "look at me, I can, therefore I do!"

I carry concealed, in part because my employer (sheriff) dictates that I do for safety and security reasons, and partly because a concealed weapon is more useful in the long run. Some one who wishes to cause harm, or commit crimes will only use the presence of an openly displayed firearm to his own benefit, by either just waiting, or making the carrier a primary target.
Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter, and instantly has a room full of very compliant subjects. The visible gun has just become an effective tool against the gun owner and the business and patrons.

The other point I'd make is that the statement made by openly carrying does us more harm than good with the general public. I you want to make your gun welcomed, let it be a difference maker at the moment we hope never comes,..when you have to use it to save a life.

What doesn't make sense to me is "open carry" for the sake of making a statement. I can see how people some will be intimidated by a room full adults purposely flaunting their firearms, saying, "look at me, I can, therefore I do!"

Well, let me help you out. I can see where people with irrational fear of an inanimate object might be intimidated by a room full of adults flaunting their firearms and uttering such made-up and obviously slanted paraphrasing.

Unfortunately, I don't see these so called adults acting in such a childish manner. Ever. What I often do see is everyday people unfamiliar with firearms have no reaction whatsoever to adults who carry their firearms openly in a responsible manner. I often have these so called "frightened milquetoasts" walk up and ask about the legality of my openly carried firearm. In these frequent exchanges, I often courteously inform them of the legality and they walk away more enlightened about carrying firearms than they began their day.

Now. Please explain the logic that hiding your gun helps to promote anything in a positive manner. Or, in any manner at all since it is basically invisible. Where is the opportunity to educate and provide a positive example if....you are invisible?

because a concealed weapon is more useful in the long run. Some one who wishes to cause harm, or commit crimes will only use the presence of an openly displayed firearm to his own benefit, by either just waiting, or making the carrier a primary target.
Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter, and instantly has a room full of very compliant subjects. The visible gun has just become an effective tool against the gun owner and the business and patrons.

How exactly is a concealed firearm "more useful"? Oh, I see. The element of "surprise". But, I thought surprise was an offensive tactic? Unless you care to explain how surprise works on defense.....unless a need for defense has already presented itself. Whoops! There went any concept of prevention. Since a defensive situaltion is now in progress, prevention is out the window. Now your wonderful "surprise" is effective. It makes your presentation of a firearm tactically superior. You have now gained the upper hand and are now more effective at KILLING A MAN.

So, it boils down to this: Surprise is a great method of tactical superiority....at killing a man. This is wonderful if that is your intention.

However. My intention is to avoid this entirely. I do not intend on killing anyone. I wish to not even enter a situation that may require this.

How can you avoid these situations if....you look like every other unarmed person? Concealed = just another schmo. Pretty effective for "killing a man" by surprise. Not so effective at deterrence.

Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter

Which "case" is this that is "in point"? If it is so "in point"...point away! Maybe you could link to something, ah, a little more concrete instead of, um, saying this could happen. Yes. I agree. It could. Please show me where it is commonly the norm.

Then, why, if this is such a tactically inferior method, do the police carry theirs in plain sight?

If you are so tactically guided, would you care to tell me how burying a weapon under layers of clothing is tactically superior to keeping the path to it unobstructed to your strong hand?

All in all, I get barraged with the fact that "I'll be the first to die" even though there is never any concrete evidence of this shown. Yet, when I point out the fact that OC can be an effective deterrent, I get shot down because there isn't any evidence. Well, it doesn't exist because it has been deterred!

It's simple common sense. If you are going to rob a person, does their posession of a firearm have any bearing on your choice of victim? Would you choose to rob an armed, or unarmed victim? If the weapon is concealed, how do you know they are armed? If you don't care whether the person is armed or not, does the distinction between OC and CCW matter anyway?

So, hopefully, I've addressed these "myths" and assumptions that keep getting passed around like unsubstantiated rumors about the new employee over in accounting.

We now return you to your normally scheduled programming.

How about that Starbucks!

 

[Picknlittle]

I'm headed out to work so not much time.
Police carry openly because the uniform presence is the first step in force escalation, by being a visible deterrent. He also has chemical spray, and in most cases a taser or stun gun also visible.

Irrational as public fear may be, it does exist, and groups of sidearm toting activist gathering at coffee shops or political rallies further supports notions that we are gun nuts, and fruit cakes.

I don't know anyone who hopes to kill or injure anyone, but drawing attention to the fact you have a firearm only makes you more visible to all. Send a criminal farther down the street to commit a crime because he or she notices you gun isn't preventing anything,...only displacing it.

If anyone is drowning in myths, I suspect it is you.

 

[HexHead]

All the power of a SWAT team? For a handgun?
And none of the training? SWAT team aside, if these people knew how little police trained with their firearms it'd send their world upside down. Assuming that they are rational, of course.

The irony of this of course is the demonstrations being complained about at Starbucks involves people open carrying UNLOADED guns. They might as well be movie props out there in lala land.

 

[svaz]

Let no challenge to freedom and liberty go unchallenged. My email:

To Whom It May Concern,

I understand that, recently, the Brady Campaign for Unreasonable, Unethical, and Unconstitutional Gun Laws has attempted to convince Starbucks that its patrons would somehow be safer in its stores if they were rendered defenseless. I would like to voice opposition to the Brady Campaign's instance that you override the CLEAR will of the People of a State who, through legislative representation, have made their individual safety a primary concern.

The Brady Campaign's request to discriminate against law-abiding defense-conscious citizens should be a laughing matter, however, threating safety is never funny and never to be taken lightly. I understand that business drives your corporate decisions, and I understand that Corporate Social Responsibility is also a concern. I cannot imagine a greater responsibility than to refrain from rendering patrons defenseless against violent, unpredictable, unconscionable sociopaths for who “gun-free zones” are an advertisement for a “safe working environment.” Therefore I would ask that you make no corporate policy that undermines the Will of the People of any given State.

Kindest Regards,

(my name)
Sierra Vista, AZ

BTW, I can't bring myself to pay that much for coffee, hell, I don't even carry, but it's the principle of the thing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Secondly, by moving to another target, your exposed firearm has done harm to the secondary target, and kept you from having to be a useful solution to a problem.

I don't carry a firearm to protect the world from criminals. I don't carry a firearm to dispatch criminals like gofers digging holes in my yard. I carry a firearm to protect myself, and those that I care about who are with me.

I would rather not have my family stand there and watch me shoot someone. If the criminal moves on to the next person and they become a victim, I am sorry that it happened to them but I in no way will take any responsibility for that action happening to them because I did not give that criminal opportunity to attack me or my family first.

 

[Tropical Buzz]

#55
Ragnar Danneskjold

To be honest, if I were to go to a Starbucks to open carry, my primary reason would be the fun of pissing off the other patrons. I live in Ann Arbor MI, so you can imagine the type of elitist lefties that frequent the Starbucks in the area. I don't even like their coffee. I prefer Tim Horton's. But if open carrying in a Starbucks can make some leftists squirm, that sounds like a good time to me.

That right there is the problem with some who open carry. They are out to intimidate, draw attention and make a big issue of themselves. The fact that none of the usual vocal pro open-carriers commented on this statement says a lot about how common and accepted this mindset may be.

If the Brady bunch prevails in having guns banned at Starbucks and elsewhere - a big part of the credit will be due to those who feed the fire of the antis and live up to the stereotype by using the open display of guns to prop a flagging ego and become a "man" by making others uncomfortable.

The irrational fear of those who dress and live differently is no less pathetic than the irrational fear of guns. What is worse is the desire to act on it, and the moronic enjoyment of making strangers uncomfortable only serves to frustrate the efforts of others to change the attitudes of anti-gun people with truth, education and logic. Unfortunately, by association this obtrusive aggressiveness causes the uninformed to paint all pro-gun activists with the same stupid, antisocial and irrational brush.
"So what?" you say? So nothing if all you care about is being a badass big fish in your murky pond. So everything if you profess to care even a little about the enlightenment of others towards the goal of comfortable acceptance of guns in the hands of competent, rational, law-abiding citizens.

 

[Superlite27]

Police carry openly because the uniform presence is the first step in force escalation, by being a visible deterrent.

by being a visible deterrent

So, is it the shiny badge that is doing the "deterring" or is it the presence of a firearm?

by being a visible deterrent

The metal disk, or the gun? Which?

If your argument is the metal disk pinned to their chest, you are the one living in "mythville". If it is the gun........

.....thank you for arguning my position.

I've been saying this all along. Unless you would care to point out how the gun an officer uses to deter crime has some special "mysterious" powers that deter criminals, and all those "mysterious deterrence powers" have leaked out of mine rendering me the first to be killed (which we still haven't had any links to this opccurring, BTW).

Your words again:

by being a visible deterrent

Of course, I just blew the difference between cop/civilian guns apart. There is no difference in the firearms, or in the super powers of the human beings who carry them.

So you must be arguing that the metal disk pinned to their chest is some super powered crime deterrence "talisman".

Me? Drowning in myths? I'm not the one who's argument is full of holes. Neither am I trying to keep it afloat by bailing with a sieve.

How did you put it?

by being a visible deterrent

Thanks.

 

[Tommygunn]

I guess I am overly sensitive but I have grown to really DESPISE the phrase "packing heat."
It sounds unimaginative, petty and juvenile. But I guess much of what Paul Helmke dolls out sounds like that .........

I absolutely support the right to carry. What doesn't make sense to me is "open carry" for the sake of making a statement. I can see how people some will be intimidated by a room full adults purposely flaunting their firearms, saying, "look at me, I can, therefore I do!"

I carry concealed, in part because my employer (sheriff) dictates that I do for safety and security reasons, and partly because a concealed weapon is more useful in the long run. Some one who wishes to cause harm, or commit crimes will only use the presence of an openly displayed firearm to his own benefit, by either just waiting, or making the carrier a primary target.
Case in point,...bad guy who sees a gun on hip and wants to get control of the fear factor can simply walk in kill the gun toter, and instantly has a room full of very compliant subjects. The visible gun has just become an effective tool against the gun owner and the business and patrons.

The other point I'd make is that the statement made by openly carrying does us more harm than good with the general public. I you want to make your gun welcomed, let it be a difference maker at the moment we hope never comes,..when you have to use it to save a life.

Hmmmmm. My comment was solely aimed at a phrase; "packing heat."
Yes, a criminal could take out a man openly carrying a firearm in order to have a roomfull of "compliant victims." Has that ever actually happened? Keep in mind he could also shoot the uniformed, armed policeman there, too, for the same reason; to gain compliance. Or, the armed security guard. I wonder how many uniformed, armed security guards have been shot during bank robberies so the crooks could accomplish their goal.
I really don't have a strong opinion concerning open carry or concealed carry.
I can see arguments for both.
Here's another "what if??": a man is concealed carrying during a bank robbery, a robber comes in, the CC guy reaches inside his jacket and the thug shoots him because he correctly surmises the guy is reaching for a gun.
Is that an argument against CCW ... or for open carry?


Actually, neither .... I just made it up.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually, neither .... I just made it up

HAHAHA! You're not the first person in this thread, tommygunn, to be making things up!

 

[knockonit]

I thought it was a thread on kudos to Starbucks on their stance, not a thread to argue CC, or OC. By the way which both are a good thing to accomplish.

 

[rogerjames]

Same here.

To be honest, if I were to go to a Starbucks to open carry, my primary reason would be the fun of pissing off the other patrons. I live in Ann Arbor MI, so you can imagine the type of elitist lefties that frequent the Starbucks in the area. I don't even like their coffee. I prefer Tim Horton's. But if open carrying in a Starbucks can make some leftists squirm, that sounds like a good time to me.

Here's another example of someone who should not be representing this community or our ideals. This is exactly the neanderthal mentality that antis jump all over.

What do you mean when you say elitist? Are you referring to people that have an education or make more money than you? Maybe doctors, lawyers, professors, you are referring to? Many of those elitists are members of this community and support your right to own and carry.

You don't have to like or patronize Starbucks, but your assumption that you know who those patrons are and what they represent exists only within the confines of your tiny little mind.

BTW, a Starbucks coffee costs about as much as 2-4 rounds of ammo. At the range, the ammo is gone in about 30 seconds... the coffee may last 30 minutes and be accompanied by quality conversation. I value both.

 

[Gryffydd]

BTW, I can't bring myself to pay that much for coffee, hell, I don't even carry, but it's the principle of the thing.

Seriously? You can't bring yourself to spend $1.40 on a cup of coffee? Really?

That right there is the problem with some who open carry. They are out to intimidate, draw attention and make a big issue of themselves.

Every group of people has its idiots. Open Carriers, all gun people, republicans, Democrats...it doesn't matter, they're all sprinkled with idiots. It's best to argue against the position, not its adherents.

 

[wishin]

HAHAHA! You're not the first person in this thread, tommygunn, to be making things up!

Only the first one to admit it!

 

[Picknlittle]

First time I ever had an unintentional discharge of a message!

Edited out.