Gunbucks
Loved this tweet:
@iowahawkblog
Got kicked out of a gun shop for open-carrying a Starbucks.
Starbucks' CEO Howard Schultz' "Leave Your Guns at Home" open letter to customers here. And as Julie Jargon notes in the WSJ, he isn't banning guns; he's asking that customers not bring them into Starbucks outlets.
I suspect this will lose them some business, I don't really care what they do, and I don't open carry, But I resent the exception for police who shoot about a tenth as well as I do.
Police are not special people when it comes to skills with firearms. They don't deserve special privileges, and I resent them being treated as somehow better or more competent than citizens.
Isab at September 18, 2013 10:26 PM
I think this is a good compromise, by a guy who is having problems because 2 groups with nothing to do with him, arecausing problems in his stores.
Open carry people DO make non-gun people nervous. They dun know different. The anti gun people can't fight the OC's in public that much, but they CAN make a business feel the pain.
so, the third way is to ASK the OC's not to, but NOT make it a "gunfree zone". Then any CCW doesn't have to be concerned, average Jane in fir her latte is none the wiser... and the antiG crowd can STFU, cuz they also dunno who's packin'
Best of a sticky situation, I think.
swissarmyd at September 18, 2013 10:51 PM
Nothing like a store crammed with unarmed, well-paid yuppies writing their business plans and best-selling novels on $3,000 Macbooks while they chat on their $500 iPhones and check their $6,000 Rolexes.
Hey, I know! Change the name to Target!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 18, 2013 11:09 PM
I can feel for the Starbucks guy, effectively he is at ground zero for a war he wants nothing to do with.
As for why people do the appreciation day, is because seeing people with guns will hopefully get the anti gun nuts over their irrational fear in seeing a gun. Something which is being drilled into children, where a picture of a gun is treated as a worse terror, than actually hitting someone.
Joe j at September 18, 2013 11:10 PM
I think Starbucks' compromise is understandable and reasonable.
And though I am mostly neutral to gun control laws, I can also recommend this novel highly.
If you like carrying your guns around, you owe it to yourself to buy a copy and read it at your Starbucks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher
jerry at September 18, 2013 11:19 PM
Okay while recommending that book, also pick up a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider
jerry at September 18, 2013 11:21 PM
I avoid them like the plague. I don't like their coffee, or the phony atmosphere in which it is served. They are however, a private business and can choose to cater to their customers in any manner they choose.
MarkD at September 19, 2013 4:19 AM
I only drink Starbucks coffee at work, because I have to order the k-cups for our Keurig coffee maker! Other than that, I don't patronize Starbucks at all. Dunkin Donuts coffee is superior by far. And they don't care if I carry or not, at least in my neck of the woods.
Flynne at September 19, 2013 6:38 AM
As noted, Starbucks has the right to set the terms for entering their premises. And customers have the right to take their business elsewhere. I don't drink coffee, so I don't have a dog in this particular fight.
Cousin Dave at September 19, 2013 6:46 AM
When anti-gun zealots tried to force Starbucks to ban guns, their CEO said "No, I will follow the law for each location regarding the presence of guns."
Gun rights advocates were pleased by this and rewarded Starbucks with more business. Some had concealed handguns on them when they visited, some had openly-carried handguns (where legal).
But then a small subset of tone-deaf obnoxious gun owners decided to push their luck and bring as many guns as they could into Statbucks, including long guns like shotguns and assault rifles. Which understandably annoyed the anti-gun zealots along with many people where were ostensibly neutral on the issue.
Those neutral people now have a more negative view of firearms and gun owners, thanks to a small fringe cult of open-carry attention-whores.
And we now have the most recent statement by the CEO of Starbucks, who has still not given in to the anti-gun zealots, but merely asked that gun owners not be so obnoxious.
Gunnutmegger at September 19, 2013 7:03 AM
Schultz' stance seems perfectly reasonable to me. The amount of pro-gun butthurt that has resulted has been amusing to read.
MonicaP at September 19, 2013 7:24 AM
When the letter was first posted on Starbucks page, this was my response:
Howard doesn't make a distinction between open carry and concealed carry. Whether that is because he is uneducated on the difference, or he was simply trying to be succinct, I feel that what is coming out of this letter is that he doesn't want Starbucks used as a pawn in the gun rights debate. That is a reasonable request. As long as there is no sign banning guns at the door, my husband and I will continue to carry concealed, and continue to frequent Starbucks. The vast majority will never see or know about our carry weapons. Those who dislike or are afraid of guns don't have to be uncomfortable, because they don't have to know about it. However, should anything happen where I would need to protect myself or others, I fully intend to be able to do so.
I have since read through other links about the people who brought long guns and rifles into the stores. I agree with gunnutmegger that it was obnoxious. I supported the "Starbucks appreciation day" in theory, because there were quite a few groups urging their members to avoid Starbucks for not banning guns (Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense was one of the more vocal). I have always figured that Starbucks is a private business, and their stance of following local laws seemed perfectly reasonable to me. They may get politically involved in other arenas, but they pretty much just wanted to leave this one alone. Hopefully, once the initial furor over Howard's letter dies down, they won't be in the middle of the gun debate anymore.
Jazzhands at September 19, 2013 8:20 AM
The interesting part is going to be how many overzealous managers put stickers on the door. Those stickers have the force of law in most states and will effectively "ban" civilian carry, concealed or otherwise.
The letter is pretty meaningless.
I also wonder, if the economic downturn has not caused Starbucks business to drop. i dont know about you, but five bucks for coffee is about double what I spend on lunch. I cut out Starbucks a long time ago, except in very rare instances.
I have a commercial espresso machine, and know how to make coffee quite a bit better, and cheaper than going to Starbucks.
Anyway, if Starbucks think this gun policy letter will increase their business, I think they are wrong.
Isab at September 19, 2013 8:37 AM
In the current environment, and given that I live in Minnesota and not, say, Wyoming, the only reason someone would open-carry here would be to "make a point" - i.e., to challenge people and to prove - well, something. To push peoples' buttons. Not the position I want to be in with local cops who may not know that our permit law allows open carry.
For that reason, I conceal the gun. I don't worry too much if it prints or flashes, but I do conceal it. It's still there if I need it, and there's no sense needlessly provoking the ignorant and bigoted.
Grey Ghost at September 19, 2013 9:13 AM
Grey Ghost,
I am in MN too, and that is the main reason I doubt I will ever open carry. Too many people don't know that the permit is for carry, and makes no distinction between open or concealed.
However, my husband has open carried on occasion. It wasn't to prove a point, it was because his inside the waistband holster had broken, and all he had for backup was an outside the waistband holster. He said he would rather be armed and possibly deal with hassle than to go unarmed while waiting for a new holster (he ordered it online and has to wait for delivery).
However, we also live out in the boonies, and there are very few anti-gun nuts.
Jazzhands at September 19, 2013 9:55 AM
And leaving aside, the political manipulation on all three sides, has anyone ever been shot at a Starbucks, except by law enforcement or an armed robber?
I suspect, if Starbucks asked gay people to not hold hands or kiss in the store, because it made some of their customers "uncomfortable" (like those who are made "uncomfortable" by open carry), the outrage from the left would be long and shrill.
Isab at September 19, 2013 10:36 AM
I suspect, if Starbucks asked gay people to not hold hands or kiss in the store, because it made some of their customers "uncomfortable" (like those who are made "uncomfortable" by open carry), the outrage from the left would be long and shrill.
Probably. And then, lefties would have the option of not spending money there. As Americans, we have the freedom to spend our money with businesses that align with our political viewpoints, if we so choose. It's all good.
MonicaP at September 19, 2013 11:18 AM
Business owners would be well served to merely state that we follow all laws and regulations. It is stupid of them to take sides.
MarkD at September 19, 2013 12:25 PM
Business owners would be well served to merely state that we follow all laws and regulations. It is stupid of them to take sides.
Posted by: MarkD at September 19, 2013 12:25 PM
I think Starbucks actually backed into this mess, by standing up to the gun banners initially, but not planning for the fall out when they came to be perceived as gun friendly.
As far as my comment about asking gays not to kiss and hug?
Does anyone in their right mind actually think that a business would be stupid enough to put out a letter that violated any liberal articles of faith?
The difference is, that someone at Starbucks (most likely the majority of the board) thinks Hoplophobia is a valid concern and should be catered to.
Isab at September 19, 2013 1:22 PM
Dear Mr. Schultz:
Thank you for making Starbucks stores gun-free zones. A disarmed society is a polite society.
Sincerely,
Psycho Mass-Shooter-in-Training
mpetrie98 at September 19, 2013 6:13 PM
@Jerry - The Shockwave Rider is the most accurate prophetic SF book out of the many I've read. Hard to believe it and John Brunner are nearly unheard of. He got almost all of it right.
My original paperback copy went to Australia with a hacker friend in 1997. A young Nickie Haflinger himself, he actually wept when he first read it over a snowbound weekend. It's time to track a copy down and read it again.
bmused at September 19, 2013 8:13 PM
"I suspect, if Starbucks asked gay people to not hold hands or kiss in the store, because it made some of their customers "uncomfortable" (like those who are made "uncomfortable" by open carry), the outrage from the left would be long and shrill."
"Does anyone in their right mind actually think that a business would be stupid enough to put out a letter that violated any liberal articles of faith?"
It's been done! The CEO/owner (forget which) of Chik-Fil-A made a comment about gay marriage to a Baptist group - and apparently, this was enough for some to say that if you own a big company, you should not have any opinion on the issue - at least not that one. The franchises didn't discriminate to start with, didn't after gays staged protests in the stores...
... and then a Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day was held by supporters of the chain and its owner. Some locations actually sold out of food that day.
That looked like "CFA 1, Activists 0".
Radwaste at September 22, 2013 7:47 PM
Leave a comment