Scored Some Two Dollar Bills Today

Tom Servo said:
If they ban guns at this point, we've only ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...

Indeed we do. In fact, if they did, I'd be tempted to write them a very understanding letter. I'd still express my disappointment but it would be in the morons who brought this on, not in their decision.
 
So maybe I'm just dense, but I thought the idea was go to Starbucks open carrying your weapon, be friendly, tip the baristas, let them know you appreciate their stance on not infringing rights, enjoy your food/coffee, and leave.

That somehow seems different from sitting outside waving flags and chanting. On both sides. Pro-gun and anti-gun activists involved in that store are both to blame.
 
I thought the idea was go to Starbucks open carrying your weapon, be friendly, tip the baristas, let them know you appreciate their stance on not infringing rights
Click to expand...
Yeah, but this was in Newtown. That's the wrong place for this sort of thing. There's no way we come out looking like we're sympathetic.

Frankly, much more good would have been done by sending a simple letter or email to Starbucks. Acknowledge the pressure they were under, applaud them for their integrity, and pledge them some future business. It works, and the guys at corporate think, "hey, we made the right call on the gun thing."

If thousands of gun owners did that, they'd appreciate it. But I'd be surprised if even a few dozen really did.
 
I'm torn because from a PR perspective I agree with you and I imagine it would make many upset. From an ethical perspective though, I have a hard time grasping why a single incident should make an entire town restrict their gun usage. We had a guy here walk in with an M1 Carbine and a revolver and shoot 8 people. People here are shot all the time in Jacksonville, probably many more than Newtown. I feel it's the very definition of a moral panic. While I agree that it was a bad move to do it in Newtown (and very wrong to make a big political demonstration of it, don't mistake me), I have a hard time telling them they should choose not to exercise their first and second amendment rights to peaceably assemble and hold firearms because a tragedy happened in a town they happened to live.

Like I said, I agree with you that it was a move that was bad for the cause, but I also have a hard time saying that they should choose not to because people an anomalous tragedy has now stigmatized an entire town.
 
Dakota
How does one incident make them want to restrict all gun usage? Because they are idiots. They can't understand cause and effect.
I have to agree with you. I'm at 50/50 there.
Maybe some of the idiots will say, wait, it isn't these people that are the problem. Let's deal with the problem. Not with all gun owners.
But it's probably wishful thinking, and they will go to their graves confused.
dc
 
I feel it is the fault of both sides. The gun activists could have said "OK, this is a town with a recent sensitive tragedy and people are speaking out about this, what is the best way to exercise my rights while remaining respectful of others, not giving gun owners a bad name, and making everybody happier?"

Maybe that involves just going into the coffee shop with your gun and being polite to everybody instead of standing outside waving signs. Maybe it means not going at all. But it looks like that consideration wasn't given at all.
 
The thing is, nobody asked Starbucks if they wanted such an event on their property.

A better way of showing appreciation and making our point might have been handing out pamphlets, but no....that just doesn't make for cool photo ops on Facebook.
 
I went to 3 starbucks. I wasn't open carrying. I just payed with $2 bills and left. Who thinks holding any sort of confrontational protest outside of a business is going to make the business happy?
 
Paul Barrett, author of a great book on the history of Glock, has posted his thoughts on the matter. In short, gun owners were being obnoxious towards an organization that's just trying to do the right thing.

The thing about Barrett is, he's not exactly one of us. He's a historian with little skin in the gun-rights game. It's neutral outsiders who swing this debate for us, and they're the ones we need to be listening to.
 
From a business standpoint it always makes better since to remain neutral in anything political, religious or otherwise.

However If a business wants to stand on one side of something like Chick-fil-A did, more power to them.

With that being said I agree that it is better to appreciate what Starbucks has allowed for us and it is only right that we respect their wishes to not have their company name blasted over the media and cost them money.

I for one would not want someone to put me in that predicament as a business owner ( as I am) without me choosing to do so on my own. I want to responsible for my own choices as well the repercussions as a result of my own choices.

It has nothing to do with standing strong on an issue, it is more like "I will support your rights, just don't put me in the middle of your fight". I respect that.
Click to expand...
This post was made by someone who used my computer. I do agree with it mostly, but want to point out it wasn't mine.
 
Last edited:
With that being said I agree that it is better to appreciate what Starbucks has allowed for us and it is only right that we respect their wishes to not have their company name blasted over the media and cost them money.
Click to expand...
I agree. of course the previous such events have supposedly resulted in increased sales for Starbucks. Very few people actually give up an addictive substance in a boycott(and a frappuccino is a cocktail of them). Lots of people apparently will pay $5 for a milkshake with caffeine in order to support an issue though.

I bought ground beans at two, but I did get a big cappuccino at the third.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top