Starbucks: no more open carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
...The open carry movement/community is doing more harm to gun rights...
Click to expand...
And the crux of the issue might well be that -- it's a "movement." Carrying a gun openly while going about your daily business, where it's legal, simply because you find it convenient is one thing. But seeing open carry as a Cause is quite another.
 
FWIW, there is an article saying that the photo of "Mr. Stache" was taken in Kuwait in 2005.
Click to expand...

While searching for the above mentioned article, which I couldn't find, I came across some other photo's of people flexing their muscle's in Starbucks with there guns out in the open.
Among many, one pics. of a guy sitting outside on Starbucks patio with what looks to be an AK between his legs.
Another typical 'mall ninja' garbed genius complete with his AR slung across his chest , some kinda pistol strapped in a leg holster and a big survival knike on his waist.
Looked like some kinda Mexican bandito dressed for Halloween.:rolleyes:

Yea, these are the people representing us really well.
 
Last edited:
Starbucks is just trying to run a business selling coffee to customers who like drinking coffee. I have to admit I have a hard time wondering why folks didn't just quietly conceal carry their weapon at Starbucks without making an issue of it. I (and many others) do this in a lot of establishments, none of which I would publicly mention, for self protection.

The place to show off your guns is 1) on your own property; 2) at gun shows; 3) at a firing range; 4) while engaged in some shooting sport; or 5) at some other gun-friendly place that caters to gun owners. Most people on this board frown on anyone who displays long guns on a gun rack in their truck, claiming that this is irresponsible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but why do people feel compelled to parade around on some other person's property flaunting their firearms?
 
Vurtle, let's take another look at Mr. Stache here:



When someone walks in carrying a pump shotgun and unslings it from his shoulder, what am I to presume? I guarantee he swept other patrons with it in the process, and that kind of provocative behavior is a sign of one of two things:

impending violence
horrific irresponsibility bordering on emotional instability


I know more than a few folks, myself among them, who would have immediately assumed he was a threat. It could get ugly.

Furthermore, normal people don't do this. Normal people are going to react very badly to such behavior. I shouldn't have to tell anybody that. The fact that I have had to do so shows the presence of a very real problem.
Click to expand...

Seems as though 'Mr. Stache's' pic IS one from 2005 in Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it isn't what we don't know that gets us, but what we are sure we know but just isn't true.

It is unlikely that a fellow having his picture taken on base in Kuwait bears a causal relationship to the Starbucks PR release.
 
It is unlikely that a fellow having his picture taken on base in Kuwait bears a causal relationship to the Starbucks PR release.
Click to expand...
No relationship at all. The photos were posted on the web by "gun guys and gals."

Starbucks released a statement. The letter associated with statement has been qouted and photographed. Pictures of open carry advocates at Starbucks locations have appeared in news articles, on television, and on vrious sites on the web. The ones that included "Mr. Stache" were one example.

The photo was reportedly taken in a Starbucks in Kuwait. Whether that was on a base was not stated.
 
Sometimes it isn't what we don't know that gets us, but what we are sure we know but just isn't true.
Click to expand...
Yeah, um. Oops. Got me there ;)

Still, there's no shortage of photographs of the tomfoolery. There are several at the blog OldMarksman linked to.

I'm at a loss to explain how I would safely handle a long gun at such close quarters, much less without freaking out the normals.
 
Sometimes it isn't what we don't know that gets us, but what we are sure we know but just isn't true.

It is unlikely that a fellow having his picture taken on base in Kuwait bears a causal relationship to the Starbucks PR release.
Click to expand...

If we pretend the 2005 pic. of Mr. Stache did not even exist, there are plenty more ridiculous ones out there to take its place. Some would actually be very comical if not for the purpose of which they are trying to affiliate themselves with....our gun rights.
Really didn't realize just how goofy some of these guys were showing up at Starbucks till I Googled some pics. up.

FWIW: Ironically, just this evening, our local news had a short piece on the whole 'Guns at Starbucks' subject. Like we need more negative PR.:rolleyes:
 
Really didn't realize just how goofy some of these guys were showing up at Starbucks till I Googled some pics. up.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that many people participating in OC demonstrations don't do it the way you might. I had a lunch with Alan Gura once in which someone spontaneously OCed in his our presence in my "no guns" club. I didn't appreciate that either.

I see subjects at least as "goofy" in local gun shows. No everyone who supports 2d Am. rights or has a firearm is smart or a friend. That is a matter separable from a defense of the right itself.

What I read in this thread is that quite a few smart and otherwise circumspect people have exaggerated the significance of this letter and were primed before that letter to blame OCers for gun control sentiments.
 
What I read in this thread is that quite a few smart and otherwise circumspect people have exaggerated the significance of this letter and were primed before that letter to blame OCers for gun control sentiments.
Click to expand...
The significance of the letter is this: Starbucks had a policy of welcoming those who happened to carry guns. They asked that we not make their locations a staging ground for a political debate. That request is more than reasonable, and considering their corporate philosophy and clientele, pretty brave.

In defiance of this, open-carry events were held. This culminated in the so-called Starbucks "appreciation day" events, one of which people attempted to convene in Newtown. These events involved rifles being conspicuously carried.

Deciding that we're a disruptive element, and specifically mentioning open-carry events, they changed their mind on that policy. From now on, we're not welcome there if we choose to carry guns at all.

This a net loss, and a significant one, and it is our fault. We don't get off blaming the antis for this one.
 
Tom Servo said:
Deciding that we're a disruptive element, and specifically mentioning open-carry events, they changed their mind on that policy. From now on, we're not welcome there if we choose to carry guns at all.
Click to expand...

That isn't correct.

Welcome and serve all customers as usual. Partners are not to confront a customer or ask them to leave because they are carrying a weapon into our stores.
Click to expand...

A press release that guns aren't "welcome" while explicitly instructing that those with arms be welcomed and served is as close to meaningless as a communication could be. We can reasonably conclude from the release that a very large an profitable corporation doesn't want to be a 2d Am. battleground, but that's about it. Just as one cannot guaranty that a fellow who had is picture taken overseas eight years ago swept other in the store, one also can't take the press release as a full and transparent explanation for why the release was issued.

Moreover, your use of "we" is inaccurate or misguided, suggesting that each gun owner is responsible for the acts of every other gun owner. That isn't a viable analytical framework for a legitimate civil liberty. It is no more your place or mine to "call out" misguided attention seekers short on foresight than it would be for a 1st Am. advocate to tell inartful public speakers to sit down and shut up.
 
A press release that guns aren't "welcome" while explicitly instructing that those with arms be welcomed and served is as close to meaningless as a communication could be.
Click to expand...
It isn't meaningless until you read between the lines. We didn't agree to his request to be sensible back in 2010, so he's requesting that we not carry at all.

Let's see a show of hands: who believes that Mr. Schultz wrote that with the expectation that gun owners would honor it? After we trampled on his wishes the last time, do we really expect him to trust us?

Hundreds of folks have posted on Twitter and Facebook that they plan on ignoring his request. Many others have simply responded with "your coffee sux anyway and your not my real dad." Coupled with our prior behavior, this doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

No, Mr. Schultz is giving us one last chance to straighten up and fly right. He knows we're going to blow it, and this gives him an excuse to turn his request into an actual ban. That's exactly what the antis have wanted all along, and Mr. Schultz can say with a clean conscience that he did his best to accommodate us.

This guy isn't dumb, and he's not naive.

It is no more your place or mine to "call out" misguided attention seekers short on foresight than it would be for a 1st Am. advocate to tell inartful public speakers to sit down and shut up.
Click to expand...
We are dancing on the edge when it comes to public perception of the 2nd Amendment. As such, it is our responsibility to police ourselves, and to call out those who are damaging the cause. This is a stark example of the need for that.

Our opponents do just that. They have a consistency and purity of message, and everyone sticks to the same script and rhetoric.
 
Moreover, your use of "we" is inaccurate or misguided, suggesting that each gun owner is responsible for the acts of every other gun owner.
Click to expand...
While we may not be responsible for their acts, it is obvious that we can certainly benefit from or, more to the point as far as this thread is concerned, suffer from the consequences of their actions.

It may not be our place to give wise advice, but on the chance it will be taken and avert negative consequences, it's certainly a good idea to make the effort.

As far as I'm concerned, it's no different from giving a new shooter advice about gun safety if you witness him/her doing something dangerous with a firearm. It may not be my responsibility, and it may not be my place, but if the advice is given and received, it can benefit not only the new shooter and me by making things immediately safer, it can help that new shooter become a more responsible gun owner. And that has the potential to benefit the entire firearm community.
 
There seems to be some kind of misconception that thinking people who use open carry as a form of political demonstration are hurting the social perception of gun owners is equal to disliking all forms of open carry under any circumstances. That does not seem to be the case here. Open carry does not bother me, but people being irresponsible does bother me a lot.

As for criticizing people that demonstrate in this manner, I feel I am not overstepping my bounds by doing so. Our cause is not on the winning end of public perception the way it is, and regardless of how within their rights they may be for demonstrating via open carry, it does not change the fact that their actions have hurt the gun owning community far more than they have helped it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top