Good for Starbucks

imported post

Starbucks refuses to bow to Brady Campaign's demand that they exceed state law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_starbucks_guns

Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign said carrying guns intimidates and frightens people, and said the group thinks Starbucks will "do the right thing" and change its policy.

"They're putting their workers in harm's way by allowing people to carry guns into their stores, especially open carry," Malte said.

----Somebody PLEASE explain to me the logic that SEEING a gun, and being intimidated and frightened of it, SOMEHOW magically makes it likely to jump out of its holster and take hostages??? Seriously. I want to know what the mean.

imported post

I am thrilled with Starbuck's response also. The only part of their statement that Idid not care for was:

"Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position," the company said in its statement.

While he acknowledges we are law abiding customers, the unsafe position crack makes it sound like a person legally carrying a gun might be so offended by being asked to leave that they would shoot the person asking them. Other than that, I appreciate their willingness to stand up to the Brady Bunch' pressuretactics.

Doc

imported post

Starbucks is saying they'll have a Law Enforcement Officer make contact rather than unnecessarily exposing an employee to risk- by requesting he approach the armed man to ask him to leave.

If the man is in the store- carrying- no need to call LEO or ask him to leave- when the state law says it's legal

If the man is in the store, open carrying- acting a fool- the LEO will be called to remove the man-

If Starbucks in Colorado was to say- no Open Carry: Every time someone walked in OC the employees would have to call the police or ask him to leave themselves.


It has nothing to do with saying someone is likely to get shot by asking the armed man to leave.... They're saying they won't make their 15 year old stock boy approach and armed man- scary or not.

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

Starbucks is saying they'll have a Law Enforcement Officer make contact rather than unnecessarily exposing an employee to risk- by requesting he approach the armed man to ask him to leave.

If the man is in the store- carrying- no need to call LEO or ask him to leave- when the state law says it's legal

If the man is in the store, open carrying- acting a fool- the LEO will be called to remove the man-

If Starbucks in Colorado was to say- no Open Carry: Every time someone walked in OC the employees would have to call the police or ask him to leave themselves.


It has nothing to do with saying someone is likely to get shot by asking the armed man to leave.... They're saying they won't make their 15 year old stock boy approach and armed man- scary or not.

Click to expand...

Again cs, you misread my post. I was simply pointing out thatthe statement, as it reads,sounds like he is sayinga person who is legally carrying a gun could pose a threat if asked toleave.

Besides, the whole discussion and statement was referring to their reason for notimplementing a no gun policy and nowhere did it elude to unruly armed patron, the need to call law enforcement or anything of the such, merely the fact that they recognize OC as being legal and that a no gun policy would require them to ask otherwise law abiding citizens to leave for no legitimate reason.

Iagree that the "unsafe position" crack was not intended as it sounds, but it stillcomes acrossthat way.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Iagree that the "unsafe position" crack was not intended as it sounds, but it stillcomes acrossthat way.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

I was simply pointing out thatthe statement, as it reads,sounds like he is sayinga person who is legally carrying a gun could pose a threat if asked toleave.

Exactly. I got your point. I read your post right. We're all agreeing that Starbucks is sticking to State Law to avoid compelling an employee to approach an armed customer.

imported post

mahkagari----Somebody PLEASE explain to me the logic that SEEING a gun, and being intimidated and frightened of it, SOMEHOW magically makes it likely to jump out of its holster and take hostages??? Seriously. I want to know what the mean.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?:shock:Remember that the majority of people don't openly carry. Of course you feel comfortable, you know what your intentions are. They don't. Just because it's lawful, it doesn't automatically mean everynon-carrier will feel comfortable.There isthat oneunderlying chance of a lawful carrier not being of a stable mental state at a particular time. There are nuts everywhere, thats why we carry.

imported post

That's true. If 5% of everyone is clinically insane- and everyone carried guns... 5% of gun carriers would be clinically insane. You get what you ask for!

imported post

BigStik wrote:

mahkagari----Somebody PLEASE explain to me the logic that SEEING a gun, and being intimidated and frightened of it, SOMEHOW magically makes it likely to jump out of its holster and take hostages??? Seriously. I want to know what the mean.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?:shock:Remember that the majority of people don't openly carry. Of course you feel comfortable, you know what your intentions are. They don't. Just because it's lawful, it doesn't automatically mean everynon-carrier will feel comfortable.There isthat oneunderlying chance of a lawful carrier not being of a stable mental state at a particular time. There are nuts everywhere, thats why we carry.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. I get that people are intimidated. I'm trying to follow the leap oflogic where people think that because someone is intimidated, that makes everyone "in danger". That the very act of SEEING it makes it dangerous. Not that the gun is there, but that it's "dangerous"just for not being concealed. That was the Brady Bunch's quote in the article. I imagine the situation thusly:

"Oh, my god! I see a man with a gun in his pants! We're all in danger!!!!"

"No, no, he put his jacket on so now it's covered."

"Whew!! We're all safe now. That was a close one!!"


Oras we've seen in several OC reports:

"Sir, do you have a CCW to carry that weapon that you're currently OCing?"

"Yes."

"Would you mind covering it while in our store?"

"I don't need to legally, but it's your place so I will."

"Ok, we just want everyone to be safe."

WTF???? Safe? How does covering it make it more safe? I would actually rather be asked to leave for carrying than the stupidity of that statement.

imported post

I will be OC'ing in Starbucks soon. Downtown. Parking at the Y and walking a few blocks downtown to my destination. Will be my first OC--should be fun.