Bill Starks
State Researcher
imported post
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2011259485_the_bullet_versus_the_latte.html
Civil Disagreement: A Shot at Starbucks
Posted by Lynne Varner
Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is a feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Lynne and Bruce examine the spectre of open-holstered guns at Starbucks.
Lynne Varner: Bruce: Starbucks is playing it a little too coy in its public pleadings to be left out of the gun control debate.
Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article. I see it as a place to go for an overpriced cup of joe. Go figure.
The Second Amendment is being stretched thin to make a political point by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.
Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. Starbucks should. It can acknowledge and accept our constitutional right to own a weapon and accept the laws in 43 states that allow weapons to be carried openly. Then the coffee chain can assert its right to regulate behavior in its stores. Peet's Coffee & Tea chain did it. Sometimes it isn't just individuals that must take a courageous stand, but corporations too.
Bruce Ramsey: Corporations don't like to get involved in disputes like this because they don't want to anger any segment of the public. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee and treats. The open carry people are forcing a decision on them. Well, it is their right, and Starbucks has to make a decision. (And to do nothing is also to make a decision.)
It makes me uneasy to see ordinary citizens with holstered guns. And yet, I have to admit that I probably encounter lots of people who have guns in their pockets or purses. I have to also admit that I have not a shred of evidence that an open-carry gun is more dangerous than a concealed gun, and this is a cocealed-carry state. It could even be that open carry guns are safer. There could be a robber casing out that Starbucks to knock it over. The robber sees the people with the open-carry guns and says, "Forget this."
Then there is a thought that it is an odd thing to go around with a pistol on your hip, and that the problem is not so much the pistol but the oddness of the person carrying it. What's with these people, anyway? All of this is theory only. I have never seen any open-carry people at Starbucks or any other coffee place. Maybe I will.
Lynne Varner, Editorial Writer
lvarner@seattletimes.com; 206-464-3217
Bruce Ramsey, Editorial Writer
bramsey@seattletimes.com; 206-464-2057
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2011259485_the_bullet_versus_the_latte.html
Civil Disagreement: A Shot at Starbucks
Posted by Lynne Varner
Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is a feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Lynne and Bruce examine the spectre of open-holstered guns at Starbucks.
Lynne Varner: Bruce: Starbucks is playing it a little too coy in its public pleadings to be left out of the gun control debate.
Gun owners have targeted Starbucks because they see it as a West Coast symbol of liberal politics, says this article. I see it as a place to go for an overpriced cup of joe. Go figure.
The Second Amendment is being stretched thin to make a political point by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.
Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. Starbucks should. It can acknowledge and accept our constitutional right to own a weapon and accept the laws in 43 states that allow weapons to be carried openly. Then the coffee chain can assert its right to regulate behavior in its stores. Peet's Coffee & Tea chain did it. Sometimes it isn't just individuals that must take a courageous stand, but corporations too.
Bruce Ramsey: Corporations don't like to get involved in disputes like this because they don't want to anger any segment of the public. Starbucks just wants to sell coffee and treats. The open carry people are forcing a decision on them. Well, it is their right, and Starbucks has to make a decision. (And to do nothing is also to make a decision.)
It makes me uneasy to see ordinary citizens with holstered guns. And yet, I have to admit that I probably encounter lots of people who have guns in their pockets or purses. I have to also admit that I have not a shred of evidence that an open-carry gun is more dangerous than a concealed gun, and this is a cocealed-carry state. It could even be that open carry guns are safer. There could be a robber casing out that Starbucks to knock it over. The robber sees the people with the open-carry guns and says, "Forget this."
Then there is a thought that it is an odd thing to go around with a pistol on your hip, and that the problem is not so much the pistol but the oddness of the person carrying it. What's with these people, anyway? All of this is theory only. I have never seen any open-carry people at Starbucks or any other coffee place. Maybe I will.
Lynne Varner, Editorial Writer
lvarner@seattletimes.com; 206-464-3217
Bruce Ramsey, Editorial Writer
bramsey@seattletimes.com; 206-464-2057