TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Interesting combination of ideas here. In a strictly theoretical world, I don't have a problem with there being absolutely zero guns in a Starbucks. Of course the problem is that you cannot guarantee that will be the case unless you search everyone entering the building.
So, those of us stuck living here in the real world do what we hope is never needed: we sometimes carry tools to protect ourselves.
The author does make an interesting point, calling out Starbucks for this part of their press release:
No login is required to comment on the article.
TFred
http://uweekly.com/newsmag/03-10-2010/13921/opinion-guns-dont-belong-at-coffee-shops
Opinion: Guns don't belong at coffee shops
By Todd Seabrook
Second Amendment enthusiasts have started to congregate at some California Starbucks, boycotting other establishments that banned firearms (such as California Pizza Kitchen).
It is quite legal to carry a visible firearm in the state of California, and it is also legal for private businesses to prohibit firearms in their stores.
This is a lose-lose situation for Starbucks. Because the gun owners have picked the coffee company as a gun-friendly hangout, Starbucks has had to come out publicly with the policy of allowing guns in their stores. They did not want to do this. Their neutrality over the gun issue has been broken, and they have disenfranchised a significant group of people over an issue that has nothing to do with coffee.
But forget 'em, right? I am not fretting over the plight of a company whose business model resembles Caesar's march on Rome.
The real issue is Starbucks' reasoning. While they do say that they are only complying with state laws, they also give a more outrageous reason: Starbucks' official statement stated that if the shops were to adopt an anti-gun policy, "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."
First of all, as anyone who has ever worked in food service knows, it isn't that big a deal to ask a customer to leave if they are breaking a rule. Calling it a meager "unfair" is too dramatic. It happens all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service? While it is understandable that Starbucks doesn't want to kick out its customers, it isn't like they will go belly-up in the near future if they expel guns from their stores.
But holy God, to say that it would be unsafe to the employees to kick out people carrying guns! They are admitting that this specific group of people - the gun-carrying citizens - is unsafe. If I were a pro-gun activist, I would be horrendously insulted at such a remark. It is as safe to ask someone with a gun to leave, as it is to ask someone with a dog to leave.
On the other hand, if I were an anti-gun activist, I would be going ballistic, metaphorically. If Starbucks admits that guns or gun owners put partners in a "potentially unsafe position," then Starbucks is inviting that danger into their stores. Essentially, they would rather put their customers at risk than make their employees feel uncomfortable in asking someone to leave.
Starbucks has mucked the duck on this one. The last paragraph of their official statement states, "As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners in the middle of this divisive issue."
Too bad, Starbucks. You're already in the middle and you are only digging yourself deeper. I think Starbucks will fold on this eventually, or maybe I just hope they will. While I do not see legal gun-owners as dangerous at all, the very presence of a gun has potential for harm. I do not want them at my coffee shops. And I have heard all the arguments, and none of them change the fact that guns are designed to cause injury. Home security, personal safety, none of it has bearing on drinking coffee at a Starbucks.
I am not saying that we should ban guns. I am instead asking why it is necessary to have a gun at Starbucks. And why not eliminate whatever minimal risk there is by not allowing weapons on the premises?
Originally Published: March 10, 2010
Interesting combination of ideas here. In a strictly theoretical world, I don't have a problem with there being absolutely zero guns in a Starbucks. Of course the problem is that you cannot guarantee that will be the case unless you search everyone entering the building.
So, those of us stuck living here in the real world do what we hope is never needed: we sometimes carry tools to protect ourselves.
The author does make an interesting point, calling out Starbucks for this part of their press release:
And rightly so! This is a backhanded slap in the face of all lawful carriers... as the author correctly noted, "It is as safe to ask someone with a gun to leave, as it is to ask someone with a dog to leave."
No login is required to comment on the article.
TFred
http://uweekly.com/newsmag/03-10-2010/13921/opinion-guns-dont-belong-at-coffee-shops
Opinion: Guns don't belong at coffee shops
By Todd Seabrook
Second Amendment enthusiasts have started to congregate at some California Starbucks, boycotting other establishments that banned firearms (such as California Pizza Kitchen).
It is quite legal to carry a visible firearm in the state of California, and it is also legal for private businesses to prohibit firearms in their stores.
This is a lose-lose situation for Starbucks. Because the gun owners have picked the coffee company as a gun-friendly hangout, Starbucks has had to come out publicly with the policy of allowing guns in their stores. They did not want to do this. Their neutrality over the gun issue has been broken, and they have disenfranchised a significant group of people over an issue that has nothing to do with coffee.
But forget 'em, right? I am not fretting over the plight of a company whose business model resembles Caesar's march on Rome.
The real issue is Starbucks' reasoning. While they do say that they are only complying with state laws, they also give a more outrageous reason: Starbucks' official statement stated that if the shops were to adopt an anti-gun policy, "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."
First of all, as anyone who has ever worked in food service knows, it isn't that big a deal to ask a customer to leave if they are breaking a rule. Calling it a meager "unfair" is too dramatic. It happens all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service? While it is understandable that Starbucks doesn't want to kick out its customers, it isn't like they will go belly-up in the near future if they expel guns from their stores.
But holy God, to say that it would be unsafe to the employees to kick out people carrying guns! They are admitting that this specific group of people - the gun-carrying citizens - is unsafe. If I were a pro-gun activist, I would be horrendously insulted at such a remark. It is as safe to ask someone with a gun to leave, as it is to ask someone with a dog to leave.
On the other hand, if I were an anti-gun activist, I would be going ballistic, metaphorically. If Starbucks admits that guns or gun owners put partners in a "potentially unsafe position," then Starbucks is inviting that danger into their stores. Essentially, they would rather put their customers at risk than make their employees feel uncomfortable in asking someone to leave.
Starbucks has mucked the duck on this one. The last paragraph of their official statement states, "As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners in the middle of this divisive issue."
Too bad, Starbucks. You're already in the middle and you are only digging yourself deeper. I think Starbucks will fold on this eventually, or maybe I just hope they will. While I do not see legal gun-owners as dangerous at all, the very presence of a gun has potential for harm. I do not want them at my coffee shops. And I have heard all the arguments, and none of them change the fact that guns are designed to cause injury. Home security, personal safety, none of it has bearing on drinking coffee at a Starbucks.
I am not saying that we should ban guns. I am instead asking why it is necessary to have a gun at Starbucks. And why not eliminate whatever minimal risk there is by not allowing weapons on the premises?
Originally Published: March 10, 2010
