PDA

View Full Version : Wash. Times Editorial: Packing a gun in Starbucks


Liberty1
03-16-2010, 12:21 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/10/packing-a-gun-in-starbucks/

Packing a gun in Starbucks

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

If you want to have a nice, relaxing cup of coffee in a safe environment, try Starbucks. The coffee-shop chain, generally known for environmentalist chic, is probably one of the safest places to hang out these days for a reason that doesn't fit its image - Starbucks is letting customers openly carry guns in its stores. Americans thus can enjoy their rights and wash them down with a Frappuccino.

Not surprisingly, Starbucks has taken some flak for its stand. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that has supported gun bans in Washington and Chicago, wants guns kept out of Starbucks. Collecting signatures from across the country, the gun controllers announced this week that they have gathered 28,000 signatures to try to pressure the bean sellers to hang fire. What the Brady Campaign actually did is misfire.

Here is some free PR advice for those who support gun bans: 28,000 signatures from a country of 200-some million adults is embarrassingly small. The National Rifle Association, with more than 4 million members, could collect that many signatures for the opposite position in less than an hour. It's obvious which side won this duel. Despite all the harping from the left, a spokesman for Starbucks said last week that the company is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal.

From sea to shining sea, the climate for guns is changing, and the progress extends beyond Starbucks. Major retailers such as Home Depot, Best Buy and Barnes & Noble apparently also are friendly to people who openly pack heat, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Brady Campaign warns businesses that allowing customers to carry guns will scare away other customers. Yet it seems pretty obvious that the businesses themselves - despite all the pressure they face from trial lawyers and bureaucrats to ban guns - are in a much better position to know what their customers want.

Hollywood and the liberal media have skewed public perceptions to such a degree that most Americans probably don't realize that not so long ago, people openly carried guns without a second thought all the time. Up until 1969, all but one of the public high schools in New York City had rifle teams. Thousands of students carried their rifles every day on subways, buses and streets on their way to school, when they went to practice in the afternoon and on their way home. The students would store their guns in homerooms in the morning and then pick them up in the afternoon. In more normal times, no one thought it was a big deal.

Liberals claim they believe in science, but guns vividly illustrate their intellectual blinders. There is not a single refereed study by criminologists or economists using crime data from across America that shows that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime. The academic debate in refereed journals has been over how large the benefits are.

Here is a prediction: In a very short time, all the furor over Starbucks' pro-gun policy will be forgotten. The gun grabbers might not like it, but most Americans respect the right to keep and bear arms - even in a coffee shop.

Dr Rockso
03-16-2010, 12:39 PM
Here is some free PR advice for those who support gun bans: 28,000 signatures from a country of 200-some million adults is embarrassingly small. The National Rifle Association, with more than 4 million members, could collect that many signatures for the opposite position in less than an hour.

I'm glad somebody pointed this out. If our side wanted to petition for the converse it would only take a few mass emails from gun rights organizations, gun forums, and maybe some shooting retailers to vastly exceed their 28,000. Doing so would probably be counterproductive since Starbucks doesn't actually want to be a battleground in the pro-gun/anti-gun fight, but it is clear which side has superior numbers.

JDoe
03-16-2010, 12:44 PM
Good Post...I liked this part towards the end of the editorial.

Up until 1969, all but one of the public high schools in New York City had rifle teams. Thousands of students carried their rifles every day on subways, buses and streets on their way to school, when they went to practice in the afternoon and on their way home. The students would store their guns in homerooms in the morning and then pick them up in the afternoon. In more normal times, no one thought it was a big deal.

"In more normal times, no one thought it was a big deal." :thumbsup:

The gun grabbers might not like it, but most Americans respect the right to keep and bear arms - even in a coffee shop.

Anything else would be, well, Un-American.

Vtec44
03-16-2010, 1:05 PM
Wow, that is a real article. I can't believe my eyes.

Paragun
03-16-2010, 1:16 PM
It is a great article, but as you know it's just politics. Last year you would only hear about the "bad" guns and the need to ban them all. But now many realize that people are sick and tired of crime and the lack of law enforcement. Not to mention more and more people are starting to read and learn about our rights and the Constitution!
So now you see the trend in news articles, Your rights and the need for guns so law abiding citizens can protect themselves.

aileron
03-16-2010, 1:47 PM
There is not a single refereed study by criminologists or economists using crime data from across America that shows that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime. The academic debate in refereed journals has been over how large the benefits are.

That is a very powerful sentence hidden in there. Incredible article, I didn't believe I would see the day. :)

I could of done without the liberal bashing, it would appeal to folks sitting on the fence much better if they would say anti-gunners, or those who oppose gun ownership, or something to that effect. Framing it as liberals and conservatives is stupid, and polarizes the stance, and the papers political leanings.

woodsman
03-16-2010, 2:12 PM
How I long for "more normal times" again.

Steyr_223
03-16-2010, 2:13 PM
ehh..It's the Washington Times.. Now, if this was an New York Times or L.A. Times it would have been truly great..A turning of the Tide..

" The Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon"

They are just playing up to the conservative readers..

campperrykid
03-16-2010, 2:36 PM
We are winning.

www.saf.org

www.nra.com



And since I live in an objective criteria ( shall issue ) state -- I don't bother with defensive open carry.
;)

Mulay El Raisuli
03-16-2010, 3:34 PM
How about that? The UOC events are actually having a positive effect. Just like we said they would. So, while we won't claim all the glory for the change in attitude, we can rightly claim some, or maybe even a great deal of it.


The Raisuli

Dr Rockso
03-16-2010, 3:44 PM
How about that? The UOC events are actually having a positive effect. Just like we said they would. So, while we won't claim all the glory for the change in attitude, we can rightly claim some, or maybe even a great deal of it.


The Raisuli

This article is talking about open carry nationally, which for most of the country means loaded open carry. The opposition to UOC in CA amongst gun owners is purely strategic, and basically boils down to the idea that we don't need this particular fight right now (especially in the pre-incorporation era).

campperrykid
03-17-2010, 4:32 AM
This article is talking about open carry nationally, which for most of the country means loaded open carry. The opposition to UOC in CA amongst gun owners is purely strategic, and basically boils down to the idea that we don't need this particular fight right now (especially in the pre-incorporation era).

Bingo.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-17-2010, 4:53 AM
This article is talking about open carry nationally, which for most of the country means loaded open carry. The opposition to UOC in CA amongst gun owners is purely strategic, and basically boils down to the idea that we don't need this particular fight right now (especially in the pre-incorporation era).


Loaded or not is irrelevant. Its the "Open" that bothers people.

As it happens, the reason I push for Open Carry events is also strategic. The first important thing to keep in mind, for strategy, is that the stand down FAILED. Calgunners did so, but many others didn't. Now the choice is to either rail against UOCers & hope they stop, or deal with the world as it really is. Which is the better strategy?

Second most important thing to keep in mind is that the UOC events are actually achieving good results. The sky is NOT falling. Instead, minds are being changed FOR us. Should we continue to build on the successes, or stop (keeping in mind that others won't stop)? Which is the better strategy?

In short, whether we like it or not, want it or not, we have this fight. That being reality, its time to fight it.


The Raisuli

aileron
03-17-2010, 8:50 AM
Loaded or not is irrelevant. Its the "Open" that bothers people.

As it happens, the reason I push for Open Carry events is also strategic. The first important thing to keep in mind, for strategy, is that the stand down FAILED. Calgunners did so, but many others didn't. Now the choice is to either rail against UOCers & hope they stop, or deal with the world as it really is. Which is the better strategy?

Second most important thing to keep in mind is that the UOC events are actually achieving good results. The sky is NOT falling. Instead, minds are being changed FOR us. Should we continue to build on the successes, or stop (keeping in mind that others won't stop)? Which is the better strategy?

In short, whether we like it or not, want it or not, we have this fight. That being reality, its time to fight it.


The Raisuli



Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word is of military origin, deriving from the Greek word strategos, which roughly translates as general.[1]

In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics.

You need to think strategically on this, which others have, and have figured out a plausible timing issue for victory. They see permanent defeat for open carry if you don't wait. Patience.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-18-2010, 5:50 AM
You need to think strategically on this, which others have, and have figured out a plausible timing issue for victory. They see permanent defeat for open carry if you don't wait. Patience.


The problem being that I do have patience. I am waiting. There are a whole of other people out there NOT waiting. Is it good strategy to keep ignoring this? Good strategy to keep hoping that they'll stop?

Or would it be good strategy to accept that not all gunners are Calgunners?


The Raisuli