Brady Campaign, Starbucks, and Gun Control

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The Brady Campaign is protesting Starbuck's policy of permitting guns in-store.

The article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SEATTLE – Coffee chain Starbucks Corp. is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.

The company's statement, issued Wednesday, stems from recent campaign by some gun owners, who have walked into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. Gun control advocates have protested.

The fight began heating up in January in Northern California and has since spread to other states and other companies, bolstered by the pro-gun group OpenCarry.org.

Some of the events were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

Now, gun control advocates are protesting the policy. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones." And Wednesday, that group delivered 28,000 signatures to the coffee giant's headquarters in Seattle.

The group also held a press conference near Seattle's Pike Place Market, just a few yards away from where the first Starbucks cafe opened. Gun rights advocates showed up as well, some carrying handguns in holsters around their waists.

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.

More than a dozen pro-gun supporters, some with Starbucks coffee cups in hand, chanted during the press conference, at points interrupting speakers.

"I think the (Brady campaign is) trying to strong-arm private businesses into banning the rights of the people," said Bev Carman of Everett, Wash. Carman held a sign that said: "Criminal Control not Gun Control."

Businesses can choose to ban guns from their premises. And Starbucks said Wednesday that it complies with local laws in the 43 states that have open-carry weapon laws.

"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.

It said security measures are in place for any "threatening situation" that might occur in stores.
Starbucks asked both gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates "to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue."

Starbucks shares closed Wednesday down 27 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $23.06.

I had to bring this up. Why? I am frustrated with the Brady Campaign. This article showcases my reasons.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, launched a petition drive demanding that the company "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones."

Pointless bumper-stickers. Cute little rhyming sayings designed to bypass the logic and attack the emotions.

Is there any sort of relationship here? Do they expect Starbucks employees to start shooting? That's funny, because their stated reason for opposing Starbucks policy is that it is a danger to the employees too.

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

Vaguely referenced misinformation.

Virtually everywhere that gun freedom is increased, the Brady Campaign predicts that we are putting people in harm's way. They come up with some pretty scary scenarios too. But that's where it stops; scary scenarios.

The repeal of the DC gun ban was going to get people killed. Guns in national parks was going to get people killed. Civilians carrying guns at all will get people killed.

Yet, moving on to real life, carrying civilians have a sparkling record.

Their predictions don't come true! Let me acquaint you with a special word; a word that the Brady Campaign often uses to describe people who feel the need to carry guns.

par·a·noid (pār'ə-noid')
adj.

Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

They call us paranoid because we feel the need to protect ourselves. We are concerned that we may be assaulted. How silly! It only happens millions of times per year in the US!!!

Fortunately, there are reasoned minds [sarc] like the Brady campaign who are concerned about real issues which, for one reason or another, never actually happen. I suppose the Brady Campaign would claim that this is evidence of their success.

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.

And the final reason for gun control:

GUNS ARE SCARY!

Maybe the Brady Campaign should get out a little, broaden your severely limited horizons, and stop expecting the rest of the world to cater to your childish insecurities.

This has been going on far too long. When will people see through the Brady Campaign?

[Fluttershy]

Id feel rather uncomfortable seeing people openly carrying weapons at places like starbucks...

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Id feel rather uncomfortable seeing people openly carrying weapons at places like starbucks...

If you said that you were uncomfortable seeing black men, you'd be racist.
If you said that you were uncomfortable seeing gay men, you'd be a homophobe.

But you are uncomfortable seeing people with guns.

Unless there's a real reason for you to feel uncomfortable, then you should not restrict other people just because of a funny feeling in your abdominal region. And, according to records, there is not reason for you to feel uncomfortable.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, maybe you need to expand. Perhaps it's time you learned something new.

Now, I don't want to harass you; I only harass things that are asking for it, like the Brady Campaign.

However, I think it's a valid point that you should consider.

Only in America

Would you like to say something of value, or make obtuse nationalistic swipes for lolz?

[Fluttershy]

]If you said that you were uncomfortable seeing black men, you'd be racist.
If you said that you were uncomfortable seeing gay men, you'd be a homophobe.
[/B]
Unless there's a real reason for you to feel uncomfortable, then you should not restrict other people just because of a funny feeling in your abdominal region.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, maybe you need to expand. Perhaps it's time you learned something new.

Now, I don't want to harass you; I only harass things that are asking for it, like the Brady Campaign.

However, I think it's a valid point that you should consider.



Would you like to say something of value, or make obtuse nationalistic swipes for lolz?

im sorry I dont see the correlation between Blacks, Homosexuals and guns...

[Fluttershy]

Oops; I could've phrased it a little better.

You wouldn't openly descriminate against black people.You wouldn't openly descriminate against homosexuals.

You would be embarassed to admit that you descriminate against those people just because of a visual-mental link in your mind that tells you to fear them, despite actual evidence to the contrary.

But you would happily restrict gun owners just because there is a visual-mental link in your mind that tells you to be afraid of parkerised and nickel-plated metallic objects about yea big and such shape:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is despite the fact that, according to concealed- and open-carry records, you are not in any danger. In fact, you are safer.

Again, it's not descriminating against guns; it's against people who have every right and reason to carry guns.

im sorry but Guns were made to kill... so your whole argument is bogus. Feeling uncomfortable around people of a different skin color or sexuality is not IN ANY WAY, similar to feeling uncomfortable around someone carrying a weapon.

"people who have every right and reason to carry guns."

at this time they have the right, as for a real reason to do it? More then likely not. If a grown man needs to carry around and show off a gun to feel safe and secure then theres somthing wrong with them

You cannot restrict carry solely on the basis that it scares you.

When was people's (unreasonable) discomfort ever a good reason to breach the rights of other people?

If it makes you uncomfortable, deal with it. It won't hurt you; grow up. You might even learn something.

its not unreasonable at all... and it very well can hurt you... ITS GUN. As I said before, if you actually need a gun to feel safe its probably YOU who need to grow up, not the rest of us

[Plan C]

Oops; I could've phrased it a little better.

You wouldn't openly descriminate against black people.You wouldn't openly descriminate against homosexuals.

You would be embarassed to admit that you descriminate against those people just because of a visual-mental link in your mind that tells you to fear them, despite actual evidence to the contrary.

That's because you can't leave your skin colour in the car before you walk into Starbucks. Discriminating against people on the basis of something they cannot change is retarded. Pushing for restrictions in carrying weapons in public places is another thing altogether. Nice try.

CAn someone tell me how the UK can enforce the gun laws in Liverpool where you can buy one in about 15 minutes if you know who to ask.

Really? I think you may be fibbing here slightly, Denny. Firearm laws enforcement in the UK is one of those few things which actually work quite well. Guns are relatively scarce in London AFAIK.

[Thorn777]

Only in America.

[Gelgoog]

Only in America.

What an idiotic thing to say. Please go back under the bridge you came from.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You see Thorn? I told you that people can see right through you.

Anyways, I'm still in class so you will have to wait for my collection of references. Or you could do some research yourself, but that might be too painful.

[Thorn777]

Why a gun to fetch a cup of coffee? Faster service?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Why a gun to fetch a cup of coffee? Faster service?

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...sco&id=7190087
http://www.wnep.com/wnep-col-shooting,0,244429.story
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/350129_murder06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting
http://wcco.com/national/omaha.mall.....2.603308.html

and the list goes on...

I included some mall shootings in there; hope you don't mind.

[Thorn777]

Isn't the primary problem the people who brought weapons in to the malls? And why the hell do you want malls to turn into a grand shoot-out with loads of unarmed people, like elderly, women and children in the mids?

Sounds extraordinary retarded.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Isn't the primary problem the people who brought weapons in to the malls? And why the hell do you want malls to turn into a grand shoot-out with loads of unarmed people, like elderly women and children in the mids?

Sounds extraordinary retarded.

Honestly. Did you read the section in the OP about paranoia? OK, here's how it works. None of the people in those shootings were legally permitted to have those weapons in the mall.

BUT THE MAGIC FORCE-FIELD OF THE GODS DIDN'T STOP THEM???

That's right; even the magic force-field of the gods could not stop them. Shocking, I know, but that's why we need to broaden our horizons; it helps us shake off those old, prehistoric myths and legends.

Secondly, you have made an extraordinary mental leap between my statement and your question:

1. People with appropriate permits should be able to carry guns in malls.

2. "And why the hell do you want malls to turn into a grand shoot-out with loads of unarmed people, like elderly women and children in the mids?"

Would you like to explain to me how this resembles a logically constructed conclusion in any way, shape, or form?

im sorry I dont see the correlation between Blacks, Homosexuals and guns...

Oops; I could've phrased it a little better.

You wouldn't openly descriminate against black people.You wouldn't openly descriminate against homosexuals.

You would be embarassed to admit that you descriminate against those people just because of a visual-mental link in your mind that tells you to fear them, despite actual evidence to the contrary.

But you would happily restrict gun owners just because there is a visual-mental link in your mind that tells you to be afraid of parkerised and nickel-plated metallic objects about yea big and such shape:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is despite the fact that, according to concealed- and open-carry records, you are not in any danger. In fact, you are safer.

Again, it's not descriminating against guns; it's against people who have every right and reason to carry guns.

[Rebel Jeb]

Isn't the primary problem the people who brought weapons in to the malls? And why the hell do you want malls to turn into a grand shoot-out with loads of unarmed people, like elderly, women and children in the mids?

Sounds extraordinary retarded.

Where I live, the malls are hangouts of gangs. If you go the mall, you really, really aren't safe. There have been murders in the mall closest to me. I support protection. If somebody tries to rob a store and gets shot by a civilian with a gun permit, I applaud him for protecting himself and others. People like him are heroes. Self-defense is a right.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Here's the main thing that I see from you guys:

Don't confuse me with the facts. I know what I believe; truth can't change that.

Because EVERYBODY knows that guns are inherently bad, right?

[xcorps]

Here's the main thing that I see from you guys:

Don't confuse me with the facts. I know what I believe; truth can't change that.

Because EVERYBODY knows that guns are inherently bad, right?

Of course. If you leave a gun sitting on a table long enough, it will grow legs, walk to McDonalds, and start blasting the Fry Guy.

[BNS]

Love it how fair-trade liberal hot spot Starbucks is taking a stand.

It was probably not such a good idea to open up this kind of thread here though since many here are of the "guns are scary" type. These kind of people have probably never seen a gun never mind used one. Their impressions of guns probably come from how they are used in Hollywood. So it's not surprising to get knee jerk reactions such as:

Isn't the primary problem the people who brought weapons in to the malls? And why the hell do you want malls to turn into a grand shoot-out with loads of unarmed people, like elderly, women and children in the mids?

Sounds extraordinary retarded.

Lol.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Sounds extraordinary retarded.

You're right, you know.

You'd better try saying something else to avoid that problem.

No mental leap at all...

Instead of letting legal gunowners try and shoot illegal gunowners in crowded malls, make sure you don't get any guns at all in places where family's dwell.

We are not talking about civilian parties of hunter-killers sweeping the halls. Here's what we're talking about:

-Gunshot
-people scatter
-armed civilians take cover and prepare to defend themselves if the attacker advances

Whatever ill-founded misgivings you may invent off the top of your head, the fact remains that it has worked quite well. Civilians have very low accidental kill rates.

[Thorn777]

You're right, you know.

You'd better try saying something else to avoid that problem.



We are not talking about civilian parties of hunter-killers sweeping the halls. Here's what we're talking about:

-Gunshot
-people scatter
-armed civilians take cover and prepare to defend themselves if the attacker advances

Whatever ill-founded misgivings you may invent off the top of your head, the fact remains that it has worked quite well. Civilians have very low accidental kill rates.

BNS: Their impressions of guns probably come from how they are used in Hollywood. So it's not surprising to get knee jerk reactions such as:

Cool story broh.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Cool story broh.

Yeah I'm feeling philosophical today.

But I added some stuff in after I saw your other reply. Please read.

It was probably not such a good idea to open up this kind of thread here though since many here are of the "guns are scary" type. These kind of people have probably never seen a gun never mind used one. Their impressions of guns probably come from how they are used in Hollywood.

Hmmm you're right. Whatever shall be done? People are just bursting with stereotypes.