This week’s furor over the treatment of a 9-year-old Staten Island, NY student who got in trouble for having a tiny LEGO figure with a rubber gun can be ultimately credited to the same hysteria that prompted the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence into declaring war on Starbucks.
Why do pro-gun folks love these comparisons so much? In almost every case they don't really work. In this example, I agree totally that the school principal who insisted on suspending the boy was in the wrong and acting "hysterically." But the "guns in Starbucks" issue is something else.
Many intelligent educated and reasonable people feel that the presence of openly-displayed guns in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing. Some of them may feel the gun owners are not to be trusted. Others may feel that guns in a crowded public place are too easily within reach of kids and criminals. Some may feel a tacit threat from those carrying weapons, which gets back to the trust issue. But, whatever they're thinking, aren't they free to think it? Don't they have a right to feel any way they want? Aren't they entitled to request Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy?
In fact, in most places the majority of customers probably prefer the no-gun policy. Why do the gun owners feel their rights are more important than the rights of others? Who are the hysterical ones here? Who uses phrases like "declaring war" to describe a simple petition to Starbucks?
Please leave a comment.
Actually, I am not a big fan of open carry but I am not set against it by any means. I prefer to remain concealed and not draw attention to myself. However, I also don't panic of the wind stirs my cover garment or, on a hot day, I don't cover when stopping at a gas pump.
ReplyDeleteThat said, open carry does have its uses. For one, it is a very good demonstration tactic. Just look at the attention the media gave one man doing so at an Arizona political rally. I also believe that Ohio, as well as a few other states, we would not have concealed carry if it were not for open carry walks bringing attention to the fact that there is no other alternative if you desire to go armed. We will soon see that very thing happen in Wisconsin.
My biggest objection to open carry though is the effect it can have on the sheep pens like Starbucks. This is not a public street or a political rally--it is a private business and in most states a private entity can ban firearms. All that will be accomplished with any sort of open carry demonstration is Starbucks banning all firearms including those that are concealed and were thus far not a problem.
Remember the simple masses gun math: Man with gun = bad. Man with gun and magic talisman (badge) = good.
We can't apply logic to the sheep, they just don't use it.
--Not Jade Gold
http://gunloon.com
Why do the gun owners feel their rights are more important than the rights of others?
ReplyDeleteBecause the right to have, readily accessible, an effective means of defending one's life and limb is a real right, a fundamental human right. The "right" to demand that everyone around you is stripped of that right does not exist.
Starbucks has already rebuked the Brady Bunch and said they're cool with armed patrons.
ReplyDeleteWhy do the gun owners feel their rights are more important than the rights of others?
ReplyDeleteWhat "right" of these others are you referring to? I believe the "right" you are claiming is the "right to not be offended/upset/ or concerned" and it doesn't actually exist. They have a right to "feel" anything they want, they don't have a right to deny others their civil rights because it makes them feel better. They can complain to company and vote with their feet and/or their dollars.
If I was distrustful of a racial group could I demand that their rights be denied? If I felt tacitly threatened by members of a certain religion could I demand that they be excluded? Would I be justified in demanding that all speech I didn't agree with be silenced, lest I feel uneasy about it?
We have gun laws. Those who follow those laws are not criminals, and should be afforded all of the discomforting, awkward, freedoms of citizenship regardless of how it makes other people "feel." It's called a "free society."
Would you trust a police officer with a gun in your coffee shop? Would his firearm be in too easy reach of criminals and children? The simple point is that criminals do not care about a "no guns" policy. The people that are law abiding citizens aren't a threat or a problem -- regardless of how it makes you feel.
mostlygenius asked, "What "right" of these others are you referring to?"
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we call it the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Many people feel that the bully tactics of gun owners forcing their "rights" into places they hitherto weren't allowed interferes with that.
I suppose the Starbucks example is moot now, but when it comes to places that don't welcome you and your guns, just consider the god-given, constitutional rights of those others.
"Life, Liberty & pursuit of happiness" is NOT a "Constitutional Right"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should actually read the Constitution some time MikeB.
"Life, Liberty & pursuit of happiness" is NOT a "Constitutional Right"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should actually read the Constitution some time MikeB.
I don't fault Mikeb for quoting the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution. He never claimed, after all, to be quoting the Constitution, and those are fundamental rights. However, how are they being violated?
Life? No one, to my knowledge, has been killed by the California open carry movement, or even wounded (or even threatened, except in their own fevered imaginations).
Liberty? Has anyone been abducted, incarcerated, or coerced by the open carry movement, and I haven't heard about it?
Pursuit of happiness? By all means, pursue it. The right to pursue happiness, of course does not equal the right to be happy, and it certainly doesn't equal the right to compel others not to do things that make you unhappy. Anyone who can only be happy when others are disarmed and defenseless is a sick, evil thug who deserves to be miserable.
In six months I'd like to see a study of how many Starbucks were robbed while all those people with guns were in there drinking coffee.
ReplyDeleteOpen/loaded carry was outlawed after the Security Pacific was robbed in Norco, Ca. in the 1970's.
I don't think that has slowed down the robberies.
baiteater, Thanks for the comment. I would guess the junkie armed robber who enters a Starbucks and sees open carry guys sitting around would decide not to rob the cashier.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how often that will happen over the next year, let's say?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI would guess the junkie armed robber who enters a Starbucks and sees open carry guys sitting around would decide not to rob the cashier.
I wonder how often that will happen over the next year, let's say?
No way to predict that, of course, but we do know of an armed robbery deterred by Open Carriers recently. By my math, that would put the ratio of Open Carry positive outcomes, to Open Carry-induced deaths or injuries of innocents, right at infinity. Not too shabby, eh?