I’ve always been confused by Starbucks, the great American institution and symbol of yuppies and carefree consumerism.
This is the place where the smallest cup of coffee is called a “Tall.” Depending on what you order, you can easily spend two or three bucks for a cup.
In other words, it’s the sort of place with the kinds of products mocked by right-wing opponents of vegetarians, elitism and free-range chicken potpies. That's why I was surprised to learn that some gun-toting, Second Amendment-loving customers were sitting in Starbucks, sipping tea.
He mentions the controversy within the gun rights community of whether these open carry folks actually benefit the cause, but mainly the article is pointing out the incongruity of your typical gun owner and the Starbucks atmosphere.
It just seems weird to think of Starbucks being a hangout for urban cowboys and cowgirls. You’ve got to admit that it’s odd to think of someone who spent the last few hours cleaning his gun standing in line so he can say, “I'd like a decaf grande cappuccino, with a biscotti on the side.”
Being a fan of legend, I hope he’ll add something from the tough cowboys of the Old West like, “And barista, you make that soy instead of milk ... or else.”
What's your opinion? Aside from the humor, the article points out a serious concern.
In many states, people who carry their guns openly don't need a permit or any sort of training. That’s right. No gun safety training at all. In other words, if you happen to be sitting next to someone who is wearing a gun while he spoons the whipped cream from his drink, you might want to move to another table.
Do you think this might be a place where gun laws are too lax? Not only do the States that allow open carry not require any training, more and more states are allowing "shall issue" concealed carry licenses. Doesn't this ensure that some people who should be disqualified are passing as law abiding? Is the ratio so great in favor of the truly responsible that this is just a price we must pay for freedom? It doesn't seem right to me.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Not only do the States that allow open carry not require any training, more and more states are allowing "shall issue" concealed carry licenses.
ReplyDeleteYou know what would solve this? Adding a gun safety curriculum to our public education systems. I'd wager that it would vastly reduce the amount of accidental and negligent incidents as well.
but mainly the article is pointing out the incongruity of your typical gun owner and the Starbucks atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteThat's because he's a bigot whose idea of "typical gun owner" is "stupid redneck republican"
This article is a perfect example of how some anti-gunners don’t understand who gun owners are. Like Jadegold, they can’t get past a stereotype. You are beyond that, right Mike?
ReplyDelete-TS
The only difference between shall issue and may issue is that in a shall issue state, a sheriff can't deny you a permit on the basis of your skin color or campaign contribution.
ReplyDeleteTS asked, "You are beyond that, right Mike?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess it depends on what you mean by "beyond that."
I really don't think JadeGold or any other gun control advocate is under the impression that ALL gun owners fit the stereotype. But some do. So, what I oppose is the pro-gun attempt to deny that.
About the percentages, well that's a good argument. Don't you think?
I really don't think JadeGold or any other gun control advocate is under the impression that ALL gun owners fit the stereotype.
ReplyDeleteApparently you are not familiar with JadeGuy's long history of web postings dating back to the USENET days.
AztecRed said, "The only difference between shall issue and may issue is that in a shall issue state, a sheriff can't deny you a permit on the basis of your skin color or campaign contribution."
ReplyDeleteThose aren't the only reasons. I grew up in a town of 100,000, yet the police knew lots of young people who weren't convicted felons, but shouldn't have guns. Some were druggies or bad drinkers, some were violent.
I think it could be your paranoia and sense of victimhood that makes you think the only reason the police deny folks when they can is because of "skin color or campaign contribution."
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteAbout the percentages, well that's a good argument. Don't you think?
A "good argument" among people not bright enough to realize that rights aren't subject to a debate based on statistical analysis, I suppose.
Actually, Zorro, I like the "famous 10%". It's a great argument as to why the 90% should remain armed.
ReplyDeleteLook at meteorites, I'm sure there's some evil ones out there, but that's what? 0.000001% of them?
If one out of every ten people out there are a "bad apple", then I see that as a convincing reason to be able to protect myself and my family.
Kevin says:
ReplyDeleteActually, Zorro, I like the "famous 10%". It's a great argument as to why the 90% should remain armed.
I see your point, and I agree about the immoral irrationality of restricting the rights of 9 out of 10 people, because of the actions of the 10th.
In the end, though, I don't care if he claims it's "the famous 99.9%" (rather than 10%) who shouldn't have guns--even if he could prove it (rather than the current situation, in which he can't even provide credible evidence)--restricting the rights of that thousandth guy, for the actions of the other 999, is still immoral and irrational.
Zorro said, "In the end, though, I don't care if he claims it's "the famous 99.9%" (rather than 10%) who shouldn't have guns--even if he could prove it (rather than the current situation, in which he can't even provide credible evidence)--restricting the rights of that thousandth guy, for the actions of the other 999, is still immoral and irrational."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you don't agree with Sebastian about compromise?
And, by the way, there are links to "credible evidence" in my Famous 10% post. You just don't like them.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you don't agree with Sebastian about compromise?
That's pretty much what it means. If you're going to argue, as I do, that gun ownership is a fundamental human right, then any "compromise" that treats it as less than that undermines my own position. If I am willing to allow it to be treated as a privilege, to be granted or denied by the government at its whim, then how can I expect the government to treat it any differently?
And, by the way, there are links to "credible evidence" in my Famous 10% post. You just don't like them.
I "don't like them," because the methodology looks suspiciously like guessing. Worse, there are several factors for which the numbers seem little better than guesses, meaning that each of them is potentially introducing errors into the system