The big example is Starbucks, which has been selected by advocates of the "open carry" movement as a place to show up with unconcealed firearms. Open carriers and gun-control advocates (peacefully) confronted one another recently at the Starbucks in Pike Place Market.
Starbucks says it will follow the law; thus, in states where it's legal to openly carry a firearm, those customers are welcome. "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores," the Seattle-based coffee company said in a statement.
That might be an artful way to avoid controversy. Unfortunately, it probably won't work. With Starbucks' size and iconic place in corporate America, it was the perfect way for the Virginia-based group OpenCarry.org to gain international exposure for its cause.
It also received a backlash from gun-control proponents. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has an online petition urging Starbucks to keep guns out.
I found it interesting that several pro-gun writers blamed the Brady campaign for putting Starbucks on the spot. This article says, "The big example is Starbucks, which has been selected by advocates of the "open carry" movement as a place to show up with unconcealed firearms."
I was wondering though if the statement by the famous coffee chain was in fact an attempt to stay out of it. Couldn't it be construed as supportive of the gun movement? Saying they'll follow the local laws is in effect siding with the gun folks, is it not?
Where do you think this is heading? What's next?
Please leave a comment.
"I found it interesting that several pro-gun writers blamed the Brady campaign for putting Starbucks on the spot. This article says, "The big example is Starbucks, which has been selected by advocates of the "open carry" movement as a place to show up with unconcealed firearms."
ReplyDeleteWell, those several pro-gun writers are right. There are many places people open carry. Starbucks isn't "selected" anymore than Targets, Best Buy, McDonald's, Home Depot, and the businesses where people open carry.
"Couldn't it be construed as supportive of the gun movement? Saying they'll follow the local laws is in effect siding with the gun folks, is it not?"
No, because in the states where open carry is not allowed, Starbucks will follow the local laws and prohibit the open carrying of guns. That's obviously not siding with the gun folks.
"Where do you think this is heading? What's next?"
I think the anti-gunners will do what they did when they realized they couldn't prevent the law from allowing people to carry in national parks: They'll get tired and move on to a smaller, weaker target.
The Brady Campaign simply can't get together enough people to pose a credible threat to Starbuck's bottom line. However a locally owned company in a staunchly anti-gun area would be a much more vulnerable target. They could actually accomplish some damage.
The Open Carry protests did not happen until after the Brady Campaign lobbied to get Starbuck's to change their policy. It is funny how Helmke is now spinning it to the media that it happened in the other order.
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteSaying they'll follow the local laws is in effect siding with the gun folks, is it not?
I don't see how. They're in business to make money. That tends to be a lot easier if you don't go out of your way to alienate customers.
Zorro said, "That tends to be a lot easier if you don't go out of your way to alienate customers."
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is such an interesting situation is that Starbucks cannot help but alienating customers. It's a no-win situation for them, the only question is which side will hurt them more.
RuffRidr said, "The Open Carry protests did not happen until after the Brady Campaign lobbied to get Starbuck's to change their policy. It is funny how Helmke is now spinning it to the media that it happened in the other order."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that? That's not the impression I had from the reports I read which, I thought, came before the Brady reaction.
I'm just asking. I'm not sure about the timing really.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is such an interesting situation is that Starbucks cannot help but alienating customers. It's a no-win situation for them, the only question is which side will hurt them more.
How many customers will never come back to Starbucks again, unless they ban armed self-defense? Certainly not all "33,000" who signed the silly petition--some of whom are doing so only to taint it. I would, in fact, be surprised if one in ten of the signers decided to drop Starbucks if their "demands" are not met.
On the other hand, I would bet that an overwhelming majority of Open Carriers will refuse to ever part with another dime at Starbucks, if Starbucks decides to become part of this debate.
I think Starbucks has plenty of incentive to maintain their neutrality, and very little incentive to be conscripted as cannon fodder in the Brady Bunch's culture war.
It is interesting to me that anecdotal "evidence" by the "anti-gun" people is considered, rightly, as nonsense by the gun lovers while their own anecdotal "evidence" is, well, proof.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Starbucks isn't currently selling a latte to everybody who owns a gun, or everybody who doesn't, the real proof of the effectiveness of a boycott is difficult to guage in the short term. Unless of course their stores in the bay area suffer an immediate and drastic loss of revenues.
Given a choice I don't drink their coffee, anyway. Since this came up I will not drink coffee if there's is the only coffee available. I'm sure they'll be okay, the poor Dixie Chicks managed to survive after bruising the sensibilities of "REAL MurKKKins".
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Starbucks isn't currently selling a latte to everybody who owns a gun, or everybody who doesn't, the real proof of the effectiveness of a boycott is difficult to guage [sic] in the short term. Unless of course their stores in the bay area suffer an immediate and drastic loss of revenues.
Interesting, is it not, that the Brady Campaign hasn't organized such a boycott--or even threatened to? I don't suppose that would be because they know how toothless that would show them to be, do you?
I'm sure they'll be okay, the poor Dixie Chicks managed to survive after bruising the sensibilities of "REAL MurKKKins"
Whatever those are, I've become something of a fan of the Dixie Chicks, despite that genre not really being to my taste (I'm actually much more into the kind of music played by lead singer Natalie's father, Lloyd Maines, who has done some great stuff with one of my musical idols, Ray Wiley Hubbard)--but I bought some of their CDs in support of them after they got in trouble for voicing contempt for former president Shrub. They are talented, and I quite liked the "Shut up and Sing" documentary.