Guns—lots of ‘em—and really strong coffee. What could possibly go wrong?
You might expect something like this from Chick-fil A, but did you know that it’s “Starbucks Appreciation Day,” as organized by Second Amendment enthusiasts in as many as 30 states? Apparently so according to the Facebook page that was set up for it. Might be a good day to test out the java at Dunkin’ Donuts, eh?
You see, this kind of obesity is contagious. The guy in the red shirt will look just like the others in a couple years. When you're continually surrounded by big fat pigs, it's easy for you to let your own eating habits go a little. Gradually, you look like them.
But for gun owners it's doubly bad. Extra large folks can't run ten steps if that's what it would take to avoid a shootout. They can't bend down or easily maneuver their bulk out of the way of a threat. They'd be more likely to resort to the last resort. For them the last resort is the only resort.
Hypocrisy is their middle name. They talk about carrying a gun for self defense or to defend their families while they eat themselves into an early grave. If self preservation were the real goal, they'd push themselves away from the table, and join the local gym.
I shouldn't even mention beer drinking. All the pro-gun commenters around here are models of responsible drinking. TS has only one beer a day. I'll bet these boys in front of Starbucks put away a few more than that.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Since you stubbornly refuse to post a picture of yourself, we're left to conclude that you must be a fat white man.
ReplyDeleteSee how erroneous thinking works? You show a picture of four men, one of whom might be Hispanic or Asian, and make a sweeping generalization of all gun owners.
Yes, obesity is a problem in America. It's more of a problem in Mexico, by the way. But there's nothing to say that it is unique to gun owners. Of course, your whole style is to eschew evidence, so why would you require facts?
Yeah, Greg, the stereotype of fat white gun owners is a completely made-up slander that has no basis in reality. Is that your position?
DeleteNo more than the fat white liberal/progressive which is another stereotype with evidence for and against it. If you were just stereotyping, that would be one thing, but you go beyond that to drawing wonderfully slanderous conclusions from your stereotypes: Gun owners are all fat, therefore they're all heavy drinking, trigger happy morons, and the exceptions will inexorably be drawn into being fat, not because that's something we fight against in our society, but because guns and gun culture does that to you.
DeleteAs for your comments about the ability to avoid a fight, your comments here and elsewhere smack not only of your own bile filled prejudices, but of a significant amount of social darwinism. Let the fatties and the disabled die--they must be disarmed because they can't flee a fight as well, and that makes them more likely to reach their last resort sooner! Especially the disabled! (Of course, you talk about them taking their last resort, not reaching it, because that sounds like a better argument until one analyzes it.)
Yes, Mikeb, that's my position. You say that most gun owners are white. Well, so are most people in America, at present. You say that they're male. More men than women in our society tend to be gearheads. You say that they're fat. That one's based on no evidence. But here's the thing: None of those things matter.
Delete"Let the fatties and the disabled die" That's what T. thinks happens as soon as someone does not have a gun. That kind of exaggerated, invented drama is the stuff of a paranoid, sick mind.
DeleteAh, yes, make me seem unreasonable, as if I think that anyone with a gun will be automatically attacked.
DeleteExcept that isn't what I said. You were talking about fat people where were attacked and couldn't run away (you have used similar logic with regards to the disabled in the past). In context, were were discussing the people who are unfortunate enough to be victims, not because they don't have a talisman, but because out of the group of victims, we're looking at the fat ones and disabled who can't run away.
When it comes to the last resort of violent, potentially lethal self defense, what do you say: "For them the last resort is the only resort." In other words, they can't run away, so they can either shoot back or die. And from this, you conclude that they should not be allowed to have guns, because they might shoot and kill the precious mugger who a more fit person could run away from, leaving both alive.
Of course, the necessary result of your set up is that, since they can't effectively fight back or run away, the poor fat person gets the shit beat out of them and possibly dies. Or the poor disabled person gets the shit beat out of them and possibly dies.
You are the person with the sick mind that would risk sacrificing the vulnerable to ensure the continued life of those who would prey upon them because of their vulnerabilities.
"Risk sacrificing the vulnerable," there you go again.
DeleteCan you not refute what I'm saying? Is that why you keep scoffing and not addressing the point?
DeleteAh yes, ignore my argument and scoff. It's your best and only ploy apparently.
DeleteIf your world were as violent as you seem to think, violent enough to assert that disarming fat people is tantamount to letting them die, then you would be shooting your way out of difficulty regularly. But you're not. That means your exaggerated claims of "Risk sacrificing the vulnerable," etc., are truly scoff-worthy as well as further evidence of your psychological illness.
DeleteAnd again you conveniently misrepresent what I said, because I did not say that disarming people in general is tantamount to letting them all die.
DeleteInstead, I'm talking about the individuals out of that disarmed population who WILL be mugged. You have said that THOSE victims, if they were armed, would have no resort but to shoot their attackers. It follows that if they are NOT armed, they will have NO method to defend themselves against death or severe bodily injury--hence the increased risk that they will, in fact, suffer such a fate.
Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that? Or are you just being obtuse because it damages your position?
"TS has only one beer a day. I'll bet these boys in front of Starbucks put away a few more than that."
ReplyDeleteMike, If these guys are such heavy drinkers, what exactly are they doing for Starbucks? I do comment the company for sticking to their guns (no pun intended) in serving all customers without discrimination. A company's purpose is to make a profit for its owner or stockholders by providing a service.
For example, you rightfully fault Chick Fil La for its perceived stance against a lawful activity, and then go right on to fault Starbucks for refusing to discriminate against a different lawful activity.
This particular lawful activity makes the customers and workers at Starbucks less safe. That's why I fault them. You can bet the policy-makers at that company are gun nuts otherwise they would have long-since banned guns at their stores.
DeleteYou can bet only that the corporate executives believe in following the law and not driving away customers. Of course, I'm guessing there weren't any robberies at that particular Starbucks yesterday.
DeleteDid Starbucks executives consider how many customers they would chase away with this policy? Now there is a call to boycott Starbucks just for this policy. Seems their politics trump their business judgment.
DeleteUnlike Chick-Fil-A, Starbucks is staying out of the fight. I see no reason to boycott it--other than the lousy coffee, that is.
DeleteJim,
DeleteMost of the gun controllers I've known fall into 2 camps--the buy local ones who already take pains to go to other coffee shops and will not impact Starbucks by "boycotting" it for this, and the latte addicts who will keep going to Starbucks most of the time because it's their old faithful and they don't think that their individual breach of the boycott will damage it.
On the other hand, if Starbucks posts "No Weapons" signs, they can be sure that they won't get business from the vast majority of concealed carriers and open carriers because those people won't be able to go in legally and don't like to have to unholster their weapon and leave it locked in their car when they can avoid doing so.
P.S. We don't like the unholstering for two reasons: The car is less secure than having the gun on our person, and as we've said before, the more you handle the gun, the more likely you are to have an accident caused by negligence or a freak mechanical failure of the gun or holster.
DeleteStarbucks purposely put themselves into the issue, to increase sales.
DeleteWhere was their consideration for customers who want to buy a cup of coffee without walking into an armed area? If there is no consideration for those customers, then a boycott is a reasonable response.
Rights come with responsibilities and consideration for their fellow citizens.
Even people who agree with the right to carry, don't want to walk into a coffee shop, a school, a church, etc. with half the people armed.
Guns scare people, rightfully so, they are deadly weapons.
If an "accident" can happen putting your gun in the glove box, it can happen jarring the weapon while you reach in your pocket for money, or catching your weapon on a counter top edge while you walk by. Curious children might walk up and grab a holster while you are talking to the clerk ordering your coffee.
More cars, more accidents. More guns, more accidents. It's a numbers game.
Knowing human nature, I don't think gun owners are impervious to accidents, any more, than any other human, but other objects you might have an accident with, don't kill.
A guy walks into a Starbucks with a basketball, he bounces it and it hits a kid in the face, bloodying his nose, an accident? Maybe the guy should not have brought his basketball into the store. Certainly it would seem more innocent to bring a basketball into a store, than a weapon made to kill.
I am not anti gun. At the same time I don't feel the need to carry my gun (I have a carry permit) everywhere I go. I don't feel threatened going into a coffee shop; and I wonder about people who feel so threatened, that they have to carry their gun anywhere they go. Especially since crime is way down all over the country. And no, I don't believe crime is down simply because more people are carrying guns. Crime is down (for a large part) because police do a better job catching and incarcerating criminals.
I don't want to take away anyone's right. I want them to use better judgment exercising their right. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I can bring my gun into my church, but it would be the last place I would.
Jim, your argument is the same kind that people have used against gay marriage or interracial marriage--we just don't feel comfortable seeing those people around us.
DeleteI'm not particularly a fan of open carry in cities. I prefer those of us who carry to conceal our guns while in public. But at the same time, when open carry is legal, the person doing it is not violating the law, and Starbucks has made the right decision.
But contrary to what you said, I have no problem with going into some place where lots of people are legally armed. Take gun stores, for example. My favorite local gun shop has armed employees. I'm allowed as an armed customer. I doubt I'm alone in that, though Arkansas doesn't have open carry, mostly, so who knows. It's a beautiful thing.
"Even people who agree with the right to carry, don't want to walk into a coffee shop, a school, a church, etc. with half the people being police officers."
Delete"Curious children might walk up and grab a police officer's holster while you are talking to the clerk ordering your coffee."
Jim, as you can see I made some minor changes. Why is it that even though you have a carry permit, you just assume that people carrying a firearm are up to no good? Do you think others think the same of you when you carry.
Your reasons for carrying are your own business and you have every right to decide when and where to carry. However, you then need to respect other peoples' decisions.
Starbucks has made a decision, as many other businesses have to provide a service to all law abiding customers.
"Where was their consideration for customers who want to buy a cup of coffee without walking into an armed area?"
Again, they chose to provide a service to ALL law abiding citizens. If someone wishes to offer a competing service that discriminates against citizens that carry, that is their prerogative. Then the customers you speak of will have a place that suits their wishes.
I'm calling concern troll on Jim and his supposed carry permit.
DeleteHowever, on the off chance I'm wrong: The point of carrying all the time is not that you feel threatened all the time, but that you are carrying in case a threat materializes.
If I feel like I'm going to be threatened in an area, I still don't go there if I can help it, armed or not.
The rules and etiquette for a deadly weapon are different than human civil rights and a false comparison.
DeleteI thought I made myself clear, it's not a matter of what's legal, but reasonable judgment.
Starbucks can do what they want and people should boycott them if they disagree.
A gun store is a reasonable place to walk in with a gun. A church, a school, etc., is not.
I never said, or assume legal gun carriers are up to no good.
You are missing my point guys, or you simply do not take other peoples feelings (negative) into consideration. Again, it's not a matter IF you can, but is it reasonable. Yes, I do believe some places, you best leave your gun at home. Are you afraid to go in public without your gun? Why?
Starbucks, through their appreciation day, is taking sides. Why don't they have an appreciation day for non gun carriers? Because the current issue is about legal gun carriers being able to go anywhere with their guns.
I almost twisted my neck trying to follow Tennessean's logic. He doesn't carry all the time because he feels threatened all the time, but just in case a threat materializes.
DeleteAs Jim pointed out, reasonable gun owners don't feel the need to carry all the time. The ones who do have psychological problems - that's my idea, not Jim's.
Gee, if you can't follow my logic there, I guess you'll never figure out why I have first aid kits with everything from plasters to trauma dressings in my car, office, home, camping gear, etc.; why I have a fire extinguisher; why I carry a flashlight, swiss army knife, handkerchief, and comb wherever I go. You must think that I expect to be constantly battered, set on fire, plunged into darkness, and have my hair messed up at every turn!
DeleteCurse those Boy Scouts and their encouraging of psychological problems!
"I have no problem with going into some place where lots of people are legally armed."
DeleteDo you ever consider than millions do have a problem going into a place where many are carrying guns?
I keep hearing, It's my right! It's my right! And if people don't like it, screw them. It's not your right I'm questioning, it's your judgment. I find it amazing that you don't understand millions have a problem, a fear, of a deadly weapon; and do not want to confront, or even be around guns, no matter how peaceful the situation. And the response is, they can go somewhere else. Sounds like a selfish child screaming it's mine, it's mine; and instead of telling the child to quit screaming, I must leave the room.
"I'm calling concern troll on Jim and his supposed carry permit."
That's cute. Avoid the issue and just call me a liar. I don't know what you mean by "concern troll" but I do have a permit to carry. I guess you don't believe that because I refuse to be armed at all times, like a GOOD gun carrying permit holder should. Am I a troll because I'm not a regular here? Yes, I am concerned.
I don't know if you have "psychological problems" as Mike puts it, but I do wonder what your fears are, that you cannot walk out of your home without your gun strapped to your body, or you feel you have to have it on you when simply walking into a coffee shop.
Why is Starbucks taking sides? We have a right to vote, but I don't see them promoting that right, as they are promoting the right to carry guns. You don't think they have a motive, like making sales (money) off a popular issue? Next election day I expect Starbucks to offer a two for one deal to those that voted, to promote voting. Do you think Starbucks would favor voting booths in their coffee shops?
Jim,
DeleteWhen I suggested you might be a concern troll, I was thinking of the second definition on Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
You see people, from time to time, who post things, usually claiming to be a gun owner but wanting to ban some type of gun. The give away is usually when they say something that shows they have no understanding of what they're talking about--e.g. they talk about banning shotguns as too powerful because all they need is their rifle to hunt ducks.
Your first post gave me the impression that this was a possibility, but if I misjudged then I apologize. It seems as though I may have misjudged since your follow up posts have stuck to your original concerns rather than tried to escalate strife as a concern troll would have.
As for your concerns, I understand that many people are made uncomfortable around guns. That is why, even though I could carry openly, I usually keep my gun concealed, even if that becomes uncomfortable for me. I once had lunch with two attorneys who worked for the Brady Campaign (can't remember if they were interns or full staff). We discussed all sorts of gun related issues from carry to the various bans they supported. Neither knew that I was carrying--they couldn't tell, and I wasn't going to let them know because I didn't want them to be uncomfortable at lunch or the rest of the conference. Why was I carrying? Partly because I simply carry whenever it's legal and it was legal in that location, and partly because I didn't want to leave the gun unattended, even locked up, in my hotel room or vehicle if I didn't have to.
You comment about how some people insist on exercising their rights despite how it makes others feel. The same criticisms can be laid at the feet of those who use other rights in offensive ways--using offensive, but protected speech comes to mind. People wearing "Fuck the Police" shirts may offend many people, especially those with small children, but there was a case where a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" was held to be protected speech, in spite of how tasteless some may find it.
I don't have a problem with being courteous and asking others to be courteous. I do dislike it when the government decides to limit the exercise of protected rights because someone might be offended. When it's a private entity banning weapons, I'll either make a special trip when not armed, or I'll take my business elsewhere--at least I have the choice.
As for why I carry daily, I don't expect to be attacked, but I acknowledge that it could happen. Having the gun would enable me to defend myself better than merely shining my flashlight in their eyes, punching, and trying to run. It also is a useful tool when I leave for or return from work if the local coyotes or foxes are trying to kill my chickens and ducks.
My gun is merely a tool that I choose to carry. Doing so means taking on a responsibility to keep it from falling into the wrong hands and to comply with a confusing set of laws. I make my choice because I see the potential benefits as outweighing the risks and responsibilities.
Regarding Starbucks taking sides, my understanding is that these appreciation days were organized by carry organizers to show gratitude for the stores not putting up "No Weapons" signs. Have there been some type of special deals offered by corporate that I haven't heard of? If not, this strikes me less as taking a side and more as refusing to take one--it's not like they posted signs saying "Concealed Carry Welcome."
DeleteHad they posted the "No Weapons" signs, they would be telling those who choose to carry a handgun that they are only allowed to come if they comply with the choices of others, and otherwise, they can go somewhere else. The same choice you are complaining about people who don't like guns being given--a choice that would be rubbed in to them if there were signs saying "Concealed Carry Welcome." By refusing to take a side and post any signs, Starbucks is trying to walk a line between the sides and allow both to come in.
Sure, there's a monetary motive here, but I think it's more about keeping business throughout the year rather than getting a bunch on these "appreciation" days customers organize.
One final comment regarding your suggestion about promoting voting by having poling places inside stores--honestly, I can see Starbucks going for that if they could--it would provide a stream of new, potential customers who would stand in line waiting to vote, and then vote, surrounded by the smells and sounds of a coffee shop--by the time I voted, I'd be dying for a good coffee!
T., I wrote a few posts a while back about meteorites. You might want to look them up. You do realize that although a meteorite strike is unlikely, the results are potentially devastating. You should take precautions.
DeleteAh, yes, and we're back to the mockery. I mentioned preparedness for various events--fire extinguishers, first aid kits, etc. You countered with Meteor strikes. Because it follows that if it's silly to prepare for something with so little chance of happening as a meteor strike, it must be silly to talk about preparedness period!
DeleteGuess I'll just toss out my fire extinguisher and first aid kits.
Or, maybe the argument you Meant to make, but failed to, was that I should only be prepared for "reasonable" threats that might require a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit, but that I shouldn't worry about lower probability threats like meteor strikes. And then, from that argument, you meant to argue that the chances of anything happening for which I'll need a gun are so small that it falls closer to the meteor preparedness issue.
Of course, this argument, which you didn't make, would fall apart, because you have suggested certain types of jobs in which carrying a gun is a valid precaution, so we're just arguing over our differing evaluations of the benefits of guns and the dangers of them, not talking about making extravagant preparations for an event with an extremely low chance of happening.
But alas, this isn't even the argument you tried to have with me. No, you just brought up meteors to make fun of the entire idea of "being prepared" in general. After all, Boy Scouts are losers, and have you seen the shorts they wear? Nerds.
Jim, we don't base rights on the feelings of a majority or a minority. Rights are basic to being human. There are lots of things that I don't like, but I'm not going to attempt to have them banned.
DeleteI carry for the same reason that Tennessean named. There is a chance of some event happening requiring me to defend myself. That chance is small, but certainly not zero. I don't go looking for trouble, and I don't stir trouble up. In this way, carrying is like wearing a seatbelt.
There's another reason that I carry. It's my right. Here, carrying is like wearing a cross or a yarmulke. It's an expression of something that is fundamentally mine. There are people who get offended by seeing religious symbols. That's just too bad.
As Reagan would say, "There you go again."
DeleteIt's mine, it's mine! That childish call again.
Carrying a gun is like wearing a seat belt? A gun is for one purpose, to kill. A seat belt is made to prevent serious harm, or death.
Religious symbols don't kill. Speech doesn't kill. Voting doesn't kill. There is no other Constitutional right that protects an instrument of death. You keep making these ridiculous, false comparisons.
Rights are not basic to being human, they are given by the legal framework of the founders. Any rights we have are based on the Constitution. A right is a legal distinction/description. Set by the morals of the people who wrote the Constitution. If the Constitution was written at a different time, it would be a different document reflecting the morals of the people of their time. God did not write our Constitution. Being black, or gay (etc) IS basic to being human, yet, rights for those humans were not written into the Constitution; and we are still fighting for those humans to be GIVEN their rights of equality.
Having read many of your comments, I think you do like to stir up trouble.
Jim,
DeleteYes, religious symbols don't kill, but people with some religious beliefs do kill because of them. Would you support a law to outlaw some religions or some denominations within them simply because of what they might motivate?
Speech doesn't kill, but unless someone is threatening imminent violence--e.g. urging a mob to go kill somebody or some group, we don't punish them. If someone wants to stand on a street corner and preach the appropriateness of Bin Ladin's interpretation of Islam, as long as he's not calling out targets and urging people to action, merely saying that the interpretation is correct, he's dancing on the line, but hasn't crossed it yet.
Plenty of rights can be Quite dangerous.
As for your definition of rights, most of us will not and cannot agree with you there. We see that there is a real, true difference between right and wrong. Human beings have rights because they are human beings. Regardless of what rights a government recognizes, it is wrong for that government to abuse its citizens--to take their property, to take their lives, to tell them what religions they can practice.
Your system, taken to its logical end, would say that it's wrong for the US government to do these things, but it would not have a problem with the Holocaust or Stalin and Mao's purges because those were done within the laws of those countries and did not violate rights that they had granted to the victims of their violence.
Moreover, since the chattle slavery practiced in America before the Civil war was Constitutionally protected and legal, your definition of rights would say that the rights of the slaves were not violated since they had not yet been given equal rights.
Now, I'm sure you are quite angry with me, so before you fire off a response, please listen to what I'm about to say, and then reread the above paragraphs: I'm not tossing out a Godwin's law violation and saying that you support the Holocaust, the communist purges, or slavery--I'm sure you oppose those things with every fiber of your being just as any decent human being does. What I am saying is that IF the only rights we have are those GRANTED to us by GOVERNMENTS and there are no overarching, inherent rights, then in these extreme, horrifying cases, there is nothing to base an argument against these actions on. Therefore, if we see these actions by governments as wrong, then we need to abandon the framework you proposed in favor of one that sees rights as inherent to humanity, regardless of what governments say.
There's still plenty of room in such a framework for us to argue to the end of time about what those inherent rights are, but if such rights don't exist then the argument is moot, and might makes right.
I'm not mad. I wouldn't even disagree with you except you are confusing what you think should be a right and what the law says are your rights.
DeleteIf a slave ran away he would be hunted down (by bounty hunters) and returned, or killed, by law.
A right is a legal thing, not inherent, but only what the law says.
Sure it's immoral to enslave, but wasn't illegal, and blacks had no right IN LAW, to object. They didn't have a legal right to be free until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. You are confusing morality with legality and legal rights.
Jim,
DeleteI understand the distinction you are drawing. What we are talking about is a moral concept to be sure, but that is a concept that there are human rights which exist as a moral principle, apart from the laws of various governments. Sometimes those governments pass laws that violate these, and sometimes they enshrine them as Legal Rights.
When we speak of our rights here, we're talking about the moral principles which have been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution--some by specific enumeration and some by the statement that the Bill of Rights was not a comprehensive listing of the preexisting rights which the government was not to violate.
It seems like you always assume the most nefarious reasons for why someone would engage in an activity that you don't. I drink wine and beer as a connoisseur, not for the effects of alcohol. I got into guns for the same reason, not because I am itching to kill someone.
ReplyDeleteYou're a connoisseur of beer? Is that like swishing it around in your mouth to judge the quality and spitting it out? Or do you also like the effect, the loosening up, getting a bit tipsy?
DeleteYou're turning into Jade, Mike. Calling out your readers by name, insulting them, noting that they deny having a bad behavior, and then insinuating that their lying and saying that even if they're not, they're the obvious exception to the rule.
DeleteYes, mike, I'm a connoisseur of high end beer. Do you think that doesn't exist? So is your blogging partner, Jadegold, by the way. Do you call him irresponsible?
DeleteMikeb, I favor British ales, particularly IPA. Fuller's makes magnificient beer. And then there was Ruddles County, one that I haven't been able to find in years.
DeleteHere's a Monty Python joke on the subject: How is American beer like sex in a canoe? It's fucking close to water.
I'll leave another one with you:
DeleteHeaven is where the music is British, the beer is German, and the girls are American. Hell is where the music is German, the beer is American, and the girls are British.
Of course, with the domestic micro-brew industry taking off the way it has over the last few decades, this isn't true anymore.
Be careful, Greg. You're running the risk of Mike calling you "irresponsible".
DeleteAlcohol and guns don't mix. Anyone who says otherwise is irresponsible, in the very least.
DeleteI prefer ales to lagers, but I will say that genuine Budweiser is good stuff. Understand that genuine Budweiser comes from the town of Budvar in the Czech Republic (a country known for its good gun laws). It's an excellent Czech pilsner, not that wretched American swill.
DeleteRegarding Mikeb calling me irresponsible, well, that's nothing new, and insults from my enemy are compliments in the ears of the wise.
And as I said, I never mix them, and you call me irresponsible anyway.
DeleteWe're not talking about mixing them, drinking booze and handling guns. We're merely talking about allowing gun owners to enjoy God's blessing of fermentation, just as we allow car owners to do the same.
DeleteGuns and alcohol don't mix the same way cars and alcohol don't mix.
Guns and alcohol don't mix, but guns and acid do.
DeleteIt's just kinda hard to get the guns back out of solution.
Greg, Mike often accuses both of us of being "nit picky", so I hope you don't take offense if I pick some nits with what you said. Budvar is the name of the primary brewery in the town of Ceske Budejovice. It's not quite proper to call it a pilsner which implies it comes from (or tries to mimic the style) of Czech beer town rival Plzen. Although very similar, you might offend some locals by calling it a pilsner.
DeleteSome fun facts: "Budweiser" is the german term for beer that comes from Ceske Budejovice (and more broadly used as a beer that mimics the style). Budvar got sued by Anheuser Busch for using "Budweiser" on the label- a term that has been used in the town for some five hundred years. In a case of double irony, Anheuser Busch is actually the older brewery, it was only the town that unofficially used that term for its beers. Of course for US courts, all that mattered is who trade marked the name first here, and AB had them beat by about a hundred years. They are not even allowed to use "Budvar" on the label here, hense why it is called "Czechvar" in the states.
"Guns and alcohol don't mix the same way cars and alcohol don't mix."
DeleteI'm afraid it's a bit worse than that. People who are drinking and have no intention of using either their car or their gun are fine up intil the moment they say "fuck it" and decide to do it anyway or up until the moment when an emergency arises that requires the car or the gun.
A drive to the hospital, for example while half-drunk is probably not going to end in disaster. But suddenly having to defend yourself or your family from a robbery or a home invasion while half-drunk is asking for trouble. You'd be less capable of exercising self-defense and more likely to kill someone unnecessarily or accidentally.
So, although a driver can claim to be responsible even though he drinks, a gun owner cannot.
Mikeb, stop embarassing yourself. Or is it that you're so deep in nonsense that you don't even know you're doing it?
DeleteTS, I was trying not to get too technical. Mikeb hates that.
I don't understand. You made two points about cars and alcohol that you also made about guns. One, that the car owner will say "fuck it" after a few beers and go for a joy ride. And two, that an emergency might come up (equating a hospital trip with a home invasion). But you just kind of waved a hand and concluded that car owner can drink responsibly and the gun owner can not. You deternined that a buzzed driver can get to a hospital ok, but a buzzed gun owner will blow away their two kids after hearing glass break. How did you get there?
DeleteBut let's talk about that home invasion scenario. A gun owner has had a beer- maybe even two. An invader smashes through the door and comes after the home owner. Are you saying they'd be better off without a gun? All other defensive techniques will also be marginally diminished (knife fights, MMA skills, dialing 911), even moreso than guns since guns are easy to use. Why isn't this an admonishment of all alcohol consumption in any situation?
And I finally want to add how you have clearly stated on numerous occasions how the home invasion scenario is such a remote possibility that it is no more worthy of preparedness than preparing for a meteor strike. It is statistically nil to you, but you are using it as an argument to call someone irresponsible.
I can't say any of that better than TS, but I'll add one thing to it: You state that an intoxicated person is less likely to hurt someone with a car than a gun. I'm not going to argue with you that one is more or less likely to result in collateral damage; Instead, I'm just going to note that if I argued that the gun was safer to operate impaired, you would claim that I'm showing terrible bias, yet you make a similarly unproven statement. But I'm sure that your statement doesn't show any sort of bias on your part...
Delete"Why is Starbucks taking sides? We have a right to vote, but I don't see them promoting that right, as they are promoting the right to carry guns. You don't think they have a motive, like making sales (money) off a popular issue?"
ReplyDeleteI think you are misunderstanding something here. Starbucks didn't organize this "appreciation day". It was something developed by pro-gun groups. Starbucks was just running a business of providing services to all law abiding customers without discrimination.
If you want to be picky, the anti-gun types made this a big issue when they publically called out Starbucks for their policy, hoping the threat to their bottom line would force them to change. Starbucks refused to play into the game. The pro-gun types then planned this day to "thank" Starbucks.
"I find it amazing that you don't understand millions have a problem, a fear, of a deadly weapon; and do not want to confront, or even be around guns, no matter how peaceful the situation."
Many of us who carry regularly as I do understand this. In Minnesota, a permit holder isn't required to conceal their firearm like say Florida is. However I prefer to conceal, as most permit holders do, though mainly for other reasons besides other peoples' comfort.
So the challenge is that as you say millions of people being fearful or nervous around firearms. Some people have other fears of things that are legal. They are perfectly welcome to live within the confines of their fears, or to learn how to overcome those fears. And while some might have a valid reason for them, it doesn't obligate me to relinquish my liberties to make them more "comfortable".