ABC
Starbucks says guns are no longer welcome in its cafes, though it is stopping short of an outright ban on firearms.
The fine line that the retailer is walking to address the concerns of both gun rights and gun control advocates reflects how heated the issue has become, particularly in light of recent mass shootings.
Most states allow people to openly carry licensed guns in some way and many companies do not have laws banning firearms in their stores. But Starbucks has become a target for gun control advocates, in part because of its liberal-leaning corporate image. In turn, gun rights advocates have been galvanized by the company's decision to defer to local laws.
In an interview, CEO Howard Schultz said the decision to ask customers to stop bringing guns into stores came as a result of the growing frequency of "Starbucks Appreciation Days," in which gun rights advocates turned up at Starbucks cafes with firearms.
Schultz said the events mischaracterized the company's stance on the issue and the demonstrations "have made our customers uncomfortable."
A fine line indeed. While I can empathize how it must feel being stuck in between two groups arguing about what you do as a company. I hope they realize that their stance wont make the Moms happy. My guess is that their reward for this public statement can be best illustrated by reading the children's book, "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie".
ReplyDelete"If a hungry little traveler shows up at your house, you might want to give him a cookie. If you give him a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk. He'll want to look in a mirror to make sure he doesn't have a milk mustache, and then he'll ask for a pair of scissors to give himself a trim...."
The liberal-leaning corporate image? Does that translate into English as mealy-mouthed? The source article goes on to say that Starbucks won't ask people with guns to leave.
ReplyDeleteBut, one thing's clear. Up until this statement they were on your side. Now they're on ours. That's a big loss for you gun-rights fanatics, not that you'll ever admit it.
DeleteThey went squishy is all. They didn't say they're going to post "No Weapons" signs or try to run us off, they just got tired of the attacks in the media, and since it wasn't an issue they gave two figs for, they tossed a bone your way.
DeleteIs it a loss? Yeah, but not that big of one--to be that big a deal, it would have to be something we were really invested in. I was happy they didn't post "No Weapons" but it didn't matter much to me because I don't go there much and almost nobody else posts such signs anyway. Some gun owners will take their business elsewhere--I might, or I might still buy from them. If I do, nothing is going to change about my routine--when I carry, I almost always carry concealed, so people will keep on not noticing.
Gee, no mention of their customers getting shot in their stores? No mention of the boycott and negative press? Starbucks just found out how the gun loons use any situation to publicize their goals. Starbucks is to blame. Invite open carry gun loons, and gee, all of a sudden you have groups of gun toting loons standing around your store, not to buy coffee, but to get on TV cameras and push their ideology. Gun loons (exampled by NRA Greg the fake professor) don't involve themselves in rational behavior, that's why they are called loons. The loons have used up their welcome at Starbucks, I wonder who they will use next?
ReplyDeleteYou really don't have any points to make do you? Just a bunch of personal attacks on Greg.
DeleteI made many points that have been the subjects of posts on this site. Go back and reread the posts on Starbucks.
DeleteStarbucks is now backing away from gun loons. they have found having these loons around created just the problems Mike's past posts have highlighted, and you can reread my comments on those posts. So your comment is a lie, points made.
"You really don't have any points to make do you? "
DeleteWhat's wrong with you, T.? Jim made several good points, in particular about the people who've been shot in Starbucks since this brouhaha began. Did you miss that?
I read his post, and what I saw was a jumble of hyperbolic questions and statements that referred to discussions we have had here but which seemed more aimed at merely deriding Starbucks, Gun owners, and Greg.
DeleteIn the past Jim laid out arguments in a rational manner--his response to me, though shorter than the comment I referred to, is a much more logical and coherent post.
I ignored the hyperbolic statements in the first post and zeroed in on the comments about Greg because lately Jim has seemed less interested in arguing his position than in attacking Greg in nearly every comment section by saying that Greg is not a professor and making various other attacks on him, even if Greg hasn't commented on a post. It's this behavior that makes me take him less seriously in these posts since he seems more interested in stirring strife than arguing a point in them. When he seems interested in discussing another issue, I try to engage on it.
Right, I caught on to how serious you are when the first few comments you made to me were to call me a liar. So shove it joker. You are not serious about anything but pushing NRA garbage.
DeleteActually Jim, that had been brought up before by Baldr here,
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/08/boycott-starbucks-this-weekend.html
The only problem was that all of the events he listed either took place outside of the stores, or weren't as a result of someone legally carrying. If the events you're referring to aren't on the list Baldr posted, I'd appreciate it if you could share them.
What difference does that make. Starbucks officially changed sides.
DeleteMikes, just above you commented that Jim made some good points about people being injured in Starbucks. I responded by mentioning that all of these events that Baldr had listed in an earlier discussion were caused by people illegally carrying and some didnt even take place in Starbucks.
DeleteStarbucks hasn't changed sides. Guns aren't banned. The company has just taken the approach of saying don't carry in Starbucks unless you really want to.
DeleteI wasn't talking about whatever Baldr said. I was talking about the post Mike made about Starbucks and in one of those posts a woman was shot IN Starbucks.
DeleteJim,
DeleteIn the post I pointed you towards, Baldr supplied this list:
December, 2011: Gun concealed in purse at Starbucks discharges: Underage girl cited
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-concealed-purse-at-starbucks-discharges-underage-girl-cited
April 2012: Man unintentionally shoots Starbucks sink in bathroom with concealed handgun:
http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/
May 2013: Woman In Starbucks Drops Purse With Forgotten Gun Inside, Shoots Friend In The Leg: St. Pete Police
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/gun-in-purse-starbucks_n_3268652.html
May 2013: Man shot near Seattle Starbucks dies
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/man-shot-near-seattle-starbucks-dies/nX6YF/
July 2013: Man shoots other man at Starbucks entrance over Craigslist sale of a phone:
http://www.kvue.com/news/214130251.html
In my reply I commented on each event Baldr mentioned,
December 2011, Gun goes off in a girl's purse. I say girl because she was under 18, thinking she didn't have a permit. Doesn't fall under Starbucks policy.
April 2012, Man playing with gun in Starbucks has negligent discharge. He runs off before police arrive. No idea if he had a carry permit. Possibly doesn't fall under Starbucks policy.
May 2013, Florida woman has a negligent discharge in Starbucks when she drops her purse. Woman didn't have a carry permit, and case referred to prosecutors. Doesn't fall under Starbucks policy.
May 2013, Fight broke out in a parking lot next to a Starbucks, armed security guard tried to break up fight and ordered them to leave, one man pulled a gun and guard shot him in self defense. Dead guy's buddies all run off before police get there. Doesn't fall under Starbucks policy.
July 2013, Man shot outside Starbucks in what sounds like what has become a typical Craigslist type robbery. Man with the gun again, runs off before police get there. Doesn't fall under Starbucks policy.
I asked if the event you mentioned was something not in that list because if that was the case, then its possibly another event not previously discussed. As you can see on the list, there have been two negligent discharges by women, one resulting in one person being wounded, though in both cases, the owner of the gun wasn't legally carrying.
Greg, at his most contentious and most refusing to ever, ever agree with our side, said, "Starbucks hasn't changed sides."
DeleteIn the light of the statement from Starbucks, how exactly are they to be seen on your side, Greg? Please explain.
Mikeb, Starbucks was never on my side or yours. It took the corporate policy to remain neutral and let people follow the law of their communities. That's exactly what a corporation should do. This latest statement is just a mealy mouthed way of continuing to hold the same policy.
DeleteFake professor NRA Greg
DeleteSince when do you follow law? You have stated many times, that you would confront the drug dealer yourself with your gun, not call the police. Thanks for proving again what a hypocrite you are, or maybe you prefer the word liar.
Greg before:
Delete"Greg CampAugust 24, 2013 at 5:33 PM
I don't like Starbucks's coffee, and when I order coffee, I want a large. Not a vente. But I may have to start going to express my appreciation for the company's rational gun policy.
ReplyDelete"
Greg now:
"Mikeb, Starbucks was never on my side or yours. "
Lies are acceptable for the cause, huh, Greg?
Ah, yes. Those are two mutually exclusive statements! It's impossible that "rational gun policy" refers to Starbucks' attempt to stay neutral and merely allow people to comply with the local laws!
DeleteIf you spent less time twisting people's words and accusing them of lying, maybe you would have time to make your own actual arguments for your position.
T., do you really feel that I don't make my own actual arguments on my position? After all we've been through, do you have any doubt what my positions are on these things?
DeleteHere is another incidence of gun crime at Starbucks, though no word yet on whether the robber had a carry permit or not.
ReplyDelete"Police say Officer Michael Wolff was off duty when he stopped at a busy Starbucks at the Horizon College Plaza at about 11 a.m.
When he approached the counter, he saw a gunman at the register pulling money out."
http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/172377151.html?lc=Smart
Not sure why you bring this all up, as I said it's not what I was referring to, but have your fun.
Delete