Saturday, August 24, 2013

Boycott Starbucks This Weekend

Skip Starbucks Saturday

Huffington Post

A gun control advocacy group pushing for Starbucks to ban weapons inside its stores is calling for a nationwide boycott against the coffee giant this weekend.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which formed in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. killings, is protesting the company's policy of allowing customers to bring guns into restaurants in “open carry” states, where residents are allowed to carry firearms in public.
The group points out that Starbucks has taken a stand on other issues -- particularly in banning smoking in front of stores -- and believes the company should now come out against guns.
“Starbucks calls themselves a progressive company but by not taking a stand on guns, they’ve become a rallying place for ‘open carry’ supporters," Shannon Watts, the organization’s founder, told The Huffington Post. The organization has named the boycott “Skip Starbucks Saturday" and plans on making it a regular event.

32 comments:

  1. If I remember correctly, the "Moms" started all of this hoopla about Starbucks by demanding that they make their stores gun free zones. The Mom's then publically voiced their displeasure when Starbucks stuck with their policy of refusing to discriminate against law abiding citizens.
    The Starbucks Appreciation day was organized by pro-gun groups to show support for Starbucks' policy. And now the Moms are trying to up the ante to show the economic power they hold.
    When I read this story several days ago, while not a coffee drinker, I decided that I'd be going to my local Starbucks and have a hot chocolate. I also made a point to go to the Starbucks website and left a comment there expressing my appreciation for them continuing to refuse to discriminate against lawful activities. I wont be open carrying because I don't normally, however, I do carry routinely.
    Starbucks got pulled into this controversy by anti-gun groups and is only continuing their long held policy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought there is already a continuous boycott in place by Elliot Finneman's 160 million members?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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
  4. It's crap coffee and overpriced. I'm eager to see if they're bottom line is affeected - if we could somehow be privy to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're publicly traded, so yes, you are privy to it. Their stock is up about 40% over the past year.

      Delete
    2. I doubt they'll see any drop. Boycotts don't work unless there is a LOT of public emotion on a subject. We haven't seen an enduring, front and foremost focus on gun control by the public, so I'd say their habits won't change much.

      As for their overpriced and poor quality coffee, it's too true, though I don't know if its poor quality beans or a lack of artistry in the preparation. Thankfully, the local hippies with the best bakeries and coffee shops haven't posted no guns signs. Like Sarge said, I routinely carry and do so concealed, so they don't get offended and we have a fine business relationship.

      Delete
    3. It's the classic problem. Gun-rights folks are passionate, gun-control folks are not.

      Delete
    4. It's hard to get passionate about evil. Corrupted, yes, but passionate, not so much.

      Delete
  5. What brave men. Push the women and children to the curb, so you can feel the power of a deadly weapon against your body. Simply not possible to leave your gun in your car, so ALL can feel safe buying coffee without deadly weapons all around them. Your right, or die. Dis me and I'll kill you for imposing on my rights. No consideration for women and children. No compromise on a little one store issue, so others can exercise their right to getting coffee without fear. There is no reason to have to bring your gun into a coffee shop, cowards. Is is you who cannot understand what it means to be a civil citizen with consideration for all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right, Steve. This describes too many of the gun guys.

      Delete
    2. Why are you being an idiot, Steve? I don't know about you, but I don't push women and children to the curb. Nor do I threaten any of them. If you're afraid of me, that's your problem. I haven't done anything to cause that. Feel free to call me names, if that excites you. I know the difference between flippant words and an actual threat. As long as you're not causing me or some other innocent person real harm, we don't have a problem.

      But do tell, Mikeb: Do you believe that getting coffee a right, or will you sneer at Steve, too, for finding rights that you don't accept?

      Delete
    3. Steve,

      If they want to post a no guns sign, that's fine. I won't go in--it's their property and their right to do so--or I'll go in on one of the occasions when I'm not armed.

      As for your comments about being in fear when buying coffee, no, I'm not particularly fearful at those times. I just have the gun already and don't bother taking it off. It's concealed, so nobody knows it's there, so they don't have to be horrified by it.

      Meanwhile, your suggestion is that I take it out, leave it unsecured in my vehicle where it can be stolen--especially if a criminal sees me disarming and knows there's a score to be had--and go inside where I can't see my car or chase a thief away. Moreover, when I'm done, I have to re-holster, either sitting in the car where it's difficult and increases the chances of an accident, or standing out in public where someone might see me handling it and freak out at the sight of a weapon that they'd never know existed if it had stayed holstered.

      And Mike, why are you agreeing with Steve? I thought you HATED the idea of guns left in cars?



      Two final questions for Steve, Mike, or anyone else who takes the "I'm offended by the potential presence of guns, so you should take my feelings into consideration and not carry" position:

      1: What other situations does that apply to? Do homosexuals need to refrain from PDA's to keep from offending those who don't approve? Do Muslim women need to stop wearing Hijabs for the comfort of people afraid of Muslims? Do non-Muslim women need to wear hijabs to avoid offending Muslims with their scandalous lack of clothing? Do people need to refrain from Flag Burning and various types of speech to keep from offending others? You keep framing the issue as one of a right to be free of offense, not of safety, so what other rights to be free of offense exist?

      2: If you ban weapons in a location, the people who care about following the law are the ones that will follow your rule. The "good guys gone bad" and the "bad guys"--to use Mike's categories--are the type that don't care about the law, so some of them will just ignore the sign (those who follow it will be making a tactical decision to not get caught). Your signs will do nothing to prevent their bringing in guns, so how do these laws make you safer? You've removed the offensive guns carried by people who follow the law and still have to deal with at least some of the guns held by people who don't care about it.

      Delete
    4. You're right, I do oppose leaving guns in cars. I was agreeing with Steve's general description of you gun nuts.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, why don't you address the main points of a comment?

      Delete
  6. Not safe in a car, then don't bring a gun at all. There is no need to for just getting a cup of coffee.
    After reading a gun carrier shot up a Starbucks bathroom, all your points against what I said are full of shit. There is certainly reason to fear when around gun carriers. If he had killed five people in that coffee shop, he would still never be found. And you call me an idiot! Go suck an egg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O.K., you're an idiot. There are almost 11,000 Starbucks shops in America. And Mikeb found one where someone irresponsibly discharged a firearm. One. Do you understand math?

      But do tell: You say there's no need to take a gun to get coffee. What if someone comes in armed and intending to rob the place? What if someone decides to kill the customers because he's got a grievance (that's for you, Mikeb) or a screw loose? I'd call that an example of a need. And what if I'm going to other places before or after getting coffee?

      More than that, where does it say that your assessment of needs determines what I get to do?

      Delete
    2. Ah, Nice. Use the example of a guy I agree should be punished severely--one mishap in the entire country on the customer organized "appreciation day"--as a reason to avoid answering the questions I raised.

      Brave Sir Robbin Ran away!

      Delete
    3. I happened to come across this ONE case. I don't search for Starbuck's stories, so i would bet there are more. Then, of course, there are the many that don't make the news at all.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, here's your lesson in logic today: The absence of evidence does not constitute proof for the event in question. Your bets and guesses count for nothing.

      Delete
    5. Ah, so you're going to back up your one case with a statement that you did NOT look to see if there are any other stories from yesterday about such shootings, but that you would Bet that there are.

      Wow.

      With logic like that, no wonder you've already convinced the entire country to go along with your gun control plan!

      Delete
  7. Now there's that famous logic. You compare people who carry deadly weapons to gays and Muslims. WOW, let me savor that that intellectual comment.

    What if, what if! You must be a scared little person, that you can't go out in public without your gun. Just stay home all the time. We can do without one more gun on the streets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, ridicule used to sidestep the issue. Ignore that the comment didn't compare gun owners to gays or Muslims, but instead used them all as illustrations to ask how far you thought the idea of giving up rights to keep from offending people should be taken.

      But apparently you don't want to address that, or are incapable of it, so you just come up with a bunch of tired old insults that Mike has already hurled at me.

      C'mon, Steve, you're not even TRYING to hurt my feelings!

      Delete
    2. Steve makes a good point and one that's at the heart of all our discussions. Guys like you who are afraid to leave the house unarmed are suffering from psychological problems. Even gun owners like Jim point out the foolishness of your actions.

      Delete
    3. Guys like you? Mikeb, it would be fun to watch you weasel out of what you said there, but who has the time.

      Delete
    4. More evidence of the Catch-22 you want to set up: You can't have guns if you have a psychological issue, and you have such an issue if you want guns in the first place.

      Meanwhile, you get another F in long distance mind reading and psychoanalysis. Afraid to leave my home unarmed? No, not at all. Did it for 22 years before I got my permit. Still do it some days when I am going places I can't take my gun (Court, some towns and parks, D.C., out for drinks, international travel etc. etc.).

      You just can't handle the idea that I don't carry the gun because I'm afraid not to, but because I've made a rational decision that it is a useful tool that is worth carrying when I can . . . and that I don't act like a scared little rabbit when I can't carry it.

      As for Jim--where exactly did he point out the foolishness of my actions? He listed a bunch of safety issues we agreed on. The only one we disagreed on was his idea that you must never carry anyplace where there Might be children because . . . he didn't give a reason, but I assume that the mind rays might harm their development.

      Delete
  8. List of Starbucks shootings that I have. Have missed any?

    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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baldr,

      You need to stop working so hard to inflate the numbers to make it look good.

      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.

      When you try to throw in stories like these to inflate your numbers, you hurt your side of the debate. Starbucks has over 13,000 locations in the US alone and much like your data about Walmart, it isn't showing a large problem.

      Delete
    2. Ok, so we have 1 accident each year in the last three years, a murder "NEAR" a Starbucks--not in it, and an intentional shooting outside a store. And that's nation wide, with HOW many stores?

      Yes, it's SO dangerous at Starbucks.

      Delete
    3. Oh, gee, you really don't pay attention:

      April 2012: That's the same incident that Mikeb was talking about

      May 2013: The shooter was a security guard hired by the shopping complex. The guard was breaking up a fight, and the "victim" was armed--likely illegally.

      July 2013: No evidence that the shooter had a carry license. In fact, it looks like a robbery gone bad.

      So, let's see: We have an incident where a security guard used his gun, a fight over a cell phone by a likely criminal, and one we've already discussed. Yup, you're down to a rate of about one licensed citizen a year doing something wrong. I'd say you missed a lot, but not what you think you missed.

      Delete
    4. Wait a minute, guys. Yesterday you said "only one" single incident had happened according to me. Now Baldr has produced a list, which is still not exhaustive.

      Too many of you gun owners are unfit. This is because the bar is set too low for who qualifies to own and carry guns.

      Delete
    5. He produces a list with one event that we were already talking about, and several events that are not relevant to the question at hand. We were discussing whether Starbucks should change its policy about allowing legally armed people in the store. The handful of events that he brought up were mostly either criminals who weren't legally armed or, in one case, was a legally armed security guard outside the store who was doing his job. That's outside the store in a strip mall parking lot, where the store's policy wouldn't count for anything anyway.

      I'm guessing that you know all of this already. The facts don't really matter to you, so long as you can create an atmosphere of fear by implication about those of us who legally carry. How's that working out for you, by the way?

      Delete
    6. Mike,

      What we Actually said was that you and Steve were making broad statements based on this one data point which was completely insufficient to guide our policy decisions.

      Now, Baldr comes along with this little list of incidents that are not related to the store policy.

      Wow, that's really compelling evidence for why the store policy is bad.

      Delete