Last updated on 2014.03.31
I saw a t-shirt like this at a Libertarian prepper Army surplus store just across the street from a Starbucks:
I'm betting that gun-loving shop owner is getting his frappuccino fix elsewhere this morning. Sick of seeing his corporate logo co-opted by political poseurs, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz served up this civic-minded tweet last night:
We are respectfully requesting that customers not bring weapons into our stores. Here’s why: http://t.co/tKLw2nImvo
— Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) September 18, 2013
Schultz's request isn't an official corporate ban, but it departs from the previous company policy of defaulting to local and state regulations for in-store gun policy. But Schultz says that the provocative display of weapons in his stores, as well as some of the vocal anti-gun activism drawn in response, doesn't fit the inviting "third place" atmosphere Starbucks sells:
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.
I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors [Howard Schultz, CEO, Starbucks Coffee Company, open letter, 2013.09.17].
Schultz's statement and policy change reinforce a point frequent reader Rick and I were making in the comment section a couple months ago while discussing the July 27 open-carry march to Starbucks in Sioux Falls. Rick said that he was offended and intimidated when a man openly carried a gun onto his property during a garage sale. Pro-gun commenters told Rick not to be such a sissy: if he didn't want the gun on his property, he should have just asked the guy to leave.
Libertarians want to believe that they can do whatever they want, like carrying a gun in the open, wherever and whenever, without accepting the impact those actions have on others. They tell us not to be afraid of trained, law-abiding citizens carefully and manfully displaying constitutional firepower.
But CEO Schultz is saying the same thing as Rick and I: there is a difference between a conversation with a dude and a conversation with a dude with a gun. The presence of a gun fundamentally and unavoidably changes the power dynamic of an interaction. Words an employee might sensibly say to enforce company policy become a potential mortal risk when directed at an armed individual. Guns send a message that is inimical to civic discourse, education, and faith in democratic society, and that message has consequences.
Schultz has every right to create the store atmosphere he wants by asking customers to leave their intimidating weapons outside. Devotees of firearm intimidation have every right to take their business elsewhere.
But Schultz's policy change makes one thing clear: carrying a gun is not merely an exercise of an individual liberty. It is a social act, aimed at impacting others. And when an action impacts others, we have the right to regulate it through business policy and law.
Update 14:50 CDT: Libertarian blogger and gun activist Ken Santema earns his rationality points for the week by commending Schultz's "sensible" request.
Update 2014.03.31: I've got to turn off the comments on this post, since it's drawing heavy spam (from France!). I apologize for the inconvenience. If you'd like to post a comment here, please use my Contact form, and I'll post your thoughts.
Good for Starbucks. Two months ago watching open carry proponents strolling down Minnesota avenue pushing a baby stroller with one hand and supporting a rapid fire killing machine with a 30 round clip in the other just did not feel like mom and apple pie to me.
Easy to see why Starbucks is finally getting the picture.
“But there’s nothing quite like stirring in your cream with the barrel of a .357.”
From The Onion
Schultz said police officers are still welcome. I guess carrying a gun while wearing a uniform is OK, even if there's still that fundamentally altered power dynamic of which you speak...
There is a lot to be said for context.
It is one thing to carry a firearm for whatever lawful reason.
It is totally different to carry/display it just to piss off people.
Wayne, yes, a conversation with an armed police officer is fundamentally different from a conversation with an unarmed police officer or regular citizen. There is also a difference in the authority we grant to police officers under the social contract.
MC, good morning! I'll even agree with you: carrying a gun just to piss people off is very different (and, do we agree, a very wrong reason to carry a gun?). But even if you are carrying for a lawful reason, the impact on civil discourse remains.
And note too that the context you're talking about requires mind-reading. Schultz's employees aren't mindreaders. He doesn't want them to try to read minds... or, more practically, to question customers about their intent in carrying weapons into the store. He wants to avoid that stress for workers and customers alike by asking that folks just not bring their guns into the store.
Besides, how often does one really need a gun at Starbucks?
So is everyone carrying a gun just to piss people off? Do gays kiss in public just to piss people off? How about nursing mothers in public? How about blacks sitting at the front of the bus? Women voting in elections?
You can't define the norm of those exercising their rights by the fringe. The existence of civil discourse remaining from someone who respectfully exercises their rights is simply an indication of the irrational fear and ignorance of those offended. I can assure you Cory, you don't need to worry about the gun on my hip if we are talking face to face. If you stumble into the wrong neighborhood of Rapid City, you may want to worry about the gun you can't see in the gang banger's waistband.
red state failure on parade.
Careful DB, with that big iron on your hip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IONyLZn0pLI
Cory, How often do you need to carry a sidearm into Starbuck's? That depends on the location of the store, time of day, and what is going on at the time. Besides there are much better places to go besides star bucks to get some coffee.
Just a quick note, I am a little envious of you, as some the best coffee houses are in your neck of the woods.
BTW, We can agree, walking around with a firearm just to see how many people get pissed off is indeed a very wrong reason to carry a gun.
"BTW, We can agree, walking around with a firearm just to see how many people get pissed off is indeed a very wrong reason to carry a gun."
The problem MC.....the hard laced anti's view any 2nd amendment gathering/display as people who are trying to piss off others and not bring awareness to exercising their rights. It's like listening to senile anti-gay people complaining that they do gay pride parades just to piss off the straight people. I'm sure those types of people exist at these events, but don't blanket all participants as such.
"Careful DB, with that big iron on your hip."
"big iron"....don't worry Jerry, no need to sensationalize a gun anymore than it is nor try to purport some sort of thinly-veiled insult as to the possibility of a napoleon complex or some sort of over-compensation. I know that is quite a common trend among anti's.
Yikes.
Just to set the record straight DB we aren't "anti-" gun. We're just after reasonable gun control.
Something the "lovers" can't get a grasp of.
Bullied as children, poor self identity, paranoia, weight problems: how dat, DeeBee?
I might live to regret this but here it goes.
Okay Owen, what do you consider reasonable gun control?
What the Colorado legislature passed is a good start.
This sounds good to me. Don't see anything that says somebody is coming to get your guns.
•The expansion of the assault weapons ban to include military-style semi-automatic firearms like the one used in Sandy Hook.
••A limit on magazine capacity so that a semi-automatic weapon would no longer have the ability to fire dozens of bullets without having to reload.
•A requirement that each and every gun purchase include a background check to prevent the purchase of guns by ineligible persons.
•And an end to the black market sale of guns, particularly in our largest cities, where the vast majority of murders with firearms occur each year.
The black market might be impossible to end but we have to try.
What would you propose Owen? "Reasonable Gun Control" can vary widely between individuals.
http://legiscan.com/CO
Military style is merely an indication of color, folding stock, or handgrip. It is just a buzzword to sensationalize the same guns most of us hunt deer with.
Clip size I can understand, but I honestly don't think it would matter in a situation where someone wants to cause harm.
What good is a background check if they don't punish violators who knowingly attempt to purchase a gun illegally?
Now, I'll give you my ideas for gun control.
1. Enforce the current gun laws. Switch enforcement from hovering over dealers with a microscope and start chasing those who do straw purchases or attempt to purchase a weapon when they knowingly know they are not able to own one. AKA, felon or mental issue.
2. Make states compliant with the national mental health database. This already exists. This will have some major hurdles with privacy concerns though. States weren't submitting the data before b/c of fears of things like HIPPA and the like.
3. Require a reasonable amount of security for weapons of gun owners. I live alone, so my house is my safe. However, those who have kids or people who have access to weapons, require them to be locked in a safe or have trigger locks. If that isn't possible, require the firing pins to be stored separately. This would require hurdles for offenders to obtain weapons and it would provide a reasonable level of safety. If you don't follow these simple rules, then the owner should maintain some responsibility in the event of a crime or injury discharge.
4. Make an open gun database that would allow any individual to check to see if a sale can be made. It would not display details on the individual, just a simple yes or no answer.
Overall, I don't think it will change a thing either way. Whether it is a gun in a classroom or a bus on a boardwalk, people set out to do harm will do so regardless of the means.
of course you mean "anti" as in anti stupid and that is exactly what I am. Guns are cool with me, just be responsible. When you pack a big iron on your hip, you are telling me that you are a not a sane normal person, you are a coward that needs this to intimidate. Last I checked, we employ police officers to do exactly that, to keep the peace. Did ya like the video I sent to you? That is what can happen when you get all full of yourself.
"When you pack a big iron on your hip, you are telling me that you are a not a sane normal person, you are a coward that needs this to intimidate."
That's the irrational fear that I am talking about. There is a only a couple weeks out of the year that I open carry, and so do the others in my hunting group. Carrying a sidearm is recommended by the local authorities and doing so concealed would be illegal without the proper permits which some don't have. Most respectable gun owners do not open carry to instill fear in others like you propose.
Living alone: insufferable, my bet.
So just among your drinking buddies while you are hunting, correct? Nothing wrong with that while you are in a hunting shack drinking Makers. I am speaking of being in a public place DB, much different that when you are out in the country. In a civilized country like say, America, that big iron has no place being packed openly by you or anyone one else as that infringes on my right for peace and tranquility. It speaks loudly that you are in fact afraid of your fellow citizens, so much so that you would engage them with your big iron if you felt in the least intimidated. That makes little sense to this gun owner. Are you a hunter or a killer, how the hell would I know that? That may make me intimidated to the point of challenging you. Then what?
I don't trust or want to be around anyone carrying a gun, including policemen. Period.
There are far too many cases of late where these men that have been hired to "protect and service" have killed people, usually minorities, because they ignored their training and "went off" on innocent people and those that were simply seeking an officers help.
Such accusations. You aren't even worth the time it takes for civil discourse.
DB
Facts are not considered accusations
DB. Can you give us a source on this one?
"Carrying a sidearm is recommended by the local authorities."
I would find it interesting to hear who those authorities were. I'm assuming you are talking law enforcement...right?
DB. I do salute you for your position on shadow buyers etc. I wish the NRA would stop with their insane paranoia and go after the bad ones that are the exceptions to the rule and drag everyone else...like my dad...down.
...yet, DB, those open carriers do instill fear. They send the message that they are afraid of something, that they don't think civil society can sufficiently protect them. They cause others to experience fear as well... and the fear that a loaded gun may go off or that a person carrying a gun may use that gun is far from irrational.
MC: envious? Sure—if only I drank coffee.
And DB, please don't try to equate voting, kissing, breast feeding, or civil rights protests with carrying a gun. Again, carrying a gun to provoke others is irresponsible, unlike any of the examples you throw in to muddy the issue.
"DB
Facts are not considered accusations"
Oh so I'm a drunk with a gun. Care to provide those facts Roger? I wasn't talking about your policeman rant. Frankly, the police are trained to pick up the pieces, not protect you from someone killing you. I don't have faith in god or some other human to "save" me.
"DB. Can you give us a source on this one?
"Carrying a sidearm is recommended by the local authorities."
I would find it interesting to hear who those authorities were. I'm assuming you are talking law enforcement...right?"
Jana, when you are in the sticks of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, or Canada.....you wear a sidearm. I'm not going to hide it when I hit the gas station on the way out and the restaurant on the way in, nor anywhere in between. It would be irresponsible to remove my gun as a car is not a proper storage area. It is safer on my hip.
"..yet, DB, those open carriers do instill fear. They send the message that they are afraid of something, that they don't think civil society can sufficiently protect them. They cause others to experience fear as well... and the fear that a loaded gun may go off or that a person carrying a gun may use that gun is far from irrational."
They instill fear into irrational people. I do believe that. It's a fear that shouldn't be a fear in the first place because they are not going to use the weapon on law abiding people. As I said before, you are more likely to be killed by the punk hiding the gun, than the guy wearing it on his hip.
"And DB, please don't try to equate voting, kissing, breast feeding, or civil rights protests with carrying a gun. Again, carrying a gun to provoke others is irresponsible, unlike any of the examples you throw in to muddy the issue."
So why do you get to decide if they are carrying to provoke others? Why do you get to make the generalizations and I can't do the same? Muddy the issue? It's not different when people are throwing their rights in your face for whatever reason. Why should one group be more tolerant than the other? Who are you to say gay rights and public breastfeeding gets a pass to do that while gun owner's can't do the same to bring awareness to their issue? You seem to think that the rights you support are the only thing that can be shown in public to make a point. How tolerant of you.....
Leith, ND wants you, DeeBee.
Not the whole town, IP
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/protesters-go-home/article_fde4725a-2406-11e3-963a-001a4bcf887a.html
Saw that, Leo: story just ran on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio, too.
A drunk, gun-provoking, white supremacist. Anyone else have some insults to add? Might as well get them all out there since I am such a horrible person.
Join a ketamine study: depression kills.
I thought of something Kal Lis, what if the dude is just a fake and will leave if someone buys his property for a huge profit? That would be about as good of an idea as I have seen. He has the pot stirred and people are upset over his remarks and "plans".
The ketamine study IP, lol, you rule.