No Guns in Starbucks

Black Swan

Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO, requests that customers no longer carry guns into their coffeehouses or outside seating areas. Apparently groups from both sides of the gun control/gun rights issues have used their stores in the past to demonstrate their positions, putting Starbucks in a sometimes controversial position. Schultz calls this a request to his customers, and has not yet posted official signs banning guns in his 7 thousand coffeeshops.

What will be the reaction of the US gun rights and US gun control customers?

**Can I still order 3-shots of espresso?

SupaNova2

Starbucks have a right to set the rules on their own premises, many pro gun carry would accept that, especially if they are coming from a libertarian angle. Seen a joke on twitter that made me smile:

"Got kicked out of a gun shop for open-carrying a Starbucks."

Overheal

You know this came up as a stray thought when I woke up this morning, this move from starbucks.

What I worry about is that they have made themselves a target for the next shooting incident, with someone walking into a starbucks expecting it to be a gun free zone.

Black Swan

Starbucks plans to buy ads in major national newspapers explaining its decision to discourage carrying guns in its 7 thousand coffeeshops.

Amerika

I listened to the Starbucks issue reported on NPR this morning. They didn’t disappoint in their slant, and as usual missed the mark (IMO).

The Starbucks CEO fired off a mere request, not a ban (which would have been within his legal right for his business). Schultz has made it a policy of respecting state gun laws in his stores, which has infuriated the Left. He fears the Left... all businesses fear the Left. His request is little more than sound economic maneuvering to head off and pacify the Left before they go batsh!t crazy. Done before the Left incorporates their usual tactics of mounting campaigns to put pressure on corporations, by organizing boycotts and influencing the media (which is all to eager to help), in order to get what they want. And staying on the Left’s good side is good for business.

Black Swan wrote: »

**Can I still order 3-shots of espresso?

Don’t be gun shy... order that triple shot, even while packing your Smith & Wesson Model 637, 38 Special with pink grips. You won’t be turned down! Although I might suggest trying their pumpkin spice latte, which is a favorite this time of year with the urban outdoor enthusiast.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

What will be the reaction of the US gun rights and US gun control customers?

Some will boycott, but it will blow over quickly once the entire issue is all but forgotten in a couple of weeks and those small numbers of gun rights advocates realize it didn’t impacted their 2nd Amendment rights in the first place, and the gun control customers will be happy that the attempt was made.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I listened to the Starbucks issue reported on NPR this morning. They didn’t disappoint in their slant, and as usual missed the mark (IMO).

The Starbucks CEO fired off a mere request, not a ban (which would have been within his legal right for his business). Schultz has made it a policy of respecting state gun laws in his stores, which has infuriated the Left.

Lulz. No, quite clearly any rational analysis simply doesn't indicate that this has 'infuriated' the left, however much you may wish that it actually did.

He fears the Left... all businesses fear the Left.

Such an active imagination! No, not all businesses fear this ill-defined Boogieman you've dreamt up, "The Left".

His request is little more than sound economic maneuvering to head off and pacify the Left before they go batsh!t crazy. Done before the Left incorporates their usual tactics of mounting campaigns to put pressure on corporations, by organizing boycotts and influencing the media (which is all to eager to help), in order to get what they want. And staying on the Left’s good side is good for business.

What a quaintly myopic and inaccurate statement.

"The (capital L) Left"! Ahhhhh!!!!!!! RUN!!!!

sin_city

Starbucks should stay quiet on this type of stuff. If it is known as a gun free cafe, it will also been known as an easier place to rob cafe to would be thiefs

Manic Moran

It's a request, not a policy.

They will continue to serve armed persons, and will not call the police. That said, it is certainly a public change.

Amerika

All in all I just don’t get the allure of open carry. I have never done it and (barring anarchy) never would. I wouldn’t want to make others feel uncomfortable or uneasy. And I’d say 99.999999% of the people around where I live feel the same as I do, even though for many guns are a way of life and there’s staunch 2nd amendment rights support.

Black Swan

No boycotts or protests have occurred yet by the pro-gun lobbies regarding Starbuck's request not to carry guns into their coffeeshops. This may agree with the observation that many gun rights advocates also favour private business rights to make such requests.

There have been some humourous columns, like the "One grande argument" in the Chicago Tribune, where there appeared to be a fictional exchange between the author and a java drinking friend (obviously slanted to favour one side of the argument).

From personal experience, some coffeehouses are grand for debating both sides of such politically charged issues, especially after having a bit too much caffeine. I have not been drawn to Starbucks for such exchanges, but rather to those java enclaves lacking the corporate atmosphere of Starbucks. I'll be at one tonight, and there's a good chance that we'll sniff this smoking gun.

Amerika

See... All but forgotten!

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

See... All but forgotten!

Just like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy died following the election. Then again, if anti-gun display in public mood follows the pattern of anti-smoking in public regulations in America, store-by-store chain, city-by-city public buildings, and state-by-state public buildings, then the gun rights lobby may have some long term concerns. I'm still upset about Ireland outlawing my katana in public.

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

Just like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy died following the election. Then again, if anti-gun display in public mood follows the pattern of anti-smoking in public regulations in America, store-by-store chain, city-by-city public buildings, and state-by-state public buildings, then the gun rights lobby may have some long term concerns. I'm still upset about Ireland outlawing my katana in public.

No smoking is a law, no guns is a request. No need for protests. They can still go into Starbucks with a gun.

Dave!

clairefontaine wrote: »

No smoking is a law, no guns is a request. No need for protests. They can still go into Starbucks with a gun.

It is now, but it could become policy in some stores, public buildings, etc, if gun nuts insist on thumbing their nose at people who arent comfortable with Walter Mitty showing off his arsenal in public. It's probably in their long-term interest to exercise discretion.

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

No smoking is a law, no guns is a request. No need for protests. They can still go into Starbucks with a gun.

Starbucks issued a no-carry "request" today. It was consistent with the general mood of most customers for a gun-free coffeehouse atmosphere.

Compare this customer atmosphere request to the no smoking ban. Effective May 2013 Starbucks issued a no smoking ban for outside seating areas up to 25 feet of their 7,000 coffeehouses in America.

Will Tomorrowland Starbucks have a no smoking gun ban to ensure a comfy atmosphere for the majority of their customers? I doubt there will be any significant protesting in front of Starbucks over the no outside smoking bans, or for no-carry bans in the future. The rights-to-guns crowd also seem to be the type that respect private business rights too (but I could be wrong).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Just like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy died following the election. Then again, if anti-gun display in public mood follows the pattern of anti-smoking in public regulations in America, store-by-store chain, city-by-city public buildings, and state-by-state public buildings, then the gun rights lobby may have some long term concerns. I'm still upset about Ireland outlawing my katana in public.

Yes, it could be the case. I think the main difference between the two issues is smokers went along with the systematic smoking bans without much of a fight. I don't think the 2nd amendment supporters will be quite so namby pamby. (Perhaps its just me, but someone wielding a katana in public would give me the willies a hell of a lot more than someone wearing a sidearm.)

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, it could be the case. I think the main difference between the two issues is smokers went along with the systematic smoking bans without much of a fight. I don't think the 2nd amendment supporters will be quite so namby pamby. (Perhaps its just me, but someone wielding a katana in public would give me the willies a hell of a lot more than someone wearing a sidearm.)

Smokers will just go somewhere else. Starbucks coffees ar not that great anyway.

I think retailers should have the right to discriminate if they want to. The thing is with conceal carry in some places show would they actually know?

Now that I'm out west, I've gotten used to seeing guns, so it wouldn't even cost me a second thought if I were in Starbucks and saw one. Whereas on the East Coast I would have had a WTF reaction. So how much it bothers others might depend on geographic location.

Fox_In_Socks

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, it could be the case. I think the main difference between the two issues is smokers went along with the systematic smoking bans without much of a fight. I don't think the 2nd amendment supporters will be quite so namby pamby. (Perhaps its just me, but someone wielding a katana in public would give me the willies a hell of a lot more than someone wearing a sidearm.)

Whyso? If you are not within lunging/charging distance, then why would you be more "willied out"? A gun can be discharged quicker to dispatch more potential targets at a safer distance than a sword in Starbucks.

And it forms small neat holes in the victim with less blood splatter, whereas a sword has the potential to get obstructed by furniture/walls if wielding it against multiple opponents in Starbucks, who notoriously orientate their space to have little cubby holes into which the katana/epeé/sabre wielder must pursue their opponents. Starbucks have sword-proofed their establishments from the outside, meaning that your average fencer, be he/she of the Western or Eastern Primary Martial Arts, will have no cause to engage in swords-play (unless gravely insulted, obviously).

The bulky nature of the, admitedly, comfy seats, bean bags and generously cushion-strewn armchairs provided by your typical Starbucks, will also be used by the fleeing targets to obstruct the pursuit of the swordsman/woman, tossing them into their path, or even placing their bodies behind them, steadying their terrified nerves by literally steadying themselves against the furniture. The swords-person, encumbered perhaps by an additional weapon such as a small-sword or even a bayonet-dagger, may have great difficulty in shifting such items, resorting to jumping or walking over said items in their pursuit, their less dominant hand being out of action by wielding a second weapon. Neglecting one's footwork in such a scenario can place the swords-person at an obvious disadvantage

Contrast this scenario with your side-armed individual who scoffs at the furniture in his/her path and merely aims and fires at his targets-even through the furniture if it is of the bean-bagged variety. Starbucks bean bags can make effective silencers, and to my mind, it is these that should be banned before guns, as they are an obvious enabler of gun-persons who wish to gain the element of surprise.

Black Swan

Starbucks has 12 Dub coffeehouses, plus one in Cork and Kildare. They don't have to worry about no-carry bans given the Irish laws. But why is Fox_In_Socks allowed to walk in with his epeé and I cannot carry my katana? Across the pond I walk in with sword and gab a java before exiting for Iaijutsu. Sure, I sometimes get double-takes by Starbucks customers, but the counter staff still serves me my triple-shot espresso without complaint. Hummmmmm, I wonder why they move so fast? I don't tip them.

Fox_In_Socks

One should carry their weapons in a sports bag, made for such a purpose, so as not to alarm or alert anybody to one's possessions.

the_syco

Like the school shootings, it'll mean one thing; someone goes on a shooting spree inside Starbucks, there's a good chance that no-one inside the coffee shop will have a gun to stop them...!

rockonollie

This happens plenty when companies (often banks) post signs prohibiting gun carrying on their premises.......the rights nuts always make plenty of noise for a short while, but soon disappear.

I had this discussion with one such person, they of course quoted their right to bear arms......they went quiet when I asked about the business owners right to refuse entry.

Manic Moran

rockonollie wrote: »

I had this discussion with one such person, they of course quoted their right to bear arms......they went quiet when I asked about the business owners right to refuse entry.

Oh, we all acknowledge their right. It's their priorities that can be questioned.

MonaPizza

Amerika wrote: »

I listened to the Starbucks issue reported on NPR this morning. They didn’t disappoint in their slant, and as usual missed the mark (IMO).

The Starbucks CEO fired off a mere request, not a ban (which would have been within his legal right for his business). Schultz has made it a policy of respecting state gun laws in his stores, which has infuriated the Left. He fears the Left... all businesses fear the Left. His request is little more than sound economic maneuvering to head off and pacify the Left before they go batsh!t crazy. Done before the Left incorporates their usual tactics of mounting campaigns to put pressure on corporations, by organizing boycotts and influencing the media (which is all to eager to help), in order to get what they want. And staying on the Left’s good side is good for business.



Don’t be gun shy... order that triple shot, even while packing your Smith & Wesson Model 637, 38 Special with pink grips. You won’t be turned down! Although I might suggest trying their pumpkin spice latte, which is a favorite this time of year with the urban outdoor enthusiast.

Can't any business ban certain behaviour/attire/accessories whether they are legal or not?
For example I understand that a lot of stores ban people who wear hoodies. And before anyone jumps to the "hoodie-wearers could be thieves" nonsense, well gun carriers could be mass-murderers.

Black Swan

State laws that pertain to open carry of handguns are a factor when it comes to denial of Starbucks (or any restaurant, cafe, etc.) entry or service in the US. Some states have no restrictions, some with limited restrictions, and a few with prohibitions. In any case, I doubt that coffeehouse servers would be comfortable in asking someone with an open carry handgun to leave.

General denial of service by a restaurant, cafe, etc., (for any reason) that serves the public is an often debated issue. One federal law that applies to denial of service and affects all states was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination in places that serve the public (Act specifies restaurants and similar retail establishments) based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. Many states have similar laws against such discrimination.

If Starbucks was to deny service to only Middle Eastern "origin" US citizens that happened to be open carrying handguns, and not others, then they may be in violation of civil rights laws, but only because of discriminating based upon "origin" not open carry.

The knowledge of an experienced US civil rights lawyer would be vastly superior to the little I know in terms of the spirit and intent of American federal and state laws that pertain to restaurants, cafes, Starbucks, etc., that serve the public (regarding denial of service), but this is my best guess after a discussion I had a couple nights ago with two students pursuing their JDs over a casual cup of java in a locale coffeehouse (not Starbucks!).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Witcher

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A sign is just a sign, it won't stop people carrying firearms. That's the thing about concealed carry...you can't tell who's carrying a firearm. From what I've read from people in the US with concealed carry permits they wear them into shops etc. even if they have a sign..because out of sight out of mind.

clairefontaine

Blay wrote: »

A sign is just a sign, it won't stop people carrying firearms. That's the thing about concealed carry...you can't tell who's carrying a firearm. From what I've read from people in the US with concealed carry permits they wear them into shops etc. even if they have a sign..because out of sight out of mind.

The other thing to is that a dangerous person who is carrying intent with their weapon will pay no heed to a sign like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Legal, yes. Within the establishment’s right, yes. And I would avoid such an establishment, and advise others to to the same. Not because they won’t allow me to carry, but because it is an open invitation for a criminal or deranged person intent on doing harm, or committing a crime, to proceed with impunity, as there would be no one in the establishment able to do anything to stop it.

clairefontaine

Blay wrote: »

Yeah but nobody will know they're committing an offence. The only time it would be revealed someone is carrying a firearm is if they had to draw it in self defence and when your life is on the line I don't thibk you'd care about what the law says about it.

I get what Amerika is saying.

Because a sign like that won't stop the criminal from bringing in a weapon, it leaves the law abiders vulnerable. It's not a stance I defintitely agree with, but I certainly am sympathetic to that positition.

NYC public schools have metal detectors for this reason, but many schools do not and there have been cases of kids as young as six smuggling in the family gun into school. While I support the right to bear arms if you are such a nimrod that your six year old brings a family gun into school, your gun rights should be removed for life.

The argument then is if some jackass wanders into the school or Starbucks or whatever place with a gun, then all the law abiding citizens who leave their guns at home or in the car or wherever while they pop into pick up their iced latte with semi skimmed milk, are left without recourse while the criminal has all the power.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

I get what Amerika is saying.

Because a sign like that won't stop the criminal from bringing in a weapon, it leaves the law abiders vulnerable. It's not a stance I defintitely agree with, but I certainly am sympathetic to that positition.

Yup, that’s it. Actually I don’t ever carry my handgun in public, and don’t intend to. I consider it a home defense tool and only travel with it to go to a range. But I do carry a taser (available for less than $10) if I need to go into the nearby cities that have been racked by violent crime as of late. And I have a can of Wasp and Hornet Spray handy in the car (which shoots up to 25 feet) as it is an effective deterrent and anybody getting it in their eyes wouldn't be able to see and would need to make a trip to the hospital.

Think to yourself if you were a criminal... There are two establishments I could rob. One has this sign posted banning guns, the other doesn’t. Which would I rob? I think the answer is clear.

Now people might discount this thinking, but let me remind them... The shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Co the other year, which ended with 12 dead and 58 wounded, was the only theater in the area that banned guns (and wasn't the closest theater to the shooter's home). In addition, at that time, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the US, which more than three people have been killed had taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Yup, that’s it. Actually I don’t ever carry my handgun in public, and don’t intend to. I consider it a home defense tool and only travel with it to go to a range. But I do carry a taser (available for less than $10) if I need to go into the nearby cities that have been racked by violent crime as of late. And I have a can of Wasp and Hornet Spray handy in the car (which shoots up to 25 feet) as it is an effective deterrent and anybody getting it in their eyes wouldn't be able to see and would need to make a trip to the hospital.

Think to yourself if you were a criminal... There are two establishments I could rob. One has this sign posted banning guns, the other doesn’t. Which would I rob? I think the answer is clear.

Now people might discount this thinking, but let me remind them... The shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Co the other year, which ended with 12 dead and 58 wounded, was the only theater in the area that banned guns (and wasn't the closest theater to the shooter's home). In addition, at that time, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the US, which more than three people have been killed had taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Id be really careful with that taser. You dont know what kind of metal plates people have in their bodies or heart tickers.

Cops last year near me tasared a shoplifter and gave him a heart attack. He died.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Think to yourself if you were a criminal... There are two establishments I could rob. One has this sign posted banning guns, the other doesn’t. Which would I rob? I think the answer is clear.

This is the pro-gun argument often used to justify carrying guns into the 7,000 Starbucks found in the US. Yet this argument would not have much merit in Ireland's 14 Starbucks. Have you ever wondered why?

Perhaps it's because most of our citizens are without guns, An Garda Síochána (our guardians of the peace) are generally without guns, and most of our criminals are without guns. Hummmmmmm, I wonder if there is a relationship?

Not taking a pro- or anti-carry side, just looking at the problematic nature of this frequently used pro-carry argument, finding it seriously lacking. This is why we do comparative studies in research.

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

This is the pro-gun argument often used to justify carrying guns into the 7,000 Starbucks found in the US. Yet this argument would not have much merit in Ireland's 14 Starbucks. Have you ever wondered why?

Perhaps it's because most of our citizens are without guns, An Garda Síochána (our guardians of the peace) are generally without guns, and most of our criminals are without guns. Hummmmmmm, I wonder if there is a relationship?

Not taking a pro- or anti-carry side, just looking at the problematic nature of this frequently used pro-carry argument, finding it seriously lacking.

THE British and Irish police are the only cops in Europe not to carry guns.

It also took you 800 years to get rid of the Brits. It took us a lot less time. Hmnnnn I wonder if there is a relationship?

Corkfeen

clairefontaine wrote: »

THE British and Irish police are the only cops in Europe not to carry guns.

It also took you 800 years to get rid of the Brits. It took us a lot less time. Hmnnnn I wonder if there is a relationship?

Eh, that's an oversimplification of a complex history.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

Id be really careful with that taser. You dont know what kind of metal plates people have in their bodies or heart tickers.

Cops last year near me tasared a shoplifter and gave him a heart attack. He died.

Never used it, hope to never will. If I would be forced to use it, it would be in a situation where my life, or some other innocent, would be in danger, so the health of the person committing the crime doesn't much matter.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This is the pro-gun argument often used to justify carrying guns into the 7,000 Starbucks found in the US. Yet this argument would not have much merit in Ireland's 14 Starbucks. Have you ever wondered why?

Perhaps it's because most of our citizens are without guns, An Garda Síochána (our guardians of the peace) are generally without guns, and most of our criminals are without guns. Hummmmmmm, I wonder if there is a relationship?

Not taking a pro- or anti-carry side, just looking at the problematic nature of this frequently used pro-carry argument, finding it seriously lacking. This is why we do comparative studies in research.

Ireland and America are an ocean apart in more ways than one. Each are sovereign nations with their own constitution and laws. It might sound crass, but if an Irish citizen doesn’t like the laws of America, then stay in Ireland, or accept the laws of your host country and state. I don’t like the laws or the situation in Mexico, so I don’t go there anymore.

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

THE British and Irish police are the only cops in Europe not to carry guns.

It also took you 800 years to get rid of the Brits. It took us a lot less time. Hmnnnn I wonder if there is a relationship?

This exemplifies the 2nd most frequent argument that I have heard from the pro-carry lobby. Americans must be prepared to violently overthrow their government at a moment's notice.

This is an example of another problematic argument in terms of justifying open-carry into the 7,000 US Starbucks. Yet today our customers in the 14 Irish Starbucks do not seem to exhibit a need to violently overthrow their government between lattes.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

Ireland and America are an ocean apart in more ways than one. Each are sovereign nations with their own constitution and laws. It might sound crass, but if an Irish citizen doesn’t like the laws of America, then stay in Ireland, or accept the laws of your host country and state. I don’t like the laws or the situation in Mexico, so I don’t go there anymore.

I'm also not sure if Ireland has the Mexican drug cartel to deal with, bears in their back yards, alligators, etc.

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

This exemplifies the 2nd most frequent argument that I have heard from the pro-carry lobby. Americans must be prepared to violently overthrow their government at a moment's notice.

This is an example of another problematic argument in terms of justifying open-carry into the 7,000 US Starbucks. Yet today our customers in the 14 Irish Starbucks do not seem to exhibit a need to violently overthrow their government between lattes.

No they just emmigrate instead.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

It might sound crass, but if an Irish citizen doesn’t like the laws of America, then stay in Ireland, or accept the laws of your host country and state.

Does a "Love it or leave it..." argument have merit in a democratic society? Are persons residing in the US also asked to leave if they simply do not agree with each other?

Currently I attend a large university in the US that prides itself in attracting both foreign faculty and students (in addition to domestic faculty and students from the 50 states). This follows Newman's idea of a university, in that exposing students to a diversification of ideas, which may or may not be in agreement, aids learning, global understanding, and promotes a more democratic and civilized society.

Would you discourage, shun, or otherwise impose a McCarty-like policy of "Love it or leave it" to replace the existing universal education now shared by all who attend my university, if some of those foreign students questioned how arguments were framed by the pro-gun (or anti-gun) open-carry in Starbucks interests?

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm also not sure if Ireland has the Mexican drug cartel to deal with, bears in their back yards, alligators, etc.

I have never heard of a customer in Starbucks being attacked by bears or alligators in America. If something like this has happened, I feel confident that it would be an extraordinary exception, certainly not compelling evidence to suggest that all customers should open-carry in the 50 states to ensure their safety while sipping their lattes.

Some would claim that Ireland also has an organised crime drug problem, although we have not resorted to a "War on Drugs" so common in US recent history, or decided to arm all our gardai just in case they should stumble upon a pusher or drug lord that's armed. I would guess that most who push drugs in Ireland are not armed, although for the extraordinary exceptions we have our special units that can carry arms.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

I have never heard of a customer in Starbucks being attacked by bears or alligators in America. If something like this has happened, I feel confident that it would be an extraordinary exception, certainly not compelling evidence to suggest that all customers should open-carry in the 50 states to ensure their safety while sipping their lattes.

Some would claim that Ireland also has an organised crime drug problem, although we have not resorted to a "War on Drugs" so common in US recent history, or decided to arm all our gardai just in case they should stumble upon a pusher or drug lord that's armed. I would guess that most who push drugs in Ireland are not armed, although for the extraordinary exceptions we have our special units that can carry arms.

If you are suggesting the US model itself after Ireland then I can't see why anyone would leave Ireland to live in the US.

And I'd be the first to leave the US if it turned into Ireland particularly when it comes to its justice system.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This has saturated academia, even in places like South Carolina, which was a big suprise to me. But of its hits the south east, then you know it's gripped everywhere.

Funny this comes up, because I was thinking today in some ways I regret having attended college.

It's particularly funny when it is embedded in the northeastern elitism of places like Yale or one of the seven sisters. The elitism is in their architecture too, and yet there they are pontificating from the tower. And having been employed by one of the worlds most renowned ivy leagues, I could riff on high about it.

In fact as far as I can recall, the most unbiased professor in my experience was a Hungarian economics teacher, who had defected before the iron curtain fell.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We've discussed this before, and it saddens me that this occurred for a bright and enterprising mind such as yours. Fortunately my first two degrees at USC and the one I am currently pursuing at a different flagship have been worthwhile, and somewhat consistent with the spirit and intent of Newman (There are tradeoffs. I am feeling the pressures of Social Darwinism in my current programme; completely ruining my social life).

Although very anecdotal (and limited accordingly), had coffee at USC recently, and those present tended to favour business owner rights to make such requests for no carry (including bans). The market would decide if such actions by Starbucks would result in an improved ROI, or if such a decision my result in a net loss of customers (i.e., vote with their feet).

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

Although very anecdotal (and limited accordingly), had coffee at USC recently, and those present tended to favour business owner rights to make such requests for no carry (including bans). The market would decide if such actions by Starbucks would result in an improved ROI, or if such a decision my result in a net loss of customers (i.e., vote with their feet).

The problem is that of balancing financial sense with the question of what happens in the unlikely event that the unthinkable occurs. There are plenty of examples. For example, look at the amount of people who are seriously contemplating not buying health insurance under ACA, as the fine for non-compliance is far less than the cost of acquiring that insurance. We spend millions of dollars during wildfire season, saving houses whose actual value is less than that. Purely financial decisions are made for purely financial reasons, regardless of if they are 'good' or not, yet there are many examples of our making fiscal decisions either on risk/benefit basis, or moral basis anyway.

There is not likely to be a significant downside to Starbucks' position. If nothing ever happens in their shops, then life goes on as normal. If something does happen, they're not going to suffer any liabilities for it, and even on the PR side of the house, the populace aren't going to hold them to the flames for the disarmed customer base. Of all the shootings that have happened in 'gun free zones', how many times has there ever been a criminal or civil suit for the person that mandated it be gun free, or even a public backlash? Whether guns stay or go, I can't imagine anything particularly significant happening to Starbucks' bottom line: They've been doing quite well the last few years with their 'we don't care' attitude, and they'll probably continue to do quite well with there 'we'd rather you didn't' attitude. The amount of people who truly care enough to vote with their feet is probably minimal.

I have never heard of a customer in Starbucks being attacked by bears or alligators in America. If something like this has happened, I feel confident that it would be an extraordinary exception, certainly not compelling evidence to suggest that all customers should open-carry in the 50 states to ensure their safety while sipping their lattes.

I hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. That wouldn't normally be like you.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. That wouldn't normally be like you.

Good point M. It's been a very long day, attempting to get some work done, while jumping in and out of boards for play breaks. Apologies.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Does a "Love it or leave it..." argument have merit in a democratic society? Are persons residing in the US also asked to leave if they simply do not agree with each other?

Currently I attend a large university in the US that prides itself in attracting both foreign faculty and students (in addition to domestic faculty and students from the 50 states). This follows Newman's idea of a university, in that exposing students to a diversification of ideas, which may or may not be in agreement, aids learning, global understanding, and promotes a more democratic and civilized society.

Would you discourage, shun, or otherwise impose a McCarty-like policy of "Love it or leave it" to replace the existing universal education now shared by all who attend my university, if some of those foreign students questioned how arguments were framed by the pro-gun (or anti-gun) open-carry in Starbucks interests?

My comment wasn’t so much a "love it or leave it" (and what does McCarty have to do with it?) attitude as it had to deal with respectfulness. Personally, I think it’s a touch disrespectful for someone to take advantage of a country’s hospitalities, educational preeminence, and freedoms, and then accuse the host country of being neo-Neanderthals for not being more like their home country.

And in achieving two master’s degrees and attending various colleges (from the local community college to Mulhenberg College, Desalle University, Wilkes University and Lehigh University), it has been my experience that their claims of being "breeding grounds for diversity of thought through the exploration of divergent ideas" merits "Four Pinocchios."

I have a daughter who is going to be an exchange student in Germany next year. One of the things I have stressed with her is to be thankful for the opportunity to sample another society and their educational process, but be respectful of their laws and culture, and don’t call them idiots for not being more like America. But that's just me.