I will have more to say on the Starbucks situation in a bit. I am actually working up a fairly lengthy post about this in my head. Probably two posts, really, but I am in meetings all day today and won’t have time to really bang them out on the keyboard until later tonight.
There’s two thoughts I have about the whole situation. One is that I completely understand Starbucks’ desire to extricate themselves from the political debate, and to end the open carry appreciation days. The message Starbucks actually sent, whether intentionally or through ignorance, is that they don’t really want us in their stores. I plan to do an analysis of their press release to show where they went wrong.
The next thought is that this was a thoroughly self-inflicted wound. It did not come to this because of what the other side did; we did this to ourselves. There are important lessons in all this, and I think it’s time to start having that conversation now that everyone’s paying attention, and before the other side tries to play this same card with other establishments.
12 thoughts on “More on the Starbucks Situation Later”
Primary Lesson leanrt: Do not confuse tolerance with approval.
Or as Stuart the Viking said on Robb Allen’s: “please quit setting up your soapbox in our lobby”
Just because a vendor does not *object* to X does not mean that they support you using their facility, their brand, as an endorsment of X.
This can be hard to grasp because today’s overculture demands this of many vendors (when it comes to “trendy” issues).
Another is: Don’t sell past the close.
Starbucks was already allowing OC and CC et al. Tactically, what goal was staging protests at Starbucks intended to acomplish? Showing up with a gun on your hip for a cup of Joe to normalize carry well… that normalizes carry.
But going in a group with slung rifles is not exactly normal. Ignoring the legal issues, what was the intended goal of such an action?
There was no problem with Starbucks. Having slung rifles didn’t help our cause.
According to the press release it seems that they are asking you not to carry, specifically open carry, but you will not be confronted about it .
So is it don’t carry in our stores but(wink wink) we wont do anything anyway?
seems like a way to appease the anti’s
They still lost my business.
The intended goal was getting attention for the attention whores that seem to make up a big portion of the OC movement. It seems to have succeeded in that regards.
That “don’t sell past the close” line is perfect. One of the things that occasionally enrages me about OC activists is their insistence on turning something that ought to be fairly unremarkable into an enormous attention-getting exercise.
The 2%ers or are they the 3%ers or whatever have been the biggest threat to our gun rights for a long time now.
Disagree. While I have my issues with the threepers, they were not the problem. Sipsey Street Irregulars was not organizing “Bring Your Solothurn To Starbucks Day.”
I grant that there’s some overlap between threepers and OC attention whores. But the problem was the attention whoring, not threeperism.
Strategically carrying RIFLES into Starbucks was the real problem in my mind. Organizing open carry days there, and just carry pistols, would not have been a problem.
I think what Starbucks did wrong was instead of saying “Look dudes, pistols are fine, but please don’t carry rifles into our stores. And please leave us out of the gun debate. Please”, they basically said “FUCK YOU MOTHERFUCKERS”
Here’s a question to ponder, since the haters will now move onto other retailers………..
…….did all the protesting and hysteric’s, generated by the Brady Bunch, CSGV, and the Mom’s, help sway Starbucks opinion? And will this decision legitimize the haters using hysteric’s to bully other establishments?
Cause even by Starbucks own admission, we weren’t the only side that pushed the envelope.
I almost hesitate to say any words here at all, as the entire issue seems to be taking off on multiple tangents. I see the previous post where comments are arguing over 1st Amendment rights.
I typically donâ€™t have any need for open carry. That is just me, I am not saying others should follow my lead. I see NO tactical advantages to such. As far as I am concerned OC is a tactical disadvantage. Clear & open display of a handgun or other firearm kinda tells the bad guy where the holy grail lays,,,,,,, take this and you are home free sorta thing. No element of surprise at all.
In a perfect world OC â€œmayâ€ work well. But today in our current society there seems to be too much ego mixed in with open carry. I suspect some folks hear the theme song to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly as they strap on a super shooter,,,,,,,,,, as if to almost encourage a situation to erupt? Go ahead,,,, make my day punk.
I support gun rights, but in the case of arming myself in public (which I do 24/7) I go concealed. Out of sight, out of mind (of others). Hanging a handgun on my belt is a sobering task in my opinion. Life has evolved into a state of constant unknowns & violent activity, and that causes me to accept the HUGE responsibility that goes along with being armed in public.
The good book says a time & a place for everything. A smart person knows when to show their hand & when to shut up. Face it,,,,,,guns are NOT the answer to life. Starbucks just wants to sell high priced coffee,,,,,,,,, NOBODY asked them to set world policy on firearms.
Now what I say will be based on HUGE amounts of daily firing line experience. Working as a full time firearms instructor I see people do some unbelievable stupid stuff with firearms. I can honestly say that if I was at a Starbucks and some Mall Ninja Testosterone Warriors showed up with AR15s slung over the shoulders sporting tats that say Kill Em All and Let God Sort Em Out,,,,,, I would be late for the door. Even scarier, most of the idiots have absolutely NO idea HOW to SAFELY handle ANY gun in a crowd. Think I am wrong???? Go to any local gun show and count the number of times you get â€œmuzzledâ€.
If I was on the firing lines and Starbucks folks showed up to pester me about coffee I would get miffed I am sure.
Couldn’t agree more.
Even at the local gun shop, muzzles are swung across ppl all the time, when i take ppl there I warn them not to do it.I might sound like an a**h***, but i don’t like getting swung across , loaded or not.
I never open carry unless hunting or in the woods. To me Concealed is the way to go, its there if needed, and its no ones business that I have it.
It wasn’t just the appreciation days at Starbucks, it was the loitering, the press attn, the crap from the anti’s.
If we just gave them more business on those days(bottom line, dollars)this would be a non issue.
First, whether they liked being in the spotlight or not it was free advertising for them, and many people who never would have gone to (Or even knew about) Starbucks did because of the controversy and their stand on it.
Secondly I too carry concealed 24/7, OC makes you a target of bad guys right off the bat, I’d rather have the element of surprise if I’m ever in need of lethal force to save my skin. When you’re playing for keeps I want every advantage I can get.
Now this is a post I can get behind. And I agree with the first comment, and others about our culpability in making something that should be unremarkable into a Big Deal.
Starbucks may be tolerant of furries, but that doesn’t mean they want their brand (read: their asset) pigeon-holed as the ‘furry’ coffee shop. Similarly, the OC crowd trying to corner Starbucks on belligerent OC was overly disruptive and abrasive. There are times to rally and there are times where discretion and modesty is more appropriate. Brothers and sisters on our side of the fence on gun rights sometimes misjudge when to apply which type of energy to the detriment of the greater cause (here’s looking at you, AVTM). Sometimes idiots and agent provocateurs are indiscernible, but our liberty is vulnerable to both in the same way.
Comments are closed.