Read The Full Letter From The CEO Of Starbucks Asking Customers To Stop Bringing Guns Into Stores

Business Insider ^ | September 18, 2013 | Joe Weisenthal

[Red in Blue PA]

Someone who uses facts!

Criminals are lazy but not entirely stupid. They look for easy marks, not ones who will start shooting back. I can cite numerous examples of CCers being jumped; none for OCers.

OC is clearly a deterrent while CC will never be because it is invisible.

[Sherman Logan]

They have a right to request you not bring weapons onto their property.

You have a right to decide not to patronize them.

That’s impeccable free enterprise and free market doctrine.

[Red in Blue PA]

You have a right to decide not to patronize them.

Damn right. Will never see another dime from me.

[ontap]

Countries that are really concerned about security know where weapons should be welcomed!!

[ontap]

Agree completely!

[tacticalogic]

He blames it on both sides, but only asks for concessions from the gun owners.

[stranger and pilgrim]

“Someone who uses facts!

Criminals are lazy but not entirely stupid. They look for easy marks, not ones who will start shooting back. I can cite numerous examples of CCers being jumped; none for OCers.

OC is clearly a deterrent while CC will never be because it is invisible. “

And yet, violent crime has gone down in every state where concealed carry has been enacted . . . curious.

concealed carry = polite, respectful citizen aware of the need for personal security but no desire to call attention to his/her preparedness.

Open carry = attention whore.

[Red in Blue PA]

Contact Starbucks here using Social Responsibility option....as of now, the servers appear to be overloaded:

http://customerservice.starbucks.com/app/contact/ask_company_info/

[MortMan]

But saying that asking guns to stay out is “just the same” as refusing service to a class of people is an overly strained analogy.

I disagree with this statement. The Starbucks CEO is using the "some of our customers are uncomfortable" excuse to politely request that a different subset of customers refrain from entering their stores (at least while carrying).

The analogy to segregation is sound - it emphasizes that one group of customers should be accommodated more highly than others, when the law doesn't provide a basis for denying accommodation. It is the nature of the request to surrender a right, rather than the specific right being surrendered, that makes the comparison apt.

What will be interesting is when the lack of "no guns" signs becomes an issue. And I predict that, in the face of a legal right to open carry inside a Starbucks, the lack of the prohibition signs WILL become an issue.

[bgill]

If this were a small locally owned bakery coffee shop, they'd be sued out of business.

[MortMan]

Open carry = attention whore.

Interesting... Someone who exercises their legal and constitutional rights is an attention whore. Someone who may or may not be able to get a PERMIT from the government to exercise their inalienable right to keep and bear arms so they take the obvious step of exercising their rights in a less private fashion is an attention whore.

How's the view of your colon?

[WayneS]

I did read what he is actually saying:

"That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas."

No mention of whether the firearms are carried openly or concealed.

[Red in Blue PA]

The Starbucks CEO is using the "some of our customers are uncomfortable" excuse to politely request that a different subset of customers refrain from entering their stores (at least while carrying).

Screaming kids running around upset me. Can I ask them to be removed?

People with their pants hanging below their butts upset me. Can I ask them to be removed?

People with tats upset me. Can I ask them to be removed?

Once again, it is only legal gun owners who are discriminated against. F Starbucks.

[WayneS]

Yes. I found that interesting as well.

[WayneS]

I'm so tired of trying to explain to the closed-minded why open-carry is sometimes more appropriate than concealed carry, and vice-versa, that I'm not going to bother any more. I'm going to adopt their tactics.

So, I'll simply state, with the same level of absolutism which you used, that people who say things like "Open carry = attention whore" are complete a$$holes.

[WayneS]

Check out that “attention whore”!!

[MortMan]

Amen.

[WayneS]

Of course they have a right to take a position on political issues. I do not recall saying that they don’t.

However, in this case, they haven’t taken a position. They have issued a mealy-mouthed plea in an attempt to appease both sides of a political issue.

As someone else posted earlier, why don’t they just ban guns in their stores altogether, since that is obviously what they really want.

[Tanniker Smith]

It’s just a request. Feel free to ignore it.

[PapaBear3625]

No mention of whether the firearms are carried openly or concealed.

The context is people using Starbucks as a venue for open-carry. If it's openly carried, other customers notice and may become alarmed. If it's carried concealed, then other customers generally won't notice.

It's all about not scaring the customers, and I can understand and respect his position.