Previous Post
Next Post


A good political cartoon works on a few levels. This one by Chan Lowe somehow manages to diss Starbuck-speak, gun rights advocates and anti-gun rights advocates. The over-riding impression, though, is that gun owners shouldn’t be allowed to carry in public because they can’t control their emotions. Projection, baby. That’s what it’s all about. [h/t CK]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’m not sure if I have just become more conscious of the meme, or that its genuinely a new thing, but I keep hearing anti-gun people mentioning the fear of their own actions if they were in possession of a fire-arm.
    I know its projection when they decry others for having access to fire-arms, but its more unsettling to me to think there is a substantial set of people in the world that seem to think they can’t control the impulse to murder, and so need the government to enforce a restriction on their access to fire-arms, lest they go on a rampage.
    How insecure do you have to be about your emotional maturity to think that way? And is that why so many spree killers seem to be more liberal in their ideologies? Is it really true for them, so they assume its true for us?

    • It is potentially true for them in many cases. Understand that these are sheltered, wealthy people many of whom come from a dysfunctional background. Their humor is uniformly self-deprecating and radical homicidal/criminal ideation, purely in the form of fantasy, is a normal part of their thought process. They are typically petty and hold grudges.

      They never used firearms as sporting tools growing up and in many cases would never even consider military service. To them, based on mass media, the firearm has a personality all its own. It doesn’t take much for someone who fits this profile to get worked up against firearms.

    • Personally I feel it more due to a lack of familiarity than desire to shoot someone. People are usually scared the first time they drive a car. And people who’ve been driving cars get scared driving a manual, or a big pickup, or a moving truck, or tow a trailer. Lots of people I know get scared using certain power tools for the first time. Of course part of that is healthy, to have respect for a machine that can kill you; what is not healthy is to be unsure of your own actions due to insecurity or fear. It is definitely true that many people lack the self control to be responsible users of firearms, tools, and/or vehicles.

    • I can never get their lingo straight, and I can’t be bothered to try. When I order a coffee, I ask for small, medium or large because that’s what they are. I mean, WTF is a venti? I honestly don’t know and I don’t care.

      Oh yeah, I also say car-mel, not car-a-mel.

      • “I mean, WTF is a venti? I honestly don’t know and I don’t care.”

        While acknowledging that you neither know nor care, it’s really quite simple:

        “Venti” is Italian for “twenty”. A “venti” Starbucks beverage is approximately 20 fluid ounces. It actually makes more sense than “small, medium, large” – since the name gives you an actual volume rather than some arbitrary, relative size.

    • It’s not clear to me exactly how this guy was treated rudely at Starbucks, and my overall impression of him is that he’s one of those people who spends a lot of time looking for evidence that he’s being dissed in some way, in which case it’s simply a matter of seek and ye shall find.

    • +1

      I think the cartoon is well played. It’s like a Rorchach test– I don’t see it as being anti gun just because that character doesn’t want to carry.

  2. Has a Public Accommodation like Starbucks ever successfully defended their anti-gun stance in court? After Heller/McDonald and the recent Illinois Supreme Court decision it seems like this would be the next argument for us.

    • No legal defense is needed. Private property trumps most other rights as it is – basically – the foundation of all of the others. If you own the place, you can determine what happens there. Unless it’s smoking, which of course is the old scourge of the Western World. You cannot decide to allow people in your place of business to smoke, though this gets sort of twisted. Normally, though, If you own it, you can legally discriminate against anyone all you want, provided you don’t accept certain public funds. Or so I understand – I can easily be wrong here (have to wait until my wife the lawyer gets home to get clarity on this).

      • Normally, though, If you own it, you can legally discriminate against anyone all you want, provided you don’t accept certain public funds
        If you’re a “public accommodation” (e.g. a business open to the public), you’d better not discriminate on the basis of any statutorily protected traits, like gender, race, religion, color, national origin, age, marital status, or, sexual preference. (Some of these might depend on local laws).

        • You would assume so, but I’ve heard stories of govt coming down on private businesses who did not wish to do business with certain people due to sexual orientation. Oh wait… I see now…. stupid progressive socialists selectively forcing some people to do what they don’t want to do while encouraging others to refuse to do things.

  3. Seattleite here.

    The social etiquette of Starbucks is subtle but pervasive around here, but one of the rules that doesn’t seem to have reached the rest of the country is this: The longer it takes to order the drink, the bigger the @$$hole.

    • I try to get my order out in as few words as possible.

      Anyone who orders half-caf is beneath contempt. Order regular, or order decaf (but ffs don’t say it’s because “otherwise I’ll be up all night;” nobody cares, and it makes you sound like a ninny), but half-caf is just stupid.

    • Fellow Seattleite here, and yep.,, I think the cartoon makes fun more of “Starbucks coffee culture” than it does of gun owners. Starbucks patrons with long-arse orders can sometimes be really pretentious lot…

      I confess that I still do the occasional meeting with friends at SBUX if that’s their preferred meeting place, but I’m still not over what Howard Schultz did to the city of Seattle and my beloved SuperSonics, though.

  4. That cartoon is epically not-funny.

    If scientists had a conference to formulate the most un-humorous image, it would be this cartoon.

  5. Reminds me of a recent fishing trip. We look at a guy on shore who keeps getting his ankle humped by a purse dog, his female companion just jaw-jacking away as he sits, drinking his beer silently and staring at us in the boat.
    My buddy says, “it’s obvious he doesn’t own a gun”.
    Still laugh my arse off when I think about that.

  6. Funny cartoon.
    I think you’re being a little too paranoid.
    I’m sure the anti-gunners will disaprove because it’s not overtly anti-gun.

  7. Chan Lowe is a rabid leftist. I assure you that whatever you got out of this cartoon that even looked vaguely pro gun was a mistake on your part.
    As for Starbucks, the only time I ever went it was so confusingly stupid and smug I asked if they had any “Coffee Flavored” coffee and they had no idea what I was talking about. I left & went back to Dunkin’ Donuts too.

  8. I just wish their coffee wasn’t so bitter that I have to doctor it up with cream and sugar, it works until I get to work and can get some Folger’s and I can drink it black.

Comments are closed.