To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Uh huh, because as we all know, the fact that carry is allowed in Starbucks is exactly what will attract violence. Those who would shoot up a place NEVER go to “gun-free zones” (read: target rich environment) because they have such strict adherence to “no guns” laws.
You can practically hear his scoff as he writes “tragically,” because for scumbags like this, he’d absolutely love a killing spree just so he can have the illusion of being right. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was subtly trying to plant the idea in the minds of his readers. We’ve already seen in previous articles and in the speech of leftist politicians how antis generally harbor far more violence and narcissism than normal people, whether repressed or not, so an anti engaging in a shooting merely to make a point isn’t very far-fetched.
People like this are a far more insidious danger than guns could ever be. At worst he encourages violence, and at best he encourages defenselessness.
Yes, indeed. I’ve never been able to comprehend the mind set of all the hopeful blood dancers out there. Whether it’s the folks who came up with Fast & Furious and its derivatives, or folks like the Bradys that would be happy to see innocent people unable to defend themselves and at the mercy of any run of the mill, low life predator, they are the embodiment of a particular kind of evil, subtle and pernicious.
One can only hope there is not a martyr complex firearm hater out there who has just received the coded signal.
Take it easy, guys. He’s not saying Starbucks would be legally liable for its policy in the case of a shootout- he’s just pointing out that the only way this demonstration will end well for the NGAC is if the next Tex Grebner participates.
Now, if some low-life who doesn’t read gun blogs decides to try to rob a Starbucks on Valentine’s day… well, then the shoe would be on the other foot, so to speak. That would be pretty funny, actually- and it would make the news *everywhere*.
I don’t know the policy for linking in a comment so I won’t provide the link to avoid breaking any policy, but I Googled “car crash Starbucks” and found pictures of cars driven through walls of Starbucks locations. Perhaps there should be a ban on parking lots in front of Starbucks locations too?
The facts simply don’t support the gun haters’ arguments, so they’re reduced to wishing innocents dead to bolster their already abysmal support for more gun restrictions.
How twisted.
Precisely. No longer content to dance in the blood of past victims, the anti’s are now hoping for future blood to dance in. I am at a loss for words to describe my disgust.
In light of my flame deletions here (my apologies to the editor/admin) I submitted a somewhat pointed if not more respectful comment to the BC post. Here is a copy:
So, with Starbucks actually following the letter of the law, your angst is now firmly pointed there as you seem to hope that some horrible tragedy befalls them so you can rock back on your fattened laurels and chortle the mantra; “I told you so.”
One problem; People that actually submit themselves to the vetting process to legally carry a firearm have been checked by not only local, but state as well as federal authorities. These are by and large people that have taken the time and made the investment to understand the consequences of criminal action. How many other types of customers can you say that about?
Carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility, and anyone who has ever taken the time to learn about the subject will openly tell you that the first concern is a respect for safety. Muddled legislation does nothing to make the public safer, rather quite the opposite. Slanted opinions only create a misguided cloak of ignorance.
Now, let’s see if it passes censorship.
Old habits die hard. According to The Atlantic, “Abe Sauer grew up shoveling cow manure.”
The only things that’s changed is the manure producers’ gender.
… and Leona Helmsley’s daddy was a poor hat maker and that’s why she cheated on her taxes.
I don’t know. If Starbucks becomes an open carry mecca, it could become the safest place in town to be. Not many people successfully rob gun shops, where everybody’s got a handgun on their hip.
Innocent people being shot is the only way anti-gun people “win.” What a lovely side to be on.
On the other hand, if some patron one day saves himself or others in a Starbucks, it won’t make the national news anyways. And that is why I bring my monthly page of “Armed Citizen” reports from America’s First Freedom into work.
A punk killed a cop at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Philly a few years ago, no policy made a difference in that case. Abe probably sits in his underwear looking at VPC and Brady campaign websites all afternoon.
Get your flamethrowers ready…
I have begun to wonder whether this phony group is setting us up for an incident at Starbucks that will end up causing the company to ban guns.
I plan on visiting Starbucks on the 14th and putting my $2 bill in the tip jar. I will be carrying concealed. My original plan was to open carry since it’s legal in Virginia but on second thought I will not risk an incident in overly liberal Arlington. I suggest that we all use the customary standard during the “Buycott.” If you live in Wyoming then by all by means open carry since nobody will notice anyway. But the last thing you want to do is have some crazy liberal call 911 about a man or woman with a gun. This is a strategic communications event and we want it all to be positive for us.
“…Starbucks’ policy will take some blame for such a shooting which one expects would lead to a ban.”
Well, objectively, he might have a point — if those circumstances come to pass, then yes, it’s possible Starbucks might cave in to pressure to change its policy. Having read Abe Sauer’s full post, I don’t quite see why people are getting all hot under the collar….