“Tragically, the one way NGAC will ‘win’ the Starbucks gun battle is if the brand’s policies lead to an intentional, or even accidental, homicide by gun inside a coffee shop. Then, Starbucks’ policy will take some blame for such a shooting which one expects would lead to a ban.” – Abe Sauer writing at brandchannel.com about Starbucks’ second amendment stance.
[h/t thegunwire.com]
So, Starbucks’ policy of complying with local laws exposes them to liability for the actions of their patrons? Does Abe also meet himself whilst going around a corner?!
You could almost see the glee and hand-rubbing occurring while that was written. Sad people.
Ok this guy ABE is a frick’en idiot for even planting a seed like that for the public to read you know there are nuts out there why even mention this? this makes me mad…
Be careful there ready,fire,aim, I called someone a dolt here and received a ‘flame’ removed.
I’m sure it’ll happen eventually, whether they allowed guns or not. You can say that about any right/law/policy that allows us to do something, someone is going to abuse it or have an accident at some point. People are responsible for their own actions either way. We need to reject this notion that we’re somehow responsible for things as a group. I can only control what I do, I can’t control the people I know and interact with, much less people I’ve never met before.
We need to reject this notion that we’re somehow responsible for things as a group.
Absolutely! I’m so tired of hearing how this or that action by some numbnuts makes us all look bad. No, it doesn’t.
When some of us claim that a yahoo in East Bumf^ck “made us all look bad,” what they’re really saying is “I’m a-scared that they’ll take my guns away from me.” No, they won’t, unless we let them.
Shortly after Constitutional Carry went into effect in AZ, a maniac with a gun killed nine and severely wounded a member of Congress. Guess what — that scumbag didn’t make us all look bad and Con Carry is still the law in AZ.
Ever hear the popular feminist cry that ‘only men can stop rape’ as if men as a group are the ones responsible for stopping the criminal actions of one individual choosing to rape? Are all car buyers, owners, and drivers responsible for enabling the poor driving of a bad driver? If a Jewish Deli sells cream cheese with salmonella food poisoning am I responsible too?
‘only men can stop rape’
I hate that BS. If I see a rape in progress I’ll stop it. If I hear someone discussing that they raped someone I’ll report it. What the hell else am I supposed to do? Do they think we all hang out together? I’m not going to feel guilty just because I’m a man.
‘only men can stop rape’
Only when women are unarmed.
Bingo!
Be careful. A brave innocent man who interjected and stopped a rape was sent to prison for years before the woman re-canted her story. She originally claimed that the ‘rescuer’ was actually with the first guy who raped her.
“Woman falsely accuses man of rape — because he couldn’t remember her name”
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
And that is why if I don’t know the person, I observe a strict “screw ’em” policy. Odds are that they’re going to try to sue me for helping them, so I’ll leave them to their fate and look out for my own well being.
They’re probably sitting around hoping and praying somebody gets shot. Small price to pay to get guns out of those hippie coffee shops in their minds I guess… Because then they’ll be “right”, and they can brag all day about being “right” as they sip their lattes.
till some freak comes in and blast them and theyll be wishing that someone had a gun to stop them. or not
Or be sitting in there open carrying and see one of them get mugged in the parking lot and someone says “Why don’t you help them? You have a gun!” and respond with “Sorry, I don’t want to infringe on their religious belief that guns are only used for evil”.
I sense that Abe would be happy if there was such violence. Turn it around, what about a shooting at one of those chains that bans carry with innocent people getting hurt as a result and therefore unable by store policy to be armed and ready to defend themselves? Nothing is guaranteed in life and crazy bad people can try anything. Yet just possibly knowing that some customers might be armed could possibly keep a violent person, a bully perhaps, from starting up trouble at Starbucks.
“Turn it around, what about a shooting at one of those chains that bans carry with innocent people getting hurt as a result and therefore unable by store policy to be armed and ready to defend themselves?”
A good example would be the fried chicken joint in Chicago and few weeks ago. I forget how many people were killed, but no one was allowed to defend themselves.
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….