Guns and Starbucks: Why The Sort-Of Updated Policy Is A Loser

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups (like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently) have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a sort-of change. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only arequest: openly carrying guns is not wanted. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter states it’s not a ban, and they indicate employees (called “partners”) will not ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is unclear in terms of policy, while politically they’ve pandered and caved based on bullying, and ultimately Starbucks decision is a mistake. Heres why:

The Political CalculusStarbucks half-hearted change doesn’t really satisfy anyone. MDA is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun banand they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But it is a partial victory, of sorts. MDA bullied Starbucks, including harassing their partners and customers, and sort-of got some of what they wanted. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So gun rights activists can also claim partial victory – though pressured, Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why the Policy is a MistakeThere are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published study “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide.” They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication October 3, 2013).

Guns and Starbucks: Everyone Loses… Kind of

by Matt MacBradaigh | Oct 3, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Guns and Starbucks: Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate, sort-of, kinda changes its corporate mind, and everyone comes out a loser. Why the half-hearted change is a bad idea.

Starbucks unwillingly finds itself in the midst of the gun control debate. Anti-gun groups – like Moms Demand Action (MDA) most recently – have been petitioning Starbucks for years to change their official policy. These anti-gun organizations initially targeted Starbucks for “refusing” to change their policy to suit their demands and hosting “Skip Starbucks” days. In response, gun rights advocates have rallied to Starbucks, sensing – perhaps incorrectly – an ally of sorts for not changing their policy. Gun rights advocates held “Starbucks Appreciation Days” in contrast to ant-gunners boycott days. These have included activists in the open carry movement. Starbucks has now sort-of shifted, however.

CEO Howard Schultz’s recent announcement amounts to a pretty-please request. Previously, Starbucks official position is to abide by the laws in each state operate stores – so whether a state allows or prohibits open carry of firearms, Starbucks abides by that. The updated announcement is only a request: pretty-please don’t openly carrying guns in our stores. But here’s where Starbucks wimps out: the letter clearly states it’s not a ban. Starbucks  employees (called “partners”) will not even ask customers to leave. The company doesn’t want to potentially put partners in harm’s way. A new employee memo states to dial 911 if someone is “disruptive”, but to otherwise serve all customers normally, even if openly carrying a gun. The end result is no change in terms of official policy.

The political calculus
Moms Demand Action is, of course, claiming a victory. They are a very new player as an official organization (but well-funded by old players, and by no means a honest-to-goodness “grassroots” movement). It makes them seem more legitimate if they make it seem they’ve won. But they patently aren’t getting what they petitioned for. They wanted a complete gun ban – and they didn’t get it; only a request to not openly carry firearms. The vast majority of gun owners carry concealed via a carry concealed weapons permit (CCW) through their state of residence. Starbucks new memo doesn’t target CCW, and by nature of concealed carrying, it couldn’t feasibly do so. So while MDA members may gloat to themselves the next time they deign to visit Starbucks (presuming they are no longer boycotting), they may well be sitting next to a gun-toting person legally carrying a concealed firearm.

But the open carry community didn’t win either. Starbucks did cry uncle because of  MDA’s bully tactics, including harassing Starbucks partners and customers. The open carry activists felt they supported a company who they saw as supporting them, and now feel betrayed. But the open carry movement is a relatively small percentage of gun owners, and even those that carry handguns in public. So everyone kind of loses even though Starbucks still hasn’t actually banned guns.

Why a ban policy is a mistake
There are at least three major reasons why the change is a safety mistake. First, most mass shootings occur in designated “gun-free” zones – or areas where guns are prohibited. This was the case for Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook elementary, and most recently at the Washington Naval Yard. Consider also that there have already been shootings in other coffee shops, including the murder of four police officers in a Seattle metro area coffee shop. Starbucks may have just inadvertently advertised to future mass shooters that their location is a good choice for unarmed, defenseless victims.

Second, the law-abiding as a rule, are never the problem. So ordinary, non-criminal, law-abiding adults frequenting Starbucks with a handgun are not a safety threat. This is considered an axiom by criminologists as 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records and multiple previous contacts with the justice system. Professors Kates and Mauser examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policystudy. They conclude that higher gun restrictions are consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673). They further state that policy intended to people safe by preventing gun possession is useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so.

Third, “disarming [ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults] becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). According to the professors, widespread gun possession in the U.S. actually decreases crime. Therefore, possession of guns at Starbucks may well reduce potential for violent crime there. Adopting a policy that limits the law-abiding from bringing guns into stores won’t improve anyone’s safety, but instead only limits honest people from being able to exercise their natural right to self-defense. This is backed by criminologist research as well as historical, empirical data that shootings tend to occur in areas where guns are prohibited. Having a sign or written policy simply doesn’t prevent a criminal or madman bent on inflicting harm.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Oct 3, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.