Part-two
in our series on Moms Demand Action (MDA) petition against Starbucks.
Moms Demand Actions started a petition against Starbucks guns policy –
which is to comply with state law at each location – claiming the policy
“endangers” lives. Moms Demand Action are wrong about guns and
Starbucks coffee shops.
MDA penned
an Op-Ed in CNN
claiming Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where
they have stores endangers coffee-goers. In five major ways they prove
they are completely wrong on gun control, relying instead on
misinformation, half-truths and outright distortions. They over-inflate
numbers to attempt to make their case and rely on weak, knee-jerk,
emotional appeals. Of course, it’s all for the kids – or so they’d like
you to believe.
In part one, we looked at their first three arguments and
claims and demonstrated their falsehoods. Here in part two, we examine
their last two arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research
and logic.
4.
We Don’t Want a Gun Debate with our Coffee
Townhall Editor, Katie Pavlich with I Love Guns & Coffee coin
Moms Demand Action: “Moms don’t want a gun debate with our
coffee either. But when children are shot in schools, in movie theaters
and even at Fourth of July parades, we can no longer keep the debate in
the places where they “belong.” As the debate on guns spreads to town
hall meetings nationwide in August, do we really have to have one in
Starbucks too?”
Counterpoint:Okay, gun control advocates – then don’t start
one. MDA acts like pro gun people initiated & made this an issue,
when – once again – the truth is exactly opposite. In their Op-Ed, they
note that
Pro-Gun supporters hold rallies at Starbucks,
and so blame the “debate” on these supporters. The truth is that
anti-gun organizations began the debate by targeting Starbucks for
“refusing” to change its policy. For instance, the National Gun Victims
Action Council (NGAC)
states: “Starbucks will be the
first economic target for National Gun Victims Action Council because they
aggressively
support the NRA’s Pro-Gun Agenda” (emphasis mine). The NGAC statement
is both preposterous, and an outright lie. Starbucks is not
“aggressively” pushing anything for the NRA.
Starbucks position is compliance with the law established in each state,
nothing more, nothing less. There is no lobbying for any particular
policy position to be adopted. But more importantly, this illustrates
that anti-gun groups first targeted Starbucks. So, if there is a
“debate” at Starbucks locations, it is because aggressively anti-Second
Amendment organizations chose to make it an issue. Crying foul after the
fact about the debate that they have started is just more inane idiocy.
5.
“Starbucks has lost its moral compass”
Moms Demand Action: “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”
Counterpoint: This is meaningless, partisan rhetoric.
Starbucks chooses to not take one partisan side’s preference – a
preference based on ignorance, illogic, and emotionalism. Average moms
and dads who choose to exercise their natural right to self-defense
protected in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our
Constitution recognize that a sign or written policy
cannot keep
them safe. MDA’s statements referenced movie theater shootings, like
Aurora, CO, where a “no guns” sign was posted, and Sandy Hook
Elementary, also a so-called “gun-free zone”.Yet both of these places
saw some of the most horrific mass shootings in our nations’ history –
despite a no guns sign or policy. What possible reason do thinking
adults have to believe that if Starbucks adopted a no-guns policy that
it would prevent a shooting at a coffee shop? Signs do not stop
criminals or the mentally ill. Passing laws doesn’t prevent crime. This
doesn’t mean gun rights advocates want to repeal existing laws against
homicide – far from it: we want safe neighborhoods for our children just
as much as MDA supporters – but passing yet another meaningless law or
policy is absurd, foolish, farcical, and ultimately accomplishes
nothing.
As I have written many times previously, there are serious solutions
that we, as a nation, can pursue if wish to seriously address gun
violence. MDA’s petition approximates exactly
no serious solution, instead opting for empty emotionalism. We
ought to enforce existing laws including prosecuting background check fraud – which the
Department of Justice does not do, crack down on illegal trafficking, illegal transfer –
which is how 80% of criminals obtain guns, fully fund NICS (the background check system), seriously address America’s drug problem since drug abuse is
the single greatest predictor of violence, and address
gang violence
since gangs – which are heavily involved in the drug trade – account
for an average of 48% of violent crime (up to 90% in some jurisdictions)
in the U.S., and a serious look at mental illness and psychotropic
drugs. These are the real solutions we should be discussing, not silly
non sequitur squabbles about where someone doesn’t need a gun in order
to do something else.
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 August 14, 2013).
Guns and Starbucks: 5 Ways Moms Demand Action Are Wrong on Gun Control, Pt II
Part-two in our series on Moms Demand Action (MDA) petition against Starbucks. Moms Demand Actions started a petition against Starbucks guns policy – which is to comply with state law at each location – claiming the policy “endangers” lives. Moms Demand Action are wrong about guns and Starbucks coffee shops.
MDA penned
an Op-Ed in CNN claiming Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where they have stores endangers coffee-goers. In five major ways they prove they are completely wrong on gun control, relying instead on misinformation, half-truths and outright distortions. They over-inflate numbers to attempt to make their case and rely on weak, knee-jerk, emotional appeals. Of course, it’s all for the kids – or so they’d like you to believe.
In part one, we looked at their first three arguments and claims and demonstrated their falsehoods. Here in part two, we examine their last two arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research and logic.
4.
We Don’t Want a Gun Debate with our Coffee
Moms Demand Action: “Moms don’t want a gun debate with our coffee either. But when children are shot in schools, in movie theaters and even at Fourth of July parades, we can no longer keep the debate in the places where they “belong.” As the debate on guns spreads to town hall meetings nationwide in August, do we really have to have one in Starbucks too?”
Counterpoint:Okay, gun control advocates – then don’t start one. MDA acts like pro gun people initiated & made this an issue, when – once again – the truth is exactly opposite. In their Op-Ed, they note that
Pro-Gun supporters hold rallies at Starbucks, and so blame the “debate” on these supporters. The truth is that anti-gun organizations began the debate by targeting Starbucks for “refusing” to change its policy. For instance, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC)
states: “Starbucks will be the
first economic target for National Gun Victims Action Council because they
aggressively support the NRA’s Pro-Gun Agenda” (emphasis mine). The NGAC statement is both preposterous, and an outright lie. Starbucks is not “aggressively” pushing anything for the NRA.
Starbucks position is compliance with the law established in each state, nothing more, nothing less. There is no lobbying for any particular policy position to be adopted. But more importantly, this illustrates that anti-gun groups first targeted Starbucks. So, if there is a “debate” at Starbucks locations, it is because aggressively anti-Second Amendment organizations chose to make it an issue. Crying foul after the fact about the debate that they have started is just more inane idiocy.
5. “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”
Moms Demand Action: “Starbucks has lost its moral compass”
Counterpoint: This is meaningless, partisan rhetoric. Starbucks chooses to not take one partisan side’s preference – a preference based on ignorance, illogic, and emotionalism. Average moms and dads who choose to exercise their natural right to self-defense protected in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution recognize that a sign or written policy cannot keep them safe. MDA’s statements referenced movie theater shootings, like Aurora, CO, where a “no guns” sign was posted, and Sandy Hook Elementary, also a so-called “gun-free zone”.Yet both of these places saw some of the most horrific mass shootings in our nations’ history – despite a no guns sign or policy. What possible reason do thinking adults have to believe that if Starbucks adopted a no-guns policy that it would prevent a shooting at a coffee shop? Signs do not stop criminals or the mentally ill. Passing laws doesn’t prevent crime. This doesn’t mean gun rights advocates want to repeal existing laws against homicide – far from it: we want safe neighborhoods for our children just as much as MDA supporters – but passing yet another meaningless law or policy is absurd, foolish, farcical, and ultimately accomplishes nothing.
As I have written many times previously, there are serious solutions that we, as a nation, can pursue if wish to seriously address gun violence. MDA’s petition approximates exactly
no serious solution, instead opting for empty emotionalism. We
ought to enforce existing laws including prosecuting background check fraud – which the
Department of Justice does not do, crack down on illegal trafficking, illegal transfer –
which is how 80% of criminals obtain guns, fully fund NICS (the background check system), seriously address America’s drug problem since drug abuse is
the single greatest predictor of violence, and address
gang violence since gangs – which are heavily involved in the drug trade – account for an average of 48% of violent crime (up to 90% in some jurisdictions) in the U.S., and a serious look at mental illness and psychotropic drugs. These are the real solutions we should be discussing, not silly non sequitur squabbles about where someone doesn’t need a gun in order to do something else.
This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Aug 14, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.
