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

by Matt MacBradaigh | Aug 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

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.

Guns and Starbucks: 5 Ways Moms Demand Action Are Wrong on Gun Control, Pt I

Mom 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. In this two-part series, we cover 5 ways they get it wrong on gun control
 

Moms Demand Action (MDA) penned an Op-Ed in CNN against Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where they have stores, claiming this policy 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 this two-part series, we examine their arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research and logic.

1. “Nobody needs to be armed to get a cup of coffee.”
-

Moms Demand Action: “Nobody needs to be armed to get a cup of coffee.”

Counterpoint: True to liberal fashion, MDA comes out of the gate with inane, convoluted stupidity. They begin by attempting to falsely frame the debate, trying to get their opponents to defend having a gun in order to get a cup of coffee. The argument is non sequitur – a logical fallacy that means “it doesn’t follow”. No one would ever make the ludicrous counter-argument that they “need” a gun in order to physically order a cup of coffee. This statement is the equivalent of saying ‘since China makes a lot of tea, income taxes on the rich should be increased’. The two ideas – Chinese tea production and income tax policy – have no logical connection. The same is true of MDA’s attempt to connect possessing a gun with actually ordering a cup of coffee. This is also a lame, anemic attempt to create a straw man argument – another fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when one makes up a weak argument on behalf of one’s opponent (one that the opponent isn’t making themselves) so they may easily tear the fictitious argument down in order to make it appear as if one’s position is stronger than it really is. NO ONE is making this argument. Gun rights advocates don’t carry a gun – either concealed or openly – in order to get a coffee drink; they carry a gun for personal self-defense and safety.

2. “Starbucks bans smoking in front of stores – is smoke riskier than loaded guns”


Moms Demand Action: “Why is Starbucks willing take a public health stand on smoking, but not gun violence, which kills more than 55 children and teens a week in America? Since when is second-hand smoke more dangerous than second-hand bullets?”

Counterpoint: First, these two are not equivalents. Second, they are flat wrong on gun violence, falsely inflating statistics to make their case. FBI Uniform Crime Reports, shows 1,227 total homicides for minors under 18 in 2010 – 632 of which are from guns. That works out to 12 per week, far less than 55. Gun rights advocates are for open, honest debate, but the prerequisite in that is honesty – sorely lacking in MDA’s claims. Third, lighted cigarettes pose an actual harm to others, whereas mere possession of a gun doesn’t harm anyone. But Starbucks doesn’t ban the possession of cigarettes unsmoked in a pocket or purse, nor could it since they are lawful to possess. It might be more equivalent to ban practice of actually firing, say shooting at targets, in front of Starbucks stores to actually smoking a cigarette.

3. Banning guns in stores puts “safety” of customers first


Moms Demand Action: “That’s why thousands of moms across the nation are asking Starbucks to put the safety of its customers first.”

Counterpoint: This is blatantly false. Gun violence happens at coffee shops, but not from people at pro-gun rallies, a small minority of gun owners, or the vast majority of American gun owners who quietly carry their firearms without making a statement while doing so. In Tacoma, Washington four police officers were gunned down while at a coffee shop, resulting in a massive man-hunt. In 2012, five were killed when a man opened fire in a University district Seattle coffee shop. It is for this reason that many average people chose to exercise their protected right to armed self-defense. In fact, while the concept is probably lost on Moms Demand Action, many moms and dads purposely choose to carry a gun on their person when they take their own children along with them to Starbucks for the very reason of keeping their own children safe, recognizing that gun murders have happened at otherwise peaceful coffee shops. Having a written policy at corporate headquarters does nothing to prevent this from occurring. Staying out of partisan politics and simply abiding by state law allows average people to keep themselves and their children safe while at coffee shops.

Be sure to check out our continuation in this two-part series on Moms Demand Action petition against Starbucks.

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 13, 2013). 

Guns and Starbucks: 5 Ways Moms Demand Action Are Wrong on Gun Control, Pt I

by Matt MacBradaigh | Aug 13, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Mom 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. In this two-part series, we cover 5 ways they get it wrong on gun control.

Moms Demand Action (MDA) penned an Op-Ed in CNN against Starbucks’ policy to abide by the gun laws of each state where they have stores, claiming this policy 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 this two-part series, we examine their arguments and claims and see how they hold up to research and logic.

1. “Nobody needs to be armed to get a cup of coffee.”

Moms Demand Action: “Nobody needs to be armed to get a cup of coffee.”

Counterpoint: True to liberal fashion, MDA comes out of the gate with inane, convoluted stupidity. They begin by attempting to falsely frame the debate, trying to get their opponents to defend having a gun in order to get a cup of coffee. The argument is non sequitur – a logical fallacy that means “it doesn’t follow”. No one would ever make the ludicrous counter-argument that they “need” a gun in order to physically order a cup of coffee. This statement is the equivalent of saying ‘since China makes a lot of tea, income taxes on the rich should be increased’. The two ideas – Chinese tea production and income tax policy – have no logical connection. The same is true of MDA’s attempt to connect possessing a gun with actually ordering a cup of coffee. This is also a lame, anemic attempt to create a straw man argument – another fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when one makes up a weak argument on behalf of one’s opponent (one that the opponent isn’t making themselves) so they may easily tear the fictitious argument down in order to make it appear as if one’s position is stronger than it really is. NO ONE is making this argument. Gun rights advocates don’t carry a gun – either concealed or openly – in order to get a coffee drink; they carry a gun for personal self-defense and safety.

2. “Starbucks bans smoking in front of stores – is smoke riskier than loaded guns”

Moms Demand Action: “Why is Starbucks willing take a public health stand on smoking, but not gun violence, which kills more than 55 children and teens a week in America? Since when is second-hand smoke more dangerous than second-hand bullets?”

Counterpoint: First, these two are not equivalents. Second, they are flat wrong on gun violence, falsely inflating statistics to make their case. FBI Uniform Crime Reports, shows 1,227 total homicides for minors under 18 in 2010 – 632 of which are from guns. That works out to 12 per week, far less than 55. Gun rights advocates are for open, honest debate, but the prerequisite in that is honesty – sorely lacking in MDA’s claims. Third, lighted cigarettes pose an actual harm to others, whereas mere possession of a gun doesn’t harm anyone. But Starbucks doesn’t ban the possession of cigarettes unsmoked in a pocket or purse, nor could it since they are lawful to possess. It might be more equivalent to ban practice of actually firing, say shooting at targets, in front of Starbucks stores to actually smoking a cigarette.

3. Banning guns in stores puts “safety” of customers first

Moms Demand Action: “That’s why thousands of moms across the nation are asking Starbucks to put the safety of its customers first.”

Counterpoint: This is blatantly false. Gun violence happens at coffee shops, but not from people at pro-gun rallies, a small minority of gun owners, or from the vast majority of American gun owners who quietly carry their firearms without making a statement while doing so. In Tacoma, Washington four police officers were gunned down while at a coffee shop, resulting in a massive man-hunt. In 2012, five were killed when a man opened fire in a University district Seattle coffee shop. It is for this reason that many average people chose to exercise their protected right to armed self-defense. In fact, while the concept is probably lost on Moms Demand Action, many moms and dads purposely choose to carry a gun on their person when they take their own children along with them to Starbucks for the very reason of keeping their own children safe, recognizing that gun murders have happened at otherwise peaceful coffee shops. Having a written policy at corporate headquarters does nothing to prevent this from occurring. Staying out of partisan politics and simply abiding by state law allows average people to keep themselves and their children safe while at coffee shops.

Be sure to check out our continuation in this two-part series on Moms Demand Action petition against Starbucks.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Aug 13, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.