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
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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment