"oh, you are breaking into my house and I live in CA? lemme just unlock this case, then go over here to get ammo, and load my weapon while you are touching my **** and threatening me and my family... ill also call the cops and be on hold for an hour with dispach."
Starbucks was back at the center of the culture wars at the end of last week: Aug. 9 marked the now-annual Starbucks Appreciation Day, when gun owners show up en masse and conspicuously armed at their local coffee shop, in appreciation of the coffee chain’s policy of allowing customers to display guns on their hips in jurisdictions where that’s legal. The event again drew headlines and criticism. The hostilities offer a revealing case study of a business trying to balance the interests of social activists who prefer fighting to finding common ground. Here are four blunt observations sure to please none of the committed combatants:
Gun-rights activists are playing an obnoxious, unnecessary game. They have the right in most states to carry firearms openly. But the now-annual Starbucks Appreciation event is a gratuitous attempt to rile the portion of the populace made uncomfortable by open display of firearms. In a country with sharply divided attitudes toward guns, why purposely provoke one’s neighbors? If one wants to carry a Glock, why not do so modestly, without the intentionally offensive show of force? The vast majority of lawful civilian gun owners handle their weapons carefully. The ones who show up at armed rallies at Starbucks are sending an unsavory signal of intimidation.
Gun-control activists take the bait. In their eagerness to condemn gun ownership broadly—as opposed to the social ills that flow from misuse of firearms—gun-control activists reveal their condescension toward a part of American culture that is here to stay. In a press release condemning the coffee chain, the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence wrote: “It is not up to public officials to provide for the safety of Starbucks’ customers and employees. That is [the company's] responsibility as a private business and theirs alone.” Huh? It is not up to the local police to protect people as they come and go from Starbucks? That makes no sense whatsoever. Starbucks, the coalition adds, is “tainting their brand and exposing their customers and employees to unnecessary risks.” If Starbucks’ policy bothers you, fine—go to Peet’s or another coffee shop that does ban openly carried firearms. But there’s absolutely no evidence that law-abiding citizens bearing arms at Starbucks has led to crime or injury.
Starbucks is trying to do the right thing. “Our longstanding approach to the open-carry debate has been to comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve,” a company spokesman told the New York Times. What a radical philosophy! “We continue,” the spokesman added, “to encourage customers and advocacy groups from all sides of the debate to share their input with their elected officials, who make the open-carry laws that our company follows.” Another outlandish idea. Maybe gun foes should try to change the law, rather than attack a company that follows existing law.
The Newtown compromise made sense. In the Connecticut town that was the site of the December 2012 elementary school massacre, some residents were so upset by the prospect of a pro-gun rally at Starbucks that the company closed the Newtown store early on the afternoon of Aug. 9. Just because it has a (reasonable) national policy doesn’t mean that a well-run company should ignore special local concerns and adjust accordingly. Once again, bravo, Starbucks. A company that sells cappuccino doesn’t bear responsibility for resolving an ideological clash as fierce as the one over gun ownership.
Barrett, an assistant managing editor and senior writer at Bloomberg Businessweek, is working on a book about the Chevron oil pollution case in Ecuador, which is scheduled for publication by Crown in 2014. His most recent book is GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun.
From October 1966 to March 1967 the Orlando Police Department sponsored a program intended to train women in the safe use of firearms. It was introduced in reaction to sharp increases in the number of rapes in 1966 and was given considerable publicity in the local newspaper. Because the program nicely bracketed the division between 1966 and 1967, we can use annual crime figures from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports to compare crime rates for 1966 (largely preceding the program) with those for 1967 (largely after the program). Figure 1 and Table 1 indicate crime trends for Orlando and surrounding areas. For 1966 the rape rate was 35.91 in Orlando, while it was only 4.18 for 1967, a one-year drop of 88%. It cannot be claimed that this was merely part of a general downward trend in rape, since the national rate was increasing at the time. No other U.S. city with a population over 100,000 experienced so large a percentage decrease in the number of rapes from 1966 to 1967, and only Philadelphia could boast of even so large a decrease in absolute numbers. (Philadelphia rapes went from 537 to 458, a drop of 79 rapes, but only a 15% decrease.) Further, comparison of Orlando with the surrounding metropolitan area and with Florida as a whole (excluding Orlando) indicates there were no comparable declines; rape was essentially constant or increasing during this period. Nor can it be claimed that Orlando was merely experiencing a continuation of rape trends that it had already been experiencing before the program, since it had experienced an increase the year before, as well as an erratic but generally upward trend over the previous six or seven years.
...Orlando’s experience is far from unique. Although almost universally ignored by the mass media, similar crime reductions have been experienced elsewhere in connection with gun training programs, including decreases in armed robberies in Highland Park, Michigan, drug store robberies in New Orleans, and grocery store robberies in Detroit. However, even more remarkable is the recent experience of Kennesaw, Georgia.
In March of 1982, the Kennesaw city council passed a city ordinance requiring householders to keep a firearm in the home, with the exception of households with physically or mentally infirm persons, criminals or persons who conscientiously objected to gun possession. The ordinance was nationally publicized and widely perceived as a reaction to the passage in Morton Grove, Illinois, of an ordinance effectively prohibiting handgun ownership within the city limits. In the seven months immediately following passage of the Kennesaw law (March 15, 1982 to October 31, 1982) there were just five residential burglaries reported, compared to 45 in the same period of the previous year. (Benenson, 1982) An 89% decrease in burglaries in so short a period is hard to explain away; something was clearly happening in Kennesaw that was not happening in the rest of the country...
Upon further thinking, that graphic is accurate, just a little misleading.
I note that it doesn't actually state a causal relationship, it's just implied. There was huge variability in the rape rate leading up to and following the '66-'67 time period.
Below is a list of 3-year average rapes per 100,000 residents
1958 - 1960 = 18.63
1961 - 1963 = 2.61
1964 - 1966 = 25.25
1967 - 1969 = 9.97
1970 - 1972 = 28.31
That's some pretty "noisy" data and I think it's a mistake to try and draw the conclusion that a firearms training course was a single or even major cause of the drop.
Was it the fact that it was well publicized so rapists went looking for easier prey? If so, did all of those pistol-packing Annies lose their firearms and training two years after the program ended when the rape rate was up "almost 400%?"
Or, was it that the police really cracked down and the temporary attention had a cooling effect that quickly went away?
Probably, it was some combination of the above plus other facts that were likely involved in the rape rate dropping from 26.02 in 1959 to 1.11 in 1962.
I think it had effect, if you factor in all of FL minus orlando. If anything, just the publicity of the program was all that was needed. then when you read about other similar programs. anyways i digress.
“You put more guns on the street expect more shootings,” McCarthy said.
“I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.”
“You say concealed carry I say Trayvon Martin. Police officers make mistakes all the time,”
“We spend six months in the police academy, six months of field training and ongoing training on a regular basis and the fact is once in a while we’re going to shoot someone with a cellphone; we’re going to shoot somebody with a flashlight and none of that is okay.
But now you take John Q. Civilian, you give them six weeks or 10 weeks of training and you say ‘have at it?’ The fact is more guns are not the solution to the firearm gun violence problem in this country. Less guns and reasonable gun laws are. And just because it’s 49 states to one doesn’t mean the state of Illinois is wrong on that one.”
I don't think you can "return fire" if you shoot first, Han Solo.
I don't think you can "return fire" if you shoot first, Han Solo.
While I think his overall statement was complete **** he did specifically state that they would shoot someone with a gun in their hand turning toward officers. I would add the person should also be attempting to aim the gun toward the officers but his language is really just indicative of what procedure pretty much already is in most districts.
Anyone who carries should have the common sense not to brandish their weapon during a run in with police. That's how you get shot. You keep it holstered and your hand away from it while making the officers aware that it is on your person if they cannot see it. This is just good for everyone and a sign of respect for the officer.