truth-2-Power

Op-Eds Speaking Truth to the Powers-That-Be

An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry

openletterconcealedcarry_f

Starbucks has taken the stance of welcoming customers with concealed carry weapons into its stores, even when other large chains have posted required signs requesting that they remain outside of their establishments. Our managing editor, Brian Ross, wrote to Starbucks to ask that the signs be posted. Their response, and his reply:

Starbucks’ Response:

“Dear Brian,

Thank you for contacting Starbucks.

Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks’ policy on open carry laws.

At Starbucks, we deeply respect the views of our customers and recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve. Our long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged and we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.

As the public debate around this issue continues, we encourage customers and advocacy groups from both sides to share their input with their public officials. We are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society and believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

Thanks again for writing us. If you ever have any questions or concerns in the future, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

We would love to hear your feedback. Click here to take a short survey.

Sincerely,

Dakota H
customer service”

The Reply:

Dakota H:

Please pass this along to whomever in corporate would seem to care: The reason you should create a safe space at Starbucks also meets the corporate wallet.

Open carry is an insurance/liability nightmare.

The law in those 43 states clearly allows carry. It says nothing, however, about the tort liability of the places where those guns are used.

Starbucks assumes, along with the NRA-paid representatives who put this ALEC-canned bill into law in those states, that all of the people with these concealed carry weapons are sane, rational, “law abiding” gun owners.

The law would be fine if the assumption were true. Post Sandy Hook, I run the American Gun Victims Wall, a national daily digest of shootings and homicides. I’ve seen every story for months. Thousands of them. We’ve cataloged the causes. Most shootings are domestic in nature, or the result of mental impairment, either through substance use or some mental defect, like rage, bipolar disorder, etc. Not robbery, or rape, the two most claimed causes that concealed carry holders use to justify packing a personal pistol. 

The shootings that we see in retail establishments such as yours, other than the occasional back-door robbery, which is rare, are most often fights that escalate into shootings, where the shooter(s) lack the common sense to take the argument outside, or the situation escalates too quickly, or a revenge/jilted person shooting of opportunity.

If someone is shot at, collaterally everyone else in the restaurant is at risk.

Further, if one of your welcomed Rambos, acting to “defend” the rest of your patrons, produces their concealed carry permitted weapon in one of these circumstances and draws, the likelihood that your defender is trained well enough in crisis situations to respond with lethal force that will actually hit the person with the weapon on the first shot is unlikely.

Collateral damage is a very real and extremely likely consequence of the discharge of a weapon. It is one of the reasons local law enforcement agencies aren’t fond of concealed carry.  If police are dispatched, it also increases the likelihood that a concealed-carry customer could be dropped by the police reacting to the situation, further compounding already tragic circumstances.

None of these concealed carry laws indemnify Starbucks or its franchisees from civil liability lawsuits. Which is why the legislatures in most of these states gave retailers the out when they allowed them to restrict weapons in their establishments by posting a notice: The sign removes the civil liability for you, the retailer.

So what Starbucks is doing is really above and beyond the law of the land in these places. It is an endorsement of the right to concealed carry. That would be fine if there were laws in place to do mental health checks and take guns temporarily out of the hands of people with Temporary Restraining Orders, or who suffer from severe clinical depression, but there is no compensating law for that.

With no filter to weed out dangerous people holding guns in public, the lack of “leave it home” signage increases risk to your patrons, and Starbucks’ civil liability.

Your company is banking on the math that the few locations they have in high conflict neighborhoods, and the potential damage that will be caused by gun violence is statistically small and that pandering to gun owners is a bigger “win” in terms of attracting customers, and perhaps even luring a few away from Dunkin’ and McDonalds, many of which ban guns in their establishments.

starbucksandgunsThe problem is that, especially with your high profile stance on guns, you are attracting more cowboys and crazies, people taking photos next to your signs in the store flaunting that they are packing.  Add in the Stand Your Ground laws of many states, which by your logic you also endorse, and you have increased the actuarial likelihood of an incident at Starbucks.

Starbucks only gets one shooting. It will more likely happen in a suburban or rural location. It will likely be domestic, and someone with depression or rage issues, or an accidental discharge. The lawsuit or two may not be that financially damaging, but the bad PR from it will be epic.

Along with coffee you sell community places where people can gather, talk, work away from home, relax. One discharge of a weapon at one store, and that goes away in every one of your locations.

Starbucks is endorsing concealed carry when it does not use the “out” written into these laws to prohibit concealed carry in its stores. You spend countless hours looking at safety issues for employees and customers to reduce your insurance risks. Certainly if you can recognize the dangers of a wet floor, or a broken chair, you can do the actuarial math for the dangers of people carrying weapons in your stores.

Sincerely,

Brian Ross
Managing Editor
truth-2-Power.com
Blogger
The Huffington Post

About Brian Ross

Brian Ross is a writer, screenwriter, political satirist, documentarian and short filmmaker who blogs for Truth2Power, the Huffington Post, and the Daily KOS, among others.

563 comments on “An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry

  1. Jacquie Bockius
    September 9, 2013

    Knowing that Starbucks welcomes gun nuts, I am more than glad to boycott this coffee establishment. There are other more reasonable places I’d rather spend my coffee dollars. Thanks for informing me of the threats caused by Starbucks gun-crazy policy.

    • Lord Skeletor
      September 10, 2013

      Gun nuts? What are you, twelve? It’s one of your most important civil rights, you buffoon. So you’re a nut to exercise your constitutional and civil rights? Where in the HELL do people like you come from? Seriously.

    • Ted
      September 10, 2013

      Well, bye.

    • Rebecca
      September 10, 2013

      They welcome uniformed anti-gun nuts, too.

      • Duane
        September 10, 2013

        Do you mean uninformed? I would open carry in a Starbucks and do while in Uniform. If I am not open carrying in uniform I am ALWAYS concealed carrying a firearm. I have never been in a Starbucks in my life or any other restaurant, or store in the last 25 years unarmed. I always have a gun wherever I go. ALWAYS.

      • Deen
        September 10, 2013

        Perhaps you mean “uninformed” rather then “uniformed”?

      • Jacob Pritchett
        September 10, 2013

        Perhaps he means cops. Because what is gun control but people with guns saying that they can have guns but you can’t have guns.

    • Williamnorwood
      September 10, 2013

      Do you have a problem with “freedom of speech” nuts? “freedom of religion” nuts? If a lady has had an abortion, would she be an “abortion” nut? I am just asking for consistency in your thought process. The second amendment to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, guarantees a civil right. By the way, in the last thirty years every mass shooting but one occured in a “gun free zone” Unless you are a mass murderer bent on destruction, There are no threats to you at Starbucks.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Not really. Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts, unless you belong to your National Guard, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (I can use caps lock too) doesn’t provide for your personal ownership. It is a carry-over of custom from much more rugged times, back-stopped by a very wealthy and powerful gun lobby. Even sheriffs of the Old West, back in the day, had people check their weapons in with them when they were in town to avoid drunken gun play and personal dispute shootings. You have a right to own a gun because the Supreme Court says so. Fine. That being said, then at least make sure that the 7% or so of people who misuse them are kept away from guns and you make yourselves look so much more credible.

      • Anthony Francis
        September 10, 2013

        Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the National Guard? I see: A well regulated (meaning well equipped) militia (both unorganized and organized), being necessary to the security of a free state, (<—- notice the COMMA) the right of the PEOPLE (not the Government, not the police, not the state) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        I suppose you also think that the US Supreme court couldn't read either, in District of Columbia v Heller or McDonald v Chicago. Guess what? They upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms.

        The right is individual, period. The purpose is a well regulated militia. Historically there was a distrust of standing armies. Therefore the militia is the people, who had their own arms. Individual state constitutions also say that the right is individual. All in context, the second amendment protects a right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns).

      • wuzyoungoncetoo
        September 10, 2013

        - “Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts, unless you belong to your National Guard, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (I can use caps lock too) doesn’t provide for your personal ownership.”

        LOL! Oh, the illiterate irony.

      • Cole Thornton
        September 10, 2013

        Brian,

        The interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) has been interpreted multiple times over our few hundred years and every time the same answer is found: YES, the 2A does absolutely provide for individual ownership of weapons and does not only provide for weapons in the hands of government organizations.

        Not sure where you get your info, but it is not from a factual source.

      • Shepherd
        September 10, 2013

        Brian,

        I believe you misunderstand the National Guard. Being a part of it has absolutely nothing to do with personal firearms rights. The weapons they are issued are government property.

        Also, please take the time to read the writings of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, or were involved with it’s formation. The 2nd Amendment is open to misinterpretation, as you demonstrate, but what Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Henry, Adams, etc. had to say about the private ownership of firearms is unambiguous. It was clearly designed as an individual right, both for defense of one’s self, and defense of one’s free state.

        Lastly, you seem to have extremely unfair, negative views of gun owners that don’t seem to line up with the individuals I know. We are not all a bunch of ignorant, illiterate, inbred hicks, as you seem to believe. If you expended the energy to simply have a conversation with some, and listen to them, you might learn why we feel the way we do, and why this issue is so important. Sadly, I think you are so convinced of our intellectual inferiority, and we so convinced of your hatred towards us, that this likely won’t happen.

      • Chuck
        September 10, 2013

        Brian–Two thoughts.
        (1) “truth 2 power”, eh? Your own poll is running 92% against your argument. So mebbe you need a little dose of that ‘truth” yourself. Just noticing that.
        (2) Your “supreme law of the land” argument is that old, tired, disproven, frankly ridiculous assertion that 2nd amendment rights are vested in the states. So, let’s run this down for you.
        1. Those rights are vested in “the people”. Not “the states” or “the federal government”, but “the people.”
        2. All 10 amendments of the bill of rights were written by the same people, at the same time, on the same sheet of paper. So, presumably, if a word means something in one of those amendments, it will mean the same in the others.
        3. The 10th amendment makes clear that “the States” and “the people” are two separate and distinct concepts. Thus, “the people” can not be governmental entities.
        4. The jurisprudence of the _rest_ of the Bill of Rights (including hundreds of Supreme Court decisions) makes clear that “the people” means an individually-owned right.
        5. If that were NOT the case, if “the people” = “States”, then you would have no individual right to free speech, or freedom of religion, or of conscience, privacy, all of those 4th amendment protections would only apply to the States, not to individuals, and so forth.
        6. So, logically, rationally, the _only_ reasonable interpretation is that 2nd amendment rights, as well, are also individually held. If you believe in the rest of the bill of rights, and believe that it applies to you, personally, then you _must_ believe that the 2nd amendment does as well.
        7. The literal text is “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How hard is that for you to read? How hard to understand?

      • Reid MacDonald
        September 10, 2013

        To Brian Ross: In actuality, the US Justice Code provides two categories for “militia”; One category being the National Guard, and the other being every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45.

        “…at least make sure that the 7% or so of people who misuse them are kept away from guns” Let’s set aside the number that you have assigned here (what’s your source?) for a moment. We already have laws in place designed to keep unstable and criminally inclined people away from guns. They are adequate, but woefully under-enforced. To declare that it’s an individual responsibility to keep guns from dangerous people sounds suspiciously like an invitation to take someone’s personal property. Surely that’s not what you meant?

      • Steve
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, I spent almost 23 years in the military defending your right to be ignorant and your right to tell us how dumb you really are. If you don’t like guns than fine don’t own one, but don’t expect cops or anyone to defend you and keep you safe. The Supreme Court has ruled that Law Enforcement has no duty to protect; they also don’t get to the scene of a crime for 12-59 minutes depending on where you live.
        Getting to your comment about the more rugged time; I know you believe everything you see in the old westerns as the truth it wasn’t like that at all. There weren’t gunfights at high noon and there weren’t all these gun fights Hollywood has used to entertain us. If you believe that….wait you already proved your intelligence level.
        I carry a gun for my families and my protection, until you have been the victim of a mass shooting like I was (yes in a gun free zone) than I really don’t care for your option. I will defend your right to make a mule of yourself as my weapon and my defense of the US Constitution will allow you too.
        Please name one criminal that has legally carried his weapon open in a holster for everyone to see? This should get the dust in your head spinning as criminals don’t open carry.

      • TheButterZone
        September 10, 2013

        The “but one” (Giffords) occured in a federal “gun free zone” too, as it was right across the street from a school. Meaning if you carried in accordance with AZ’s Constitutional Carry law, you would have been a federal criminal.

      • Russell Graham
        September 10, 2013

        well brian I can’t reply to you so I will to the one that you replied to and well the national guard is a part of the army. it is what the army calls there reserves. like you have the naval reserves. you have the army national guard. now you also have the united states malitia, and the whole reason behind the 2nd amendment why it was placed in place if you look at the historical documents I believe off the top of my head it’s federalist papers #44? it explains that the reason behind the fact that all americans have the right to arms, which should be along the same lines as a infantry man, is that it is for the defense against tyrany.
        Now if we could eliminate the criminals from having weapons I would be estatic for that to happen. So would more through background checks work? hmmm out of the last 2 mass shootings, it might have stopped one. out of the last 3 that I remember it might have stopped one. and that’s a maybe at that.

      • Russell Graham
        September 10, 2013

        Also brain to your comment about reading being a definite shortcomming of gun nuts, well I did find this funny that you count in there some of the greatest americans I know of. I think Former President Rosvelt would roll over in his grave on this. I think alot of lawyers and doctors who are “gun nuts” would possible think your blanket statement is really ignorant.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Where did you come up the national guard junk? Why dont you google the definition of milita? The militia is EVERY ABLE BODIED MALE 17 TO 45!! Has nothing to do with the national guard except that the national guard is considered the organized militia. And before you jump on it the constitution doesn’t say organized it says well regulated. We are well regulated by congress. They tell us what light bulbs we can use they tell us how much water we can use when we fluch the toilet. If they are that far into our lives that they regulate my flushing of feces we are more than well regulated.

        Here ill educate you

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

        10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        US CodeNotesUpdates

        Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Where did you get the national guard thing from? Talk about reading comprehension issues.. hiw about looking up the definition of militia? Militia is every male 17 to 45. The National guard has nothing to do with it. The national guard is just an example of an organized militia. STOP! Before you knee jerk the constitution says nothing of organized militia at all. Only well regulated which since congress controls how much water I use to flush my feces down the toilet, well, we most certainly are well regulated..

        Here ill educate you

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

        10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        US CodeNotesUpdates

        Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      • dwr2k3
        September 10, 2013

        Brian Ross: “The right to bear arms shall not be abridged.”

        The militia stuff is just preamble.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        This presumed that we needed everyone who had a gun to go out and use it if the British were coming. They haven’t been for a couple of centuries now, we have well regulated militia (The National Guard) and the whole premise predates cruise missles, hellfire missiles, drones, Apache helicopters, etc. etc. You can try to blow off the full intent, but most constitutional scholars will still point out that the only consideration that standard arms got from the government only pertained to the ability to defend a state that has become infinitely more lethally equipped. With the paranoia of the Red Dawn types accounted for, it still means now what it meant then. The Supreme Court gave the gun manufacturers a solid with their interpretation, and since they’re the arbiters for all the money, we roll with a 2nd Amendment that protects gun rights. Like all rights, though, the court has determined there are limits. Being a felon is one they’ve upheld. They need to do more about mental illness, under-the-influence, and safe storage and handling, but they can’t because the NRA greases those wheels to keep enough violence out there that the threat of it sells more guns, which perpetuates more violence in a very profitable vicious circle.

      • obloodyhell
        September 10, 2013

        }}}} Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts, unless you belong to your National Guard, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (I can use caps lock too) doesn’t provide for your personal ownership.

        I grasp this point has been made BILLIONS of times in response to gun grabbing fools like yourself, but, let’s make it ONE MORE TIME, since it’s FAR too complex for your tiny widdle bwain to grasp and hold for more than a millionth of a second.

        “The Militia”, according to the FFs:

        Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
        Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
        Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
        Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.
        [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

        Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Paper #29):
        “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”

        Patrick Henry 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.:
        “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

        Patrick Henry 3 Elliot, Debates at 386:
        “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

        Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment:
        “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

        (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788):
        “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

        George Mason (Elliott, Debates, 425-426):
        “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

        Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
        “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

        ======================

        SO, and QED — “We have met the militia, and he is US.”

        You can argue whatever you want, but the meaning of “the milita” is NOT, and never has been, in any way, shape, or form, THE NATIONAL GUARD.

        It is nothing less than every able-bodied citizen of this NATION.

        Ergo, from that, each and every able-bodied citizen of this land, BY THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, is such that they have the right to own and use guns, if they so choose.

        Now go away for 30 seconds, so you can forget this utterly, and then make the same hoary, stupid, and profoundly IGNORANT claim yet again.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

      • Jazz
        September 10, 2013

        Brian Ross: Please see D.C. v Heller.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Brian Ross,

        LOL. So you read the definition. You no longer can claim ignorance. Militia is every able bodied male 17 to 45 and then you say stuff like but but that was before.. Hey the entire bill of rights was before.. The rights are there FOR YOU AND I and are timeless.

        If you don’t like the bill of rights CHANGE it. Go ahead. Lets have a constitutional convention on the 2nd. You’ll be stuck because about 40 states would force the 2nd to contain concealed carry explicitly and make every current legal weapon protected.

        Sorry Charley the US doesn’t agree with your narrow viewpoint. IN almost every single poll the split is 85% pro-gun to 15% anti. You have every right to drone on about how you don’t like the 2nd amendment but now that you know the definition of militia you have no excuse to try to twist it like you did.

        We want our freedom.

        Move on with life.

      • michaelzwilliamson
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, you really need to stick to screenwriting, and not law.

        First, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

        “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”.”

        – See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.zwxFa58l.dpuf

        So you’re wrong. The end. IOW, you are trying to restrict the civil rights of a segment of the population with your tantrum, much like the people complaining about Starbuck’s offering benefits for gays. Get over yourself.

        Second, precedent exists that, if an establishment takes charge of a service, THEY are liable. IOW, if I can legally carry a gun for self defense, and they abrogate that right on their premises, they then absorb liability for my safety if I am attacked. By accepting the law as it is, they absorb no legal risk. So, it’s in their best interests to continue as they are.

        FYI, it’s only in wussbag states that anyone puts up a “no guns sign.” Businesses in civilized states generally don’t, no matter what corporate policy may be.

        OBTW–a “no guns” sign has no force of law in most states. It’s an opinion, not an order.

        And of course, every deranged nut leaves his gun in the car, just as the sign says.

        Grow up.

        I’m going to Starbuck’s to spend some more hate dollars. ;)

      • liberalsarecunts
        September 11, 2013

        Brian,

        “Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts…doesn’t provide for your personal ownership ”

        What part of “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” escapes you?

        You are an idiot. There’s a tree somewhere out there working tirelessly to produce oxygen so you can breathe.

        Find it.. and apologize to it.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 14, 2013

        I can just see the conversation around the table during the penning of the 2nd amendment,” Hey should we include the right to carry rapid fire assault rifles into Starbucks…?” “Of course one should be able to defend oneself while sipping a latte. ” Actually a big reason the 2nd amendment exists is so slave owners could keep patrolling in the South. Why do I get the feeling that the voracious gun advocates of today, (if they lived back in that time), would have needed guns for the same reason.

        “Leave your gun at home boy, don’t take your guns to town.” Johnny had it right.

    • jay bree
      September 10, 2013

      What threat? You do realize the people carrying there are around you every day don’t you?

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Yep. And, without better screening, of the inherent danger that creates, and the hundreds of people who would be alive at the end of every day if better measures were taken to make those carrying a safer class of people.

      • Chuck
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, by that logic there should be screening and licensing for gays. They’re the primary distribution locus for AIDS (according to the CDC, not some frightened old whitehair), and AIDS has 3x the mortality rate of all causes of firearms combined.

        And if you really want to get into “preventing deaths” and “its for the children”… abortion. :D

      • James G
        September 10, 2013

        @Brian : Statistically your theory holds no water. The vast majority of gun owners ARE a “safer class of people”. Stats from the CDC, FBI and various local and State criminal records show that less than 1% of gun crimes are committed by Licensed Gun Owners. More gun laws would only affect the law abiding, not the people that, by the very definition of the word “criminal”, ignore laws. With 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, and tens of millions of active Licenses to carry, by our sheer numbers if your theory were correct, there would be MUCH more gun crime and gun death. Stop blaming the many, for the deeds of the few.

      • Ajent Oranje (@ajent_oranje)
        September 10, 2013

        @Brian Ross, you’re obviously an ignorant troll who doesnt know the first thing about the Constitution. No screening in the world will prevent criminals from getting guns and shooting people. Lets not also forget the majority of those killed every day are involved in illegal activity themselves. If you arent involved in a drug deal or gang activity, the chances of you getting killed by a gun is extremely low….lower than drowning in a pool.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Those carrying a licence to carry are less likely to commit crimes THAN THE POLICE! How about you taking the time to know what you’re talking about before you type.

      • obloodyhell
        September 10, 2013

        }}} Yep. And, without better screening, of the inherent danger that creates, and the hundreds of people who would be alive at the end of every day if better measures were taken to make those carrying a safer class of people.

        Yes, more laws to define a “safer class of people”… because this works SO WELL in those places where it’s implemented. Because there’s a HUGE correllation between areas with strict laws and crime reduction, that EVERYONE finds that statement to be indisputably true.

        And we’re going to IGNORE the fact that gun rights have NOTHING to do with CRIME in any way, shape, or form.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 14, 2013

        More guns equal more violent death, and you have no right to endanger me in a public space. http://atyourlibrary.org/culture/facts-and-myths-about-gun-violence

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 15, 2013

        Just an FYI, Your Hoplophobia by NO means requires me to leave myself endangered by going unarmed. I will continue to carry :)

    • Katie
      September 10, 2013

      What’s a “gun nut”? Threats? Your true “threat” is patronzing your gun-free zones where criminals know that you and everyone else is defenseless. Get past your purely emotional response to life, try thinking, and then start.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 14, 2013

        Actually it is a very logical response. For every 1 time a person protects their home from invasion with a gun, 20 use the gun to kill or injure a family member accidentally, 20 use their gun in a domestic abuse situation, and 20 have a family member commit suicide with it. 60-1… I’d say the odds of your gun being used to protect me or even yourself in a Starbucks suck. (Statistics released by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center) Lots of other solid research to be perused at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

    • ianto94
      September 10, 2013

      Maybe you should get your coffee at the local stop and rob so you can be sure that no good guys will be carrying.

    • Paul
      September 10, 2013

      Well, as one of your ‘gun nuts’, I thank you. That is one less person I have in line in front of me! For every one of ‘you’ who want to boycott Starbucks, there are 10 responsible gun owners willing to take your place!

    • G. Harvey
      September 10, 2013

      I never drank a Starbucks coffee until I learned of their pro-Constitution stance…..Now I am one of their best customers
      . Thank you Starbucks for holding true to the Bill of Rights!

    • Dustin
      September 10, 2013

      94.2% said no guns should not be banned, you guys are a tiny fraction of a minority. The MAJORITY do not want guns banned.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        And the majority of Americans and NRA members want stricter background checks, which includes private sales, and all gun show sales. Bring back the Brady bill. Why one would need an AR 15 while going out for coffee is just silly.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 15, 2013

        Amusing, Rita, that you ignore all logic and reasonable discourse and go right to the Hysterical Freak end of the spectrum. You make a good case for YOU not being allowed to carry a gun into Starbucks or anywhere else, but you do not make any points for stopping any legal, law-abiding person carrying (concealed or open).

    • Jim Weston
      September 10, 2013

      There is a vast difference between a ‘gun nut’ as you describe it, and a law abiding citizen that does not make the mistake of placing his safety i the hands of an inept judicial system/law enforcement. Jacquie, I’ll ask this, in such a time of need, who is it you call if not the ones with the guns? The police has them. And given the levels of nation wide corruption thats been shown by them, you expect the rest of us to be as stupid as you are, and truth them to protect our lives?

    • Phil Mill
      September 10, 2013

      It is our 2nd amendment that allows you to exercise your 1st amendment rights to make this ill-conceived buffoonish comment…

    • Jim Maerk
      September 10, 2013

      If we’re talking concealed carry, how would you know if anyone is or is not carrying?
      Do you propose that Starbucks frisk everyone coming into their stores?

    • chris
      September 10, 2013

      Typical liberal idiot!!

    • BuddyLama
      September 10, 2013

      ^ Idiot scum: Are people like you really so F’ing stupid that you believe someone with criminal intent will obey your asinine laws? Laws affect only law-abiding citizens, but even then only to a point, and our jackass legislators have crossed it.

    • Thor
      September 10, 2013

      That’s fine, I drink enough for 2.
      Signed by me:
      Soldier, Police Officer, Rational thinker.

    • Brandi
      September 10, 2013

      Gun nuts? That’s comical. I’m a 34 year old mother of four. I work full time and go to college part time. I am a concealed carry license holder. I carry a gun EVERY DAY, EVERY WHERE. The only thing I’m a nut about it she safety of my children. The world we live in is becoming more and more violent. I don’t have time to wait minutes for the police when most violent attacks take only seconds. Police respond to crime not prevent them. I will not be a victim!

      • Brandi
        September 10, 2013

        is the* safety of my children Darn auto correct

    • Denton Holmgren
      September 10, 2013

      The thing that you forget is that people who want to shoot people and are mentally impaired are probably not going to get a gun in the right way. Anyone can get guns, it really easy. Heck, I could get a pistol if I wanted, and I’m underage and I live in a rural area.

      The thing is, with these “gun nuts” hanging around, there is more probability that one of the shooters will be taken down.

      Another thing is that people who are going to go on a killing spree pick the easy spots like schools or other places that are gun-free, because they know there will be no opposition. If they know they will get killed right away, they most definitely will not try it, because they will lose their twisted idea of “glory”.

      Check out Chicago. Most gun laws in the nation, most killings in the nation. There is a direct correlation, and yet you still can’t see the forest through the trees.

      Your argument is invalid.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Actually..

        It isn’t so easy to get an illegal gun in relationship to a completely banned substance.. DRUGS. Heroin is illegal everywhere. If you want it and ask around you will find it rather quickly. Guns on the other hand are hard to find unless you go around stealing them from people you know own them.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        Check out New York City, toughest gun laws and lower crime. Check out any nation with stricter gun laws including Australia, one country you guys love to fake the figures on . Violent crime and mass shootings have gone down since they toughened up their gun ownership laws. And your point about how easy it is to get a pistol just proves the gun safety advocate’s case… you shouldn’t be able to.

    • Evelyn Logan
      September 10, 2013

      Yes, Jacquie, please do go to those other places where only criminals can be armed. Feel safer? Then you’re an idiot.

    • Anne
      September 10, 2013

      I hope one day a citizen with a CCW saves your life. BTW they (CHL holders) ARE required FULL checks on all levels. Get informed before you speak, you only show your ignorance when you dont. Also your little dollars are not going to bother them, the patriots buy 2 just to make up for it and say thank you. One last thing, you do realize the first thing you do when in trouble is call a guy with a GUN, and he only had the same checks that the CHL holders had….JS.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 18, 2013

        There is a higher chance of me being shot in the crossfire of your CCW friend than being saved by him. No thank you.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 18, 2013

        ROFLMAO! Rita, you are a HOOT!!! :oD

    • Derek LeBeau
      September 10, 2013

      And why shouldn’t Starbucks welcome its customers? Who cares what they practice or what they believe? would you have them discriminated against?

    • jim
      September 10, 2013

      We won’t miss you.

    • Cliff Williams
      September 10, 2013

      Silly little liberals. Now let’s see . . . are you more likely to get shot in a gun store, at a gun show, an NRA convention, or where democrat constituents gather like Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Newark, Detroit, etc?

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        Actually you are more likely to get shot in a Red State, which is a point of Public record.

    • gunlady
      September 10, 2013

      Gun crazy nuts?? Seriously?! You need to grow up lady. I am the proud owner of at least 4 guns and with my husband, we have many more. He is a police officer and I am the daughter of a Marine. We are no more “nuts” than you are. The craziness comes from comments like yours, uninformed and ignorant, about guns and people who own and carry them. Try Googling people who’ve stopped crime or attacks by having a gun on themselves or within their homes or vehicles. Many more than you’d think. People who carry guns are extremely responsible members of our society. We believe in protecting not only ourselves, but others around us. I’m glad you won’t be in any more establishments like ours. Good riddance to you and your kind. You believe all the media hype. I feel sorry for you.

    • Bob
      September 10, 2013

      Well, Brian, after all your B.S. 95% still believe you should be able to carry a gun at Starbucks. Hmmm? Guess your made up stats don’t match the facts do they? Also on the point of reading. Not every sheriff in the old west made people give up their guns when they went into town. I saw Tombstone too. You make the same old over used crap every one who is afraid of a gun uses. Coming from “truth2power” where’s the truth? I see the power of 95% and that’s not the presidents made up number it’s the real survey on your post. Had the presidents numbers been real the law would have passed with flying colors. How many people have been shot in a Starbucks lately? You say all the gun nuts are the ones doing the shooting so there must be at least one instance you can name. Grow up or grow a pair.

    • Ian Avila
      September 10, 2013

      You should probably stay home or talk to a mental health worker considering you have this completely unreasonable fear.

      It makes me wonder how some people, like you, function outside your house in public settings.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        I would say someone who feels they need to carry a gun into Starbucks is the fearful one.

    • Joe Mehler
      September 10, 2013

      It always amazes me that people are so afraid of inanimate objects. An unreasonable fear of firearms is a sign of a weak mind.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        Actually it’s the weak mind that feels it needs a gun everywhere they go which is fearsome.

    • Jeff Davis
      September 10, 2013

      And I’m extremely happy that you choose not to go there. One less moron that thinks every gun owner is crazy. Wake up! People from all walks of life are carrying around you every day and like it or not it’s for your benefit and you don’t even realize it.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        As I’ve said very consistently, like all law it applies to a small minority of anyone in the general public. We do realize it. We realize y’all carry because every day, every day, someone who carries comes temporarily unglued and kills a loved one, or a spouse, or a neighbor, or their kid finds their gun and kills themselves or another kid. Still the small minority of gun owners out there, but because of the mass of y’all out there without a shred of screening in most states, the statistical likelihood increases that one or more people who would be walking around today are dead because some “law abiding” citizen went off the rails.

    • Sue
      September 10, 2013

      But, Jacquie….you are okay with gang members who carry ILLEGALLY going to Starbucks? I would rather see someone who has gone through the process and training to get a permit and legally carry in a Starbucks. It is not THOSE people you have to be concerned with…..they are NOT “nuts”.

    • Tony Thompson
      September 10, 2013

      Brian Ross: “This presumed that we needed everyone who had a gun to go out and use it if the British were coming.” You do realize Mr. Ross that the revolution had ended a decade prior to the passing of the 2nd Amendment?

      • a concerned citizen
        September 10, 2013

        thank you for making a very valid point that, so far as i have seen, has been completely ignored on this thread

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        Yes, and the whiskey Rebellion was a good example of the amendment being put to use as an armed militia was called in by the Government. (Yes the militia of this type was our first National Guard)

    • Aaron
      September 10, 2013

      Here’s an answer for you, you do not have to carry a firearm and that’s how you can show your support to your cause! And by the is it crazy that maybe Starbucks supports local laws?

    • Frank
      September 10, 2013

      Cool, one less person in front of me in line!

    • Frank
      September 10, 2013

      Brian, BTW, The Supreme Court who I’m guessing are more qualified than you confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right so your comments regarding the National Guard are 100% wrong.

    • Lucas Drifter
      September 10, 2013

      But what else will you do with your free time, hipster??

    • geoff beneze
      September 10, 2013

      Jacquie, I suggest you read recent reports on gun control, open and concealed carry by CDC and Harvard. Oh yes, you may also wish to look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports annually. None of these groups could ever be construed as being partisan to the Right or conservatives (or even “gun-nuts”.)

      These studies and reports belie EVERY argument the Pantie Wetting Left use in this discussion. Mr. Ross’s “facts” in his screed are so utterly misrepresented and falsely interpreted as to constitute out an out lies.

      Education yourself, learn the REAL story, there are many solid sources that are not bias one way or the other, OR that are very LEFT bias who are now beginning to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

      Choosing to be ignorant of real life serves no one.

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        Actually your ignorance is astounding. The summary of the CDC report states that the report in no way should be used to argue that gun control is not effective. It concludes that more study would need to be done, and the very fact that the Congress denied the CDC the right to study gun violence over the last decade by defunding that portion of the CDC had crippled its ability to gain and process data. As for the Harvard information.. are you talking about the Law School that used data from 50 years ago in Russia(cited by the ACLJ) or the more recent group of studies from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.”

        Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

    • Michael Z. Williamson
      September 10, 2013

      They also welcome gays. I guess it depends on whether you want to support rights or oppose them.

    • Stan Beltman
      September 11, 2013

      And I suppose you think that the criminals would not come in with a gun if their intent was to hold up a Starbucks if the ban was put into place. I for one would be happy if I was in a store and it was being held up and another customer was carrying. You live in a liberal fantasy world.

    • American
      September 11, 2013

      The only reason you think we are gun nuts is because you see the gun, if it were concealed you would not think I am a gun nut.

    • Eric M
      September 11, 2013

      My carrying a gun in a holster (with proper government-issued permit) makes me as much of a gun “nut” as you driving a car to work makes you a car “nut.”

    • Suzi
      September 11, 2013

      lol this reminds me….we call people crazy cat lady, but you never hear someone called a crazy cat man, a crazy bird lady, or crazy fish lady.

    • max
      September 12, 2013

      omg starbucks is going under because you dont spend 4 bucks a week there….dont flatter yourself doucher

    • Bryan Keller
      September 13, 2013

      That’s fine jakwee – we don’t like being around cowards and whiners. Please, do go elsewhere. As far as brian ross goes, they forgot ignorant child in his little bio above. He sounds like a spoiled infant not getting his way, and then he falls back to the oh so typical ruse of pretending to be educated on the subject. Here’s a tip brian, the only law you need to be educated in, and are obviously grossly ignorant of, is the Constitution of the United States.

    • J. Potter
      September 13, 2013

      Since when is it crazy to obey the law? Starbucks has gone out of its way to stay out of the firearms debate, yet people on both sides of the issue keep dragging the company into the limelight. Starbucks does not advertise to attract a concealed/open carry customer base, they simply make no effort to impede the right for people who do carry a concealed weapon to remain so armed in their establishments where prudent under the letter of the law. And let me tell you something about how these “gun nuts” obtain a permit to carry. This could vary by state, but generally an individual must attend a concealed carry class by a trained & licensed instructor. An application for the permit is then submitted to law enforcement. A written test as well as a practical (shooting on target range) test is conducted by law enforcement as well. If everything clears, a person is awarded the permit. Please note that the potential permit holder must pay for not only the instruction but also for the law enforcement tests & the application fee for the permit itself. Taking this into consideration, why would someone go through all this trouble to obtain the permit only to lose it in one of your so-called hollywood type shootouts? I ask this not only as a CCW permit holder myself, but as Navy veteran, a Security Officer of 10+ years and someone with common sense.

    • Talon Trevor MacDonald
      September 14, 2013

      Sorry Brian, Regardless of your attempt to re-interpret the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution was not written in anything but DIRECT speech. It was written so, to keep people from re-interpreting it. The Second Amendment provided for the People to have similar arms to any Military force. It did this to keep a Government form doing what Britain had done, and tyrannically suppressing any oppisition to unjust rule.
      In attempting to make all places unfriendly to persons LEGALLY carrying weapons, Brian, You are attempting to Tyrannically control the people.
      A note on your opinion that Persons concealing may not be Sane… Persons that are NOT sane, or have Illeggal intent, are not supposed to be carrying anyways. The LEGAL carriers will certainly dispose of an ILLEGAL carrier at the time he tries to attempt to use his weapon illegally. It’s what we do, Brian.
      Instead of attempting to abuse the Law of the Land, Perhaps you should take the time to learn what LEGAL Carriers actually do on a daily basis. You obviously assume that all carriers are out lookinfg for a fight.
      Finally, bear in mind that better that 85 % of ALL police polled on whether or not citizen carry makes the street safer AGREED that it does. This poll had better than 120 thousand responders Brian.
      I am armed every day. I have used my weapon in my job, to keep people like you safe. I carry Off duty. I have used my weapon TWICE while Off duty to protect people like yourself. In EACH instance where I had to draw my weapon, and use it, The person that brought it on Was NOT a legal carrier of a Firearm (Or knife in two cases).
      The LEGAL carrier may save your life one day… But, Brian, If you insist on dying, instead of being protected, simply run at the next criminal that happens along, instead of letting the armed citizen handle him :)

    • joe
      September 14, 2013

      So i am a gun nut? YOU are the friggin damn nut,the crazy ignorant limpwristed fool. DO YOU KNOW how many chl holders are LEO? WHY do the LEO’S i work with WANT more people carrying and do not take YOUR foolish attitude. GO somewhere else,i do not want to be associated with people like you anyway.
      Texas chl holder,vietvet

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 15, 2013

        Joe, thank you for your service. And for your response in this thread.

    • therain
      September 15, 2013

      buh. bye

    • Robert Wheeler Todd
      November 28, 2013

      I carry because of idiots who want me to sacrifice myself instead of defending myself. Bob 82 year old Korean vet

      • Brian Ross
        December 6, 2013

        Bob – Aside from being a Korean Vet, which is noble, reading doesn’t seem to be a strong suit. As long as you can pass a psych test, haven’t threatened your spouse, kids, neighbors enough to be put on a TRO or the cops “visit” list, keep your gun. You’ll never have to defend yourself anyway, and, at 82, you’re likely to either shoot the wrong person, have the gun taken from you and used against you, or shoot yourself but hey, it’s a free country. The line is no different than with a motor vehicle: Responsible ownership. You leave it around for your grandkids to play with unsecured, and it should be gone. Period. Otherwise, enjoy your paranoia…

      • chrishernandezauthor
        December 7, 2013

        Brian,

        Sure, elderly people never have to defend themselves, and wouldn’t be able to anyway. That’s why the below incident never happened.

        I know you won’t watch it, so I’ll tell you what it is. It’s video of a 71 year old permit holder shooting two armed robbers at an internet café. No civilians injured, both robbers shot.

        Insulting an 82 year old veteran as being “paranoid”, while you bluster about the threat posed by “gun nuts”, is pretty low even for you, Brian.

      • chrishernandezauthor
        December 10, 2013

        Brian,

        You’re absolutely right, elderly men are absolutely incapable of using a weapon to defend themselves against criminals. That’s why this never happened:

        I know you won’t watch anything that proves you wrong, so I’ll describe it for you. A 71 year old man in an internet cafe shot two robbers who tried to rob all the customers. Both robbers hit, no innocent citizens injured.

        I like how you automatically assume the armed citizen will be completely powerless to resist a criminal. That mindset is why people on your side of the argument keep urging people to just be passive victims. After all, criminals are just so powerful and unstoppable, it’s better to just let them have their way. Resisting just makes things worse, right?

        That’s called enabling. When people follow your advice and enable criminals, they continue to commit crimes against the innocent.

        By the way, insulting an 82 year old veteran is pretty low, even for you.

      • chrishernandezauthor
        December 10, 2013

        Whoops, accidentally posted the same comment twice. Sorry about that. I tried once, thought it didn’t work, then reposted again best as I could from memory.

  2. Mary Oney
    September 9, 2013

    This is the very reason I will never walk into a Starbuck’s and support their business. It is a mass murder waiting to happen. I do not want to be there on that day.

    • David
      September 10, 2013

      Historically speaking you’re safer in a Starbucks than you are in a public school. I don’t ever recall seeing a mass murder at Starbucks in the news. But I sure do see a lot of mass murders in “gun free” zones.

      When are you people going to wake up?

      • Joe
        September 10, 2013

        They will never wake up. Sadly, the misguided people that put these kind of polls up simply can’t accept results that conflict with their warped point of view. Hence, the meaning of a 4 to 1 result in favor of Starbuck’s freedom to allow freedom escapes them.

      • Jim Weston
        September 10, 2013

        They lack common sense. If guns and the people that have them are so bad how does them ever make it out of the tens of thousands of gun shows across America alive? All those guns,. all that ammo,must be a miracle eh? LMAO

    • wuzyoungoncetoo
      September 10, 2013

      Right, because a mass murdering psychopath will be deterred by a sign in the window. Brilliant.

      If you’re in a jurisdiction that allows concealed carry then you’re already surrounded by people legally packing if you ever venture out in public. You’d better stock up on Cheetos and “My Little Pony” DVDs and stay in your mom’s basement where you won’t be afraid.

      • Denon
        September 14, 2013

        I’m a gun owner and I like My Little Pony :/

        Anyway, people like Brian seem to relish their ‘victimization’, whether it is imagined or not. He is acting like Starbucks has colluded with ‘teh evil NRA and gun nutz’ to scare him away from his overpriced coffee. His entire post is filled with projection. I doubt he takes a look at the statistics of the crime rate of CC’rs vs. non-carriers. Instead he conjures up his vision of a gun owner. Someone who would stroll into a Starbucks with a rifle strapped to their back and a pistol twirling around their finger, yelling at folks about conspiracy theories and brandishing their weapon around.

        It’s funny (and telling) that the picture he used of carriers in a Starbucks are completely non-threatening and are just two guys minding their own business. They don’t even have their hands near their holsters!

        The author is paranoid and deluded. I think he has seen too many movies without understanding the difference between real and imaginary.

    • Williamnorwood
      September 10, 2013

      Mary, did you leave your critical thinking skills in the shower? I have a FACT for you. Of all the large scales shooting rampages in the last thirty years, all but one of them was in a place that DID NOT ALLOW WEAPONS. They were in “gun Free Zones” This is an irrefutable fact. (That means your emotional idiocy can not change it.) What an idiot. Did you ever notice there has never been such a shooting at a gun show? at a police station? shooting range? Mass shootings sismply don’t happen at those places. Shooters would rather have a target rich environment like a “Gun Free Zone:”

      • techie4700
        September 10, 2013

        Actually, what’s interesting is that there was a shooting at a local police station where I used to live. One officer was killed and a couple others were wounded. The interesting part about this was the fact that he was an escapee from a mental institution who stole a gun and a car in order to commit this act. This guy was one of the few that was so far gone he couldn’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Regardless, no law could have protected anyone, and I say it’s a good thing the cops had guns because otherwise a lot more lives would have been lost.

      • TheButterZone
        September 10, 2013

        The “but one” (Giffords) occured in a federal “gun free zone” too, as it was right across the street from a school. Meaning if you carried in accordance with AZ’s Constitutional Carry law, you would have been a federal criminal.

      • Philbert_D_Nut
        September 10, 2013

        William – I am playing the Devil’s Advocate on this one. NO MASS shootings in the places you have stated, right on. There has been one murder suicide at a gun range and a few accidental discharges of firearms by private sellers outside of gun shows because the nit wits had not properly unloaded their guns they brought to sell. I thought I would put that out there before one of the bleeding heart wack-a-doos try to spin this into an issue.

      • Thomas Geiger
        September 10, 2013

        Similar reason why few people will rob a butcher shop :)

      • Russell Graham
        September 10, 2013

        just wondering I can’t remember the one that didn’t take place in a gun free zone.

    • Robert Zheo
      September 10, 2013

      Actually it makes Starbucks a more safe place. As we, as a society, have learned the hard way… repeatedly… …over and over, again and again… the most dangerous places to be are these so-called “gun free zones”. That’s where all the mass shootings have happened in the past several years. And it only seems to happen in such places. Kinda makes you think about why that is, doesn’t it?

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        This “gun free” thing is the latest in NRA speak for the sheeple. Yeah, that lady who talked the guy into surrendering in the school shot off her mouth, not a gun, and no one died. Leave weapons to the trained professionals in those places. A bunch of erratically trained self-appointed defenders of the peace don’t create much peace. Guys who are armed to the teeth to shoot up a movie theater or a school are usually beefed up enough with weaponry to waste most of you before you can get your gun out of the drawer, purse or holster anyway.

      • Cole Thornton
        September 10, 2013

        “Leave weapons to the trained professionals in those places.”

        Brian, you do realize that in studies of past shootings the police (the trained professionals you speak of) have a much higher hit to miss ratio in gunfights than civilian shooters?

        I am sure there are multiple reasons for this, but it does provide some info as to why I will never rely upon the police to protect me or my family. They can’t be everywhere and when they are there statistically they have a higher potential for collateral damage in a gun fight.

      • Chuck
        September 10, 2013

        Brian: Once again with the off-the-cuff? “Leave weapons to the trained professionals in those places. A bunch of erratically trained self-appointed defenders of the peace don’t create much peace.”
        1. Police chiefs have been admitting for years now that CCW carriers are better trained and better shooters, and have significantly lower incidence of “hitting the wrong target” than their cops.
        2. interesting statistic I picked up last December: If you are involved in a mass-shooting incident, and it is stopped by an armed civilian, an average of 2.5 people are killed. If you wait for the police to arrive and intervene, an average of 12 people are killed.

        So what you’re really saying is, 10 more people have to die, each time, because you personally are afraid of facts and a doorstop.

      • ianto94
        September 10, 2013

        Brian really, I congratulate the woman who talked the guy down. Talking sure did a lot at Sandy Hook, Columbine, and all the other mass shootings, didn’t it. Try putting your thinking cap on. Where has there been an incident at Starbucks by any legal carrier? Where is a bad guy most likely to commit a crime, where potential victims are disarmed or where potential victims have the tools to defend themselves?

      • Rodney
        September 10, 2013

        Brian- The lady talked the guy into surrendering, but you are forgetting the first step. The guy brought a gun to a gun free zone.

        I’m sorry, ignorance of the law won’t work. Speeding 80 in a 40 then telling the police office “oh sorry sir, I didn’t know the limit” won’t get you a free pass.

        It has been known since the mid 90’s that Schools and many other fine establishments are gun free zones.

      • Steven W.
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, you fail to understand the laws and the way our country works foist of all I’d like to point out we are a Constitutional Republic, that is our form of government in the united states, that means is the constitution is absolute unless amended. The ultimate deciders of whats allowed under the constitution is the supreme court, and frankly the supreme court disagrees with your statement on the “National Guard” the supreme court in defines the scope in the second amendment to an “INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” per District of Columbia vs. Heller, this is the definition by the highest court of the nation.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Facts hurt huh.. hows all those laws and ruoes doing at stopping guys in movie theaters?Thanks for bring up the gun free zone that dodoesn’t work.

    • Robb
      September 10, 2013

      Speaking most mass shootings happen in gun free zones, or in areas that severely restrict gun possession…

    • SteveM
      September 10, 2013

      And you base your reason on what? Please provide a few examples of the mass murders to which you allude where legally allowed open carry was the cause??

    • Duane
      September 10, 2013

      Mary you are a fool. If Starbucks banned people from carrying a firearm in their businesses do you think that would stop a killer. Oh darn I was going to go inside and shoot the customers and employees in that Starbucks but they have a sign saying “No Guns Allowed” Oh I guess I better go next door to that 7-11….. More Guns = Less Crime Mary. It is true.

    • George L. Lyon, Jr.
      September 10, 2013

      Yeah like all the mass murders that happen every day at gun stores. What a joke.

    • Jody Lawrence
      September 10, 2013

      And I don’t want to be sitting down and eating my dinner, when a distraught, mentally ill person decides to drive their pick up truck through the window of said restaurant and gets out deciding that they are going to be going to hell and taking as many people with them as possible (Look up Luby’s Restaurant Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre)…various and asundry robberies occur in impoverished areas, in fast food locales. It happened to my wife in Spokane, Wa. Where I had to go into an establishment to retrieve something I forgot, as soon as I was inside a perp was knocking loudly on her window, telling her to roll it down and that he needed to talk to her, all she did was show him my 45 and he was gone as fast as he showed up. I support your right to be a victim, please support my right not to be a victim, it doensn’t get any plainer or simpler than that.

    • Jim Weston
      September 10, 2013

      Gun free zones….ever notice how Sandy Hook, the Colorado theater, and all the other places the3se mass shootings happen, are seemingly most always gun free zones? Perhaps someone forgot to tell the criminal;s they were not supposed to have them? Or…perhaps they were targeted by such criminals for the very fact there were no guns there they were threatened by and decided it was easy pickings.

      • Lady Pagan
        September 10, 2013

        Further, How many Vets and Military were in that theatre? Can you even draw up a smidge of how many would be ALIVE today if they were permitted their weapons?
        You don’t have to believe in God, you don’t have to like guns. However, if someone is trying to bust down Your door, you’re going to 1) Call someone WITH a gun, and 2) Pray that they get to you in time!
        I know I’m misquoting, but that there is TRUTH.

    • Pro2A
      September 10, 2013

      liberal logic 101

    • BuddyLama
      September 10, 2013

      Are people like you really so F’ing stupid that you believe someone with criminal intent will obey your asinine laws? Laws affect only law-abiding citizens, but even then only to a point, and our jackass legislators have crossed it.

    • Evelyn Logan
      September 10, 2013

      Mary, do you really think that a criminal bent on robbery and chaos is going to pick a place where legal, law-abiding citizens can defend themselves (and you)? Really?

    • Ajent Oranje (@ajent_oranje)
      September 10, 2013

      You are scared of the boogeyman. Gotcha.

    • Derek LeBeau
      September 10, 2013

      @Brian Ross, I pride myself on judicious marksmanship, as well as draw time. Most thugs that go out to murder in the first place lack both of those.

    • Mary Henderson
      September 10, 2013

      Guess what, Mary O….I carry a gun EVERYWHERE. I carry even in places that are considered “gun free zones”. The only time I don’t carry is if I have to go into a courthouse or airport. I’ve never had the desire to carry out a mass murder.
      If you are THAT afraid of guns, you may want to just lock yourself in your home, because there are MANY, MANY people just like me.

    • jay bree
      September 10, 2013

      I totally disagree, but unlike Mr Ross you have the integrity to allow comments to your posting

    • obloodyhell
      September 10, 2013

      How do you plan to have a mass murder there? Someone whips out a gun, you really think they’ll get more than a shot or two off without someone shooting them down?

      And do you really imagine that some lunatic planning a mass murder is going to pick a place that is KNOWN for having guns as a target? REALLY?

      Or is said lunatic going to pick somewhere that idiots like you have made “gun free zones”, instead?

    • geoff beneze
      September 10, 2013

      Mary, your ignorance in this topic is astounding. Educate yourself, CDC, Harvard, FBI Unified Crime Report.

  3. Nancy
    September 9, 2013

    Starbucks bans smoking outside their stores but allows concealed weapons inside their stores. Sure….makes a lot of sense, huh? Think I will be boycotting starbucks b/c I like living!

    • Lord Skeletor
      September 10, 2013

      But yet, I bet you drive to Starbucks in a car…which kills twenty times the people in this country than firearms used in criminal activities. Again…why are so many people a) advertising their ignorance b) actually happy that they’re THAT dumb? Simply amazing.

      • Thom Clark (@Wanderer711)
        September 10, 2013

        Oh wait.. and as the Liberals like to point out.. the exhaust fumes cause GLOBAL WARMING!

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 14, 2013

        Yes, and I have to register that car, pay insurance on it, and have someone inspect it.. sure allow me to do that to all your guns and then we will talk.

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 15, 2013

        You want to inspect my Gun? Is That a Proposition?

      • Rita Armstrong
        September 15, 2013

        How profound Talon. But I guess “your” gun doesn’t get out much, which is why you need to carry the symbolic one into a Starbucks for your latte.

        Actually historically, when the amendment you all hold so dear was written, your rifle could be inspected by your Militia leader and confiscated and given to another if you were not caring for it properly. At that time with no standing army you were allowed to own a gun so you might be called upon for something like say … the Whiskey Rebellion.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 15, 2013

        You, dear Rita, are a shining example of the sort of smug, inane, inaccurate, ridiculous anti-gun zealot that makes your “movement” totally lack any credibility. Keep wallowing in your ignorance and b.s. and keep posting, please – it helps the pro-gun side so much.

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 15, 2013

        LOL, Let her rant Evelyn, I have pretty much determined that Rita may be a Pseudonym for Brian. I mean, He wasn’t getting support, and had to invent some. Noting that “Rita” also missed that I work IN the legal community :) That means I have helped people find their way to Jail and such.
        Yeah Rita, I carry, Every day, Every second I am out of the house. The Gun comes off in Jails, and Courthouses. I carry it in Starbucks, Wal Mart, and ANY other place I go.
        And Rita, If you ever see someone carrying a Gun, simply look at them and say that you do not wish to be defended. Only trouble is, The LEGAL gun owner will STILL keep you safe. It’s just what we do :)

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 15, 2013

        Does anyone else think “Rita” is stuck on the Whiskey Rebellion? And doesn’t know much about how muskets were treated in Colonial days… RITA, The PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA. NO leaders needed. In times of Tyrants (like YOU, Rita) the MILITIA is meant to have the capability of stopping the Tyrant (Like YOU Rita, only acting more like Obama).

    • Williamnorwood
      September 10, 2013

      You are safer at Starbucks than at the kids’ elementary school.

    • Brad
      September 10, 2013

      That’s a good thing. We don’t want panicky little liberals hanging around us while we enjoy our coffee. Stay home.

      • glock doc
        September 10, 2013

        i love eating my triple skim extr foam double whip chai frappacappcino and bran muffin whilst havn my glock with me

      • David Noahr
        September 10, 2013

        I wish I could like that remark more than once.

    • Robert Zheo
      September 10, 2013

      Hmmm…. banning smoking and allowing CHL in and around their stores??? Actually that sounds like a very smart policy to me. What are you afraid of… that a CHL holder start shooting the smokers?

      • Philbert_D_Nut
        September 10, 2013

        ROFLMAO

    • Duane
      September 10, 2013

      Nancy you do not use you head for much more that something to keep your ears apart do you.

    • Jon
      September 10, 2013

      I read about shootings in Starbucks across the country every day. Glad you’re boycotting. Join me at Dunkin Donuts, where I carry every day, when I get my coffee. Haven’t shot a single soul in thirty years. maybe you should just make your coffee at home, then you’ll be safe!

    • Paul
      September 10, 2013

      Good for you, Nancy! Since you won’t be in Starbucks anymore, that is one less person in front of me in line!!!! There are PLENTY of responsible gun owners who are willing to take your place!

    • Jody Lawrence
      September 10, 2013

      Please do, they don’t need your money, they have millions of CCW carriers to soak up the loss of your once in awhile stop in, don’t go away mad…just go away.

    • Jim Weston
      September 10, 2013

      If you like living and dont like guns, remember that the next time you have an intruder in your home,and make sure not to call the guys with the guns…..IE the cops! :D

    • indyroadie
      September 10, 2013

      A better compariso9n would be that SB allows people to carry a pack of cigarette3s into their stores, as long as someone doesn’t light one. See the difference?

    • jim
      September 10, 2013

      That’s okay Nancy, we won’t miss you..

    • Russell Graham
      September 10, 2013

      boycopt your local doctor as well and all auto manufactures, oh don’t forget anyone who makes something that can be used as a club. all have more murders than rifles, and I believe clubs has close to handguns. doctors and auto manufactures though do top the rate as most dangerous.

    • obloodyhell
      September 10, 2013

      You’re right, it makes no sense at all. So clearly they need to stop banning smoking…. LOL.

      Genius,

    • Some Guy (@Happenstance_2)
      September 11, 2013

      Starbucks that had outdoor seating in areas not at a stand-alone location had the problem of smoke drifting to adjacent store entrances (in addition to Starbucks’s own) and complaints….same reason employers move smokers’ areas away from public entrances. Unless potent smells from my gun cleaners emanate from my concealed firearm, nobody would notice.

  4. Pingback: Anti-gun Poll and Open Letter to Starbucks.

  5. John Preston
    September 10, 2013

    to *whoever would seem to care

  6. Ulysses Noman
    September 10, 2013

    Fixated illiberal retards.

  7. Ted
    September 10, 2013

    Do you honestly think a person intent on robbing or murdering will heed that sign?

    • wuzyoungoncetoo
      September 10, 2013

      Of course. I’m certain the following conversation occurs in the heads of sociopathic mass murders all the time:

      “I think I’ll walk into this business and shoot the place up, murder as many people as I can and then go out in a blaze of glory when either the police gun me down or I blow my own head off. Wait…what’s this on the door? A sign saying that no guns are allowed inside? Curses! My evil plan for death and destruction has been foiled again by some clever liberal!!!”

  8. DeMouk
    September 10, 2013

    Starbucks should continue to support civil rights and allow legal carrying of firearms. Hoplophobes be damned.

  9. Scott_R
    September 10, 2013

    Signs and/or policies that ban illegal carry do not stop the people that don’t obey laws. Use your brains, people.

    Banning weapons only keeps the good guys unarmed.

  10. Deen
    September 10, 2013

    Nothing safe about a “gun free zone” why do you think the shooters pick out the schools or theaters where guns are not allowed?
    Because they know there will not be anyone there to shoot back.

    • Duane
      September 10, 2013

      A “Gun Free Zone” is a “Crime Spree Zone”

  11. The Old Man
    September 10, 2013

    I travel often and carry concealed, Starbucks would never know, let alone those with an irrational fear of guns.
    If they were to change their policy they’ll simply become a target of thieves.
    Criminals don’t abide by the law…hence the name “criminal”

  12. Scott
    September 10, 2013

    Sandy Hook – “Gun Free” Zone
    Aurora theater – posted “No Guns”
    Virginia Tech – “Gun Free” Zone
    Fort Hood – “Gun Free” Zone (even soldiers aren’t allowed weapons on their own base?!)

    See a pattern there? Amazing how well those SIGNS worked to keep CRIMINALS from committing their heinous acts of violence. I’m CERTAIN that signs at Starbuck’s, or any other business, will be just as effective. Can you really be that gullible and naive? Clearly the answer is yes, you are that gullible and naive.

    I applaud Starbuck’s for taking the correct approach, FOLLOW THE LAW! If the local laws allow for concealed or open carrying of weapons, why should those LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS be denied that right because you choose not to exercise it due to fear/hoplophobia/paranoia, etc.? Many hoplophobes, much like the author of this “open letter” assume that those that carry weapons are a small insult away from snapping and shooting up the coffee house. That isn’t the case, unless you are projecting your OWN tendencies onto other people. If you yourself would react with violence to a small insult, then clearly you shouldn’t be carrying weapons.

    As for Starbuck’s banning smoking outside their stores, as Nancy claims as an example? Many state LAWS say that there will be no smoking within 25 feet of an entrance to a retail store. That is the law here in Washington State. So is Starbuck’s singling out smokers by banning smoking within 25 feet of their store entrance? Or are they simply FOLLOWING THE LAW? Chock up another win for Starbuck’s policy to FOLLOW THE LAW!

  13. David
    September 10, 2013

    I don’t even like coffee, but ever since I learned about Starbucks’ stance on open carry, I routinely stop in there and grab something to eat.

    • jay bree
      September 10, 2013

      Me too… the intolerance of the illiberals is always comical…

    • Tony Thompson
      September 10, 2013

      Try a Chai Latte

  14. mr. parker
    September 10, 2013

    Yes, I believe that Starbucks should post a sign saying : Attention Armed Robbers, the patrons and staff have been disarmed for your convenience.

    Your entire article is completely wrong. Most Law Enforcement is supportive of concealed carriers. They have passed background checks, received training in the law and civil liability is not an issue. The actions of the concealed carriers are theirs alone. This is one reason we have castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

    In WI, businesses that allow patrons with licenses to carry weapons are granted immunity from civil liability arising from that decision. All 50 states have these laws and there’s never been any problems with anyone legally exercising their rights of self defense.

  15. rob
    September 10, 2013

    I support starbucks, and freedom.

  16. hugh myrin
    September 10, 2013

    Damn liberal hipster chickens. You will be safer when an armed citizen saves you instead of waiting on the cops. Maybe sell donuts there as well.

    Gun free=Easy targets

  17. Bernardo
    September 10, 2013

    The idea that a gun (whether or not it can be seen) is somehow a thing to be frightened of is childish and emotionally driven reasoning. Furthermore, it is an irrational bias to project that sort of fear upon the people who own them.

    Making the assumption that someone who is (or might be) carrying a gun has intentions to commit violence demonstrates a flawed thought process. It is prejudicial. If anything, the actual likelihood of someone’s intentions for carrying a gun would be that they are simply equipped to defend themselves should the need arise. The odds are that they aren’t looking to seek out conflict at all, but are prepared to avoid becoming a victim of someone who is. Of course there are people who are out to commit violent acts upon individuals in our aociety and that is unfortunate that they choose not to reconcile their desires in a more peaceful and civil manner. However, to suggest that rational, law abiding gun owners should be regarded as such a potential threat that they should not be allowed to arm themselves to prevent the possibility of falling prey to a deadly adversary, is almost as bad as taking sides with a would-be attacker. Pressing for legislation to limit the freedom to carry and use a firearm to defend oneself against harm, is an affront to the survival of decent and trustworthy people with nothing more than intentions to protect themselves. Siding against protective freedoms is, as far as I’m concerned, surreptitious and undermines the well being of good people.

    I think that carrying openly or concealed does imply intent, but in no way does it necessarily express a malicious desire. Voting to limit freedom does.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Intent of the carrying is like intent of the driving. 98% of the public can have perfectly fine intent. A handful of people who don’t think the laws of society apply to them, mentally ill from high grade sociopaths to low grade depressed, UI impaired, etc. The NRA has armed them too. So, the actuarial likelihood remains that no matter what the 98% of you do, which we can all agree on, without better permitting and screening for those who misuse an instrument built solely for its lethality, will misuse it.

      Further, it has been demonstrated time and again that concealed or open carry holders don’t have the stress training to use their weapons properly in such an event. Most carry laws do not require that kind of additional, regular training.

      Last, police in crisis situations have demonstrated a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, in spite of their own training. Being the person with the gun drawn increases the likelihood that the “good” guy gets shot just as easily as the offender, especially if, say, someone is holding the ex-spouse at knife point and citizen Rambo decides to involve themselves and there is a standoff when the cops show up. Most people would disarm in that situation when prompted, but a certain number of people when pumped full of adrenaline can hesitate, ending in their immediate termination by the police. Failure to comply is still a leading cause of death in police events with citizens holding guns.

      For that reason, the signs should go up, if nothing more than to protect the shareholders of Starbucks from the civil lawsuits brought about from the poor decision making of its CEO. Without the signs, they are liable for everything you folks and the bad guys might potentially do do to injure people in one of their stores.

      • mark leedom
        September 10, 2013

        I would argue that the posting of a sign, with no efforts to ensure that the customers are protected (security, metal detectors, etc.) leaves the question of liability in play. I think Starbucks’ written policy leaves a jusr with fewer concerns than telling their customers that their establishment is gun-free when it may not be.

      • wuzyoungoncetoo
        September 10, 2013

        ROFLMAO!!! So instead of “Won’t someone think of the children?!!!” the anti-gun plea to emotion is now “Won’t someone think of the shareholders?!!!”

        You guys are a hoot.

      • SteveM
        September 10, 2013

        Wong on every count, tell us again how you keep your job writing this nonsense?
        BTW your poll is running about 93 percent voting NO and 6 percent or less voting yes…… Excellent work their buddy

      • Jon
        September 10, 2013

        Put those “No guns allowed” up, and create a welcome environment for bad guys intent on evil, knowing they will not be confronted by a good guy. Brian, just go to a corner, curl up in a fetal position,and wait to be shot. Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Have you checked out this report from Obama’s own Justice Dept.?

        http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

      • ianto94
        September 10, 2013

        Sorry Brian you are full of it. Cite some of that “proof” if you have it. Every day people without the “stress training” use their guns to stop attacks. However, I do have the stress training to use my firearm for self defense and I urge all CCW holders to do the same. Mistaken shootings happen much more frequently with police than with citizens. The real problem for citizens that I have seen in training is the failure to shoot when they should. Things like firing warning shots (never do it); telling a bad guy to drop the gun when an immediate shot is warranted. There is a natural and good inclination not to kill another human being. However, when that human being is trying to kill you or another, immediate action is required to avoid innocent loss of life.

      • MJ Paulk
        September 10, 2013

        As a veteran and CCW permit holder I take offense to your lack of intellectual ability to use reason and common sense.
        I carry a gun to defend myself and my loved ones from criminals. If you are involved in a victim scenario whereby an armed criminal is threatening your life or the lives of your loved ones it is my intent to capitalize on your victim mentality and escape with my loved ones unharmed. I am not a cop and therefore don’t care if you choose to be a victim and hence I will not be “Rambo” and risk my life to save yours. CCW’s and open carriers for the most part agree with that philosophy according to all the thousands of “gun nuts” I interact with throughout my travels and on social media networks. We for the most part have no interest in being vigilantes. If you want to be a victim then that is your right to do so but the flip side to that liberty is our choice to not become victimized by a criminal that has no regards for signs, legal paths to gun ownership or human life.
        Starbucks is well known for their 2nd amendment stance and it is well publicized that they allow legally carried weapons in their stores, statistically making Starbucks one of the safest places in America. If you don’t like it then you have the right to buy overpriced coffee anywhere you like but where I choose to carry my firearm, buy my coffee, watch films or shop for groceries in non of your business.

      • Joanna Reichert Photography
        September 10, 2013

        Look, aside from all the other idiotic things being flung around here – the NRA hasn’t ‘armed’ anyone. Our Founding Fathers – whom, by the way, did not succesfully negotiate with England PEACEFULLY – understood that to keep people truly free, everyone is entitled to protect them and theirs with the most appropriate tool necessary. That’s it. That’s the total argument. Our laws say that if you have not committed a crime so atrocious that it precludes you from LEGALLY buying a gun (there’s that word again, legal), then we’re not going to ‘shoot first and ask questions later'; you’re a lawful citizen, go ahead and buy that tool.

        It’s insane to me that anyone suggest we regress to a state that North Korea, China, and any other piss-poor country finds themselves. I don’t like tyranny. I don’t like women being raped. I don’t like senior citizens who have gone to war for this country being murdered by evil people. Advocating for taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens (and really, please do educate yourself on the number of crimes PREVENTED by people who are carrying) is really the same thing as advocating FOR the aforementioned inhuman treatment.

        Wake up and smell the Starbucks, folks. There will always be some evil folks around. Now do you want to twiddle your thumbs and hope for the best? Or be reassured that you have the best TOOL necessary to protect your life?

      • BuddyLama
        September 10, 2013

        You mean assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent? You’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t ya?

      • TDS
        September 10, 2013

        So…
        You honestly believe that a little paper sign saying that guns are not allowed (a sign which carries ZERO force of law, by the way), will completely absolve a business owner from any liability if a shooting occurs on their property?
        Really?
        REALLY???
        – – –
        I’d say that there would actually be MORE of a liability issue on the business owner who decides to have that sign posted, and here’s why:
        If I were required to be unarmed in order to shop at an establishment, and if I, or a member of my family, ended up getting shot by someone that targeted yet another “gun-free zone” (aka target-rich environment for psychopaths), I would sue the HELL out of that business for removing my right to self defense.
        And I would win.
        BIG.
        – – –
        But hey, enjoy that delusion that a little paper sign magically makes people bulletproof and immune to crime.
        It’s worked so well at all those previous mass shootings, right?

      • pat
        September 10, 2013

        wow, i don’t have a CCW. i don’t feel i need one. you nutjobs are making me seriously consider getting a CCW and start carrying. i am a trained combat soldier (retired). i suffer from PTSD and Depression. and i shoot cleaner and faster than 90% of the police force. i am also an extremely vigilant watcher of whats happening around me. the stress training? seriously? stress training? lol, the NRA hasn’t armed anyone you moron, every single person i know who has a CCW went to the classes and bought their own weapon. a lot of them aren’t even members of the NRA. (I’m not). then you babble along about scenarios and what if’s.. how about this? what if you are totally unarmed and you get shot to death on the floor? well now you don’t have to consider the what if of a cop shooting you by mistake, or another CCW holder shooting you by accident. Rambo? my ass, the last thing most trained responsible citizens want is to be involved in a shootout with a criminal with a gun. (much like the last thing most sane people want is some crazy attacking them in a fit of road rage. or being shot in the face by some crack head street thug with a stolen (illegal) gun). now here’s an Idea for you. get yourself a big yellow jacket, and in big letters across the front and back “ANTI GUN”, now, those of us who carry and or support carry will now know your preference, and will avoid being involved in your protection. you can do the same thing with your home or apartment,, put up that sign. let the world know how you feel. as to Starbucks i fully support their decision, and those shareholders who get upset, or fear the liability of allowing the customer to defend themselves?? right.. what Wuzy said,, you liberal anti gunners are a hoot…

      • Tyler Compton
        September 10, 2013

        Strange, by that argument the signs need to be up everywhere… in the Starbucks, on the sidewalk of the shopping center out front, in the supermarket across the street, etc.

        There’s no need for a sign, because it is your state law to allow concealed carry. Anyone uncomfortable with that needs to change the state law or find another state.

      • Micki
        September 10, 2013

        Could you please explain why you care so very much about Starbucks liabilities?

      • 805moparkid
        September 10, 2013

        Last time I checked the NRA doesn’t arm anyone, they are simply a lobby to protect gun rights. Also the was the first to suggest screening for the mentally ill.

        And 98% of people that drive, drink and drive, and they have been thru a driving test… hmm…

      • pat
        September 10, 2013

        additionally, your “what if” statements are totally leftist BS. a large % of the CCW shooting incidents in this country, the CCW holder is the person who calls the police, mostly after the criminal is down and the CCW holder has re-holstered their weapon. the incidence of cops abusing and arresting legal gun owners and CCW permit holders is 3x larger that an accidental shooting by a CCW holder. look it up, Obama asked for a gun crime report from the CDC. funny how after the CDC released that report the Obama administration hasn’t mentioned it.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/12/anti-gun-advocates-probably-wont-like-this-new-cdc-report/

      • Adam
        September 10, 2013

        “Further, it has been demonstrated time and again that concealed or open carry holders don’t have the stress training to use their weapons properly in such an event. Most carry laws do not require that kind of additional, regular training.

        Broad statement, all weapon carriers lack the stress training.
        16 years U.S Army, 3 separate combat deployments, competition pistol veteran.
        And simply putting a sticker on a window does not counteract my constitutional right or remove liability from the company.
        I never went into Starbucks before I heard of this, but now I go every Saturday and pay with 2 dollar bills and make sure they know why.

      • Rob Corbett
        September 10, 2013

        Brian. Fill us in more on this civil liability that you say Starbucks will face because they followed the law in their jurisdiction and allowed law abiding folks carrying weapons into their store. I don’t see the connection. If the law of the particular jurisdiction says folks can carry weapons, then what is the proximate cause or the reasonably foreseeable circumstances that Starbucks should have foreseen that their customers would be injured? Is there a statute or a case you can point to… anything?

      • Pete
        September 10, 2013

        “Thank you for your feedback regarding Starbucks’ policy on open carry laws.”
        How did this go from being about open carry to concealed carry?
        How many criminals walk around with a gun on their hip when it drawn attention from bleeding hearts who wouldn’t hesitate to call the cops or draw attention to the person? My guess is zero.
        Seeing as how I have a concealed carry permit, decades of experience with firearms, and taught marksmanship to thousands of military personnel during my career, I will carry when and where I feel necessary within the limits of the local laws, regardless of how anyone feels about it.
        By the way, look at the numbers on the poll you attached at the bottom of this article. Do you need a tissue?

      • David Noahr
        September 10, 2013

        Could you point us to this proof? or did you hear this from a friend who heard if from a policeman`s brother-in-laws neighbor?

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Except that you’re wrong. Time and time again civilian outperform police officers in crime prevention by firearm. They are used over 2 million times to stop criminal activity by civilians. It might be better if you stopped making things up and start educating yourselves.

      • thomas russell
        September 10, 2013

        sir your assumption that an individual that carries a concealed firearm LEGALLY is a threat to you and the public at large is really puzzling to me. when I carry concealed the last thing I wish to do is be in a unnecessary confrontation , but it always seems that liberal types want to be in an unnecessary confrontations where you manipulate the situation by throwing tantrums that a 3 year old would be proud of. honestly I find these events to be truly alarming and a reason that I carry concealed among others. the complete lack of grasp on present reality by far left types is truly dumfounding at times as is the self-retardation of so called college educated individuals on the facts! but it’s easy for the “PROTECTED” to be lulled into believing the lies of their elected government that you only need to dial 3 numbers to be saved from the horror of Starbucks deciding to treat a so called minority group of customers as EQUAL as the snotty we’re better than all of you peasants types, because in the end it’s a business that want to make a profit so it can continue to employ people and pay the taxes that can go to pay the salaries of the ultimate freeloading welfare recipients of all time known as incumbent politicians

      • jay bree
        September 10, 2013

        Care to provide any citations to support you “it has been proven time and time again…” fantasies?

        If you actually knew any gun owners you’d likely discover that we shoot far more often than do most uniformed officers. Or perhaps you were thinking of those highly trained officers in Boston who shot up the boat the bomber was in but never hit the terrorist….or perhaps the SoCal officers who shot up the cars of several innocents while hunting for one of their own who went open loop.

        Admit it…you’re documenting your uninformed fears, not any factual menace.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        “About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000, despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.”

      • W. Richards
        September 10, 2013

        The actuarial fact of the matter, Mr. Ross, is that nearly all mass shootings happen in your prized “Gun Free Zones.” Regardless of whether your actuarial 98% of gun owners can react to your actuarial satisfaction in a crisis, they seem to never have to. The actuarial important thing seems to be that they COULD react, in some way, which would be detrimental to the overall actuarial plan of a mass shooter. The actuarial effect of the public carrying firearms is an actuarial reduction in all crimes, despite your actuarial paranoia that, every person carrying a firearm, will suddenly randomly feel the need to fire it in some inappropriate way, not unlike your inability to use any argument than to use the word “actuarial,” to defend your indefensible opinion.

      • Mark Day
        September 10, 2013

        Mr. Ross, you are not only a terribly misinformed person, you are an idiot as well. Your childish emotional hatred of firearms and firearms owners is pathetic. You are living proof that stupid cannot be fixed.

      • Ron
        September 10, 2013

        Brian,

        Thank you for your opinion and your insight into this topic. I would like to ask if you have ever carried a gun, used a gun in self defense or used a gun in defense of this nation? If not then I respectfully ask that you refrain from speaking about things that you know nothing of.

        I have done all three of those things of which I asked of you. I am a highly trained firearms instructor. I have trained citizens, police officers and military. I have seen first hand the results of the lack of training and of extensive training. I must ask where you get your facts and figures from, as they are at best incorrect.

        By your logic we should also ban LEO’s, Diplomatic Security Officers, Military Personnel etc. from using guns as they are prone to “shoot first and ask questions later, in spite of their own training.” In fact certain professions in those groups are required to shoot first.

        I would go on but I know it would be of no consequence to you, as I can tell that nothing could dissuade you from you illusions. If you feel safer in your own little bubble then good for you sir.

        If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need trained armed responders to come to your aid, be assured that we will respect your wishes regarding gun toting nuts and we will not assist you.

        Good day to you sir.

      • pavepusher
        September 11, 2013

        Citations for your claims, please. Where are you getting your numbers and conclusions from?

  18. Eric
    September 10, 2013

    This horribly written hit-piece really makes me want to take my gun into a Starbucks and buy a high capacity cup of coffee, with cream and two sugars, and then sit down and drink that cup of coffee while following the law! Oh! How dangerous and scary!

    If you really want to live in an area with lots of tight anti-gun laws you could always move to Chicago. We all know that nobody ever gets shot there…

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Chicago’s laws are only marginally better than some areas, and are undercut by the mass of gun shows around the burbs that have no restrictions. There is still not enough screening for past criminal records at those shows. Regardless of which, most of the “crime” in Chicago using guns never involves a robbery. Most of it is the same social retaliatory acts that become crimes after the trigger is pulled. The gun is the final comment in domestic disputes in more than 80% of the shootings out there. The cops make up another 5%. Suicides are good for another 10%. “Crime” that you all fear is a drop in the bucket because all of the special circumstances laws passed nationwide WORK.

      Criminals, it would seem, are smarter than the “law abiding” in getting what using a gun does to their time in jail.

      • Eric
        September 10, 2013

        Gun shows in Illinois have far from “no” restrictions and that claim is simply a lie.

        Second, I don’t care if the “crime” in Chicago using guns was a robbery or not.
        “Criminals”, it would seem, obey fewer laws than the law abiding.

      • Zeke
        September 10, 2013

        Your cited statistics here and in the article above have no basis in fact, and amount to no more than wishful thinking. The vast majority of killings in Chicago are gang related, involving drugs and turf wars, not domestic violence. Crime rates among concealed carry permit holders in every state are nearly non-existent. Chicago’s gun laws resemble no where in the nation other than Washington, DC, which also has phenomenal murder rates.

        As a class, concealed carry permit holders are the most scrutinized and most highly trained citizens among us. They have proven to be the least likely to commit a crime of any kind. Criminality by CCP holders is nearly non-existent.

        Your distortion of Starbuck’s position on honoring state laws, their presumed resultant civil liability, and the efficacy of gun free zones is either intentionally dishonest or is the result of flawed thinking bordering on psychosis.

        Your fear of inanimate objects, and your projection of violent thinking onto law abiding, emotionally mature citizens says more about you than it does about them.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Uh, Zeke, “turf wars” whether it’s neighbors shooting each other over a property line or a couple of drug dealers spatting over a corner are all “domestic disputes” as defined by the FBI. That is to say there is no immediate criminal activity in the shooting. Selling drugs is a crime. If they’re defending their product, that’s a criminal activity. Most “gang related” killings are purely domestic. Read the FBI and DEA reports. Killings revolve around personal sleights, revenge, fear of reprisals, etc. None of them a specific crime. All of them have a one-to-one with people who use guns who have no gang affiliation at all. Someone who shoots his neighbor whom he thinks is going to come after him is engaging in domestic dispute just as much as the gang solider.

        As a class, concealed carry holders are a mish-mash of abilities and few, if any get enough proper training in crisis situations. Ask law enforcement. That’s been their beef with these laws since day one.

      • Brad
        September 10, 2013

        None of this matters. None of it. The only thing that matters is the US Constitution. It is our right to keep and bear arms. Period. No amount of whining and complaining from the Left will change this. I do not have to justify a need to exercise a right. You need to come to terms with that. Your fears are not my problem. My rights are not predicated on you having a warm, fuzzy feeling about them. They are simply my rights. We’re here, we’re armed, get used to it.

      • wuzyoungoncetoo
        September 10, 2013

        - “Ask law enforcement. That’s been their beef with these laws since day one.”

        If/when you learn the difference between political appointees and actual rank-and-file cops you’ll find that the vast majority of “law enforcement” has in fact never had a beef with these laws.

        You pull more stuff out of your ass than the inmates in the primate house at the Bronx Zoo.

      • Jon
        September 10, 2013

        Why is the crime rate so low in those areas you claim all the guns come from? Read the Justice Dept report. Only .8% of guns used by criminals are obtained from gun shows or flea markets, not the 40% you gun hating liberals like to throw around! Really rough when facts get in the way of a good agenda, isn’t it?

      • ianto94
        September 10, 2013

        Your replies get more and more silly. Domestic disputes are not where the homicides in Chicago are coming from. Please do some real research next time.

      • Jim Weston
        September 10, 2013

        Yeah they work. Look how it worked in disarming the citizens of Germany, the UK and many other nations. Tell me again how gun control works?

      • Kelly
        September 10, 2013

        Brian,

        Your meretricious prevarications are telling indicators of having cognitive and ethical issues. I honestly mean no insult in saying so. If there was any evidence that you had an ability to grasp the abstract concept of personal accountability, I would ask you to prepare to be cornered into an airtight box of logic from which there is no escape so that I might further expose your sophistry and self deception with a proving exchange. Unfortunately, you seem to be an intransigent creature who does not possess a mind sufficiently skeptical to regard any epistemological issue with rigor.

        You express incredulity toward actual truths in this matter and this contempt of fact does not appear to end there. Please evaluate your ability to make rational assessments before writing again. If you find that you are emotional about this topic, it’s another reason to stop and consider the difference between expressing yourself intellectually and pontificating about a feeling that compels you.

        Take the time to deconstruct your beliefs and your will to act upon them. If you still feel like attacking people for their beliefs, then take a deep breath and try again.

        Many years ago, I disarmed a man of his gun during a store robbery and without anyone getting shot. I could have taken my chances and hoped his threats to kill anyone and everyone who tried to stop him were just words of persuasion, but considering he also fired a shot, I’d had enough with rhetorical devices. I’ve also survived an attempted carjacking. In that instance, it was probably because I was armed and simply got the drop on them before they used theirs. He didn’t get hurt either. I talked him down and the police sorted everything out once they arrived. I am not a Rambo wanna-be or vigilante as it seems you like to characterize people who defend themselves. I am just a regular guy who happens to keep an even keel under pressure and I am a survivor. I do not bring these examples up as if to boast. I mention them because when you lump gun owners and criminals together as a bunch of troglodytes and then imply that permit carriers are inherently inept, despite their training, it really shows how far you’re willing to go to assert your distortions. I’m not going to bother with citing any specifics as you show a tendency to support a very large and warped world view. Your analytical skills are very poor and your objectives are in conflict with reality. It appears you value society as a whole, but would support the marginalization of the freedom to protect oneself in order to achieve this.

        I don’t blame societal problems on inanimate objects, I blame them on fallacies in reckoning and a lack of appreciation of the free will of others. Your decision making processes are driven by fear and an indignant sense of self righteousness. You are not unintelligent, but in my opinion, you’re using the gifts you have in the wrong way. Your passion is your entitlement, invest wisely. Otherwise, your zeal will likely drive you into irreversible dependence on your increasingly corrupt ways with words.

      • 805moparkid
        September 10, 2013

        so of your 100% non of the incidents are because of a legal citizen protecting them selves? oh wait, of course not, they just passed the CCW law a month or so ago…

      • Steve
        September 10, 2013

        Brian give it up you have already demonstrated ignorance on this issue, your made up stats and comments don’t mean anything to people who actually think, take their safety serious, and are your normal law abiding American. If you are so afraid then move, I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan why don’t you give one of those countries a try? Are you a comedy writer?

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 10, 2013

        “Gun shows that have no restrictions” and “not enough screening” are both urban legends perpetrated by and for people dumb enough to believe that their audience is too stupid to have done the research.

      • pat
        September 10, 2013

        LOL, and you are claiming that a sign on the door at Starbucks will make it a gun free utopia? that’s working so well for Chicago. on one hand you say the shareholders, on the other hand you say the law. then you say a sign should enforce those laws to protect the people, then you claim that the cops are so well trained that they should protect the people. then make excuses about how those guns are coming in from other outlying counties. (what you think a sign at every route into Chicago will stop that? make Chicago a total gun free zone?) but where does this leave Chicago? #1 in gun homicides, while also having the most laws (protecting the people from defending themselves). either state you are a moron, or continue to babble about for a while and prove it.

      • David Noahr
        September 10, 2013

        you list numbers but you don`t list where you get your numbers to back it up. Could you list where you got 80% for domestic disputes?

      • jay bree
        September 10, 2013

        “Social retaliatory act”. That’s the best euphemism ever!

        I can see the attraction to HuffPo!

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        Vermont doesn’t have any gun control laws to speak of. No License, NO permit, Open and/or Conceal carry. Why doesn’t Vermont have a higher rate of violent crime?

      • pavepusher
        September 11, 2013

        Brian, I can’t decide if you are deliberately lying, or simply actually that pig-ignorant. Would you care to weigh in for a decision?

  19. phil o
    September 10, 2013

    i don’t even care for Starbucks that much,more an 8 o’clock bean man myself but will open the wallet when one of the appreciate starbucks for allowing concealed carry days goes on

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      And thank you for documenting that Starbucks cynical marketing ploy sells a few more cups of coffee at the expense of the increased risk of gunplay in their stores when they become gun advocate magnets.

      • Brian D Ritchie
        September 10, 2013

        Starbucks had nothing to do with the appreciation days. and for all of your sniveling, you can’t point out a single incident in 42 years of someone legally carrying in a Starbucks injuring anyone. Also if you did some research you’d find that Starbucks cannot be held to an account by following state laws, if someone did happen to shoot up a Starbucks, there could be no case filed on them. If you’re going to be a journalist at least try to find a few facts

      • Eric
        September 10, 2013

        Or perhaps he’s documenting that people will spend money at businesses that share a similar political viewpoint.

        If Starbucks were to ban guns to appease the various “Boycott Starbucks” groups, I could easily claim that it was a cynical marketing ploy to sell a few more cups of coffee at the expense of the increased risk of leaving their customers defenseless.

      • DJ
        September 10, 2013

        Why don’t you spend some time talking to your congress critter about how you would like the laws to work, vs. trying to chastise a public company for following the law.

        I’m sure it will come as a complete surprise to you and your liberal friends, but the world does not run on or revolve around your “feelings”.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Or around smug supercilious snark like yours (Look it up). The company isn’t subject to the law. As a matter of fact, the “out” that was written into the law was specifically because of the liability exposure that allowing y’all in with weapons poses. So the good news for you is that they’re endorsing your point of view. The bad news for Starbucks shareholders is that they have invalidated every other risk assessment that they do by catering to gun toters.

      • Zeke
        September 10, 2013

        And as a practicing Quaker I’m disgusted with your cynical mis-use of the Quaker-coined phrase, “…speaking truth to power”. You don’t speak the truth, and you are not risking your life or freedom confronting the truly powerful. I remain strikingly unimpressed with those who co-opt the Quaker name and language in order to dress their dishonest arguments up in a suit of respectable clothing.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Quakers are pacifists. So you’re a hypocrite, or you need to practice harder and ditch the gun.

      • Zeke
        September 10, 2013

        You don’t know anything more about Quakers than you do about guns. Quakers do not have a set doctrine. Each individual is guided by conscience in all things. Quakers have been hunters for centuries, and have owned guns. Quakers fought in the Revolutionary War, and in WWI and WWII. USMC General Smedley Butler was a Quaker, and so was Sgt. York, both Congressional Medal of Honor winners. Apparently, you think you know a lot more about everything than you actually do.

      • wuzyoungoncetoo
        September 10, 2013

        - “And thank you for documenting that Starbucks cynical marketing ploy…”

        You know, as much as you lie one would think that you’d have developed more skill at it by now. Starbucks has not engaged in any “marketing ploy” of any sort. YOU morons have dragged them into this by publicly demanding that they adopt a policy on an issue that they simply want to stay out of. Only a clueless fool with absolutely no grasp on reality could label “We will honor and abide whatever the local law is” as a “cynical marketing ploy”.

      • SteveM
        September 10, 2013

        lol you mean law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. BTW the US Supreme Court ruled that all American Citizens have the right to bear arms not some Liberal fantasy that ONLY the Militia has that right…. at least keep up with the news if you are going to spin it to the left

      • Jim Weston
        September 10, 2013

        How does it increase the likelyhood og gun play? Its been proven that criminals choose the gun free zones for mass shootings. Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora Co, shall I continue?

      • Dirty Harry
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, stop digging while you’re behind. Your irrational fear of guns and legal gun owners makes you sound like a hysterical nut job. Chicken little if you will spewing anti gun propaganda and no facts. You have a right to be a victim if you wish but don’t demand that others do the same. How many shootings have there been at Starbucks?

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Bria. Ross. You need to understand law. The points been made clearlg. For decades this policy has been in place and your paranoid delusions of mass murder have not ever happened. I’ll bet you’re hoping it does happen so you can scream I told you so..

      • pavepusher
        September 11, 2013

        Got stats for this “increased risk of gunplay” you claim? Put up or shut up, blow-hard.

  20. tjciv (@tjciv1983)
    September 10, 2013

    Its nice to see a large chain like SB stand up for the constitution and the civil rights of American citizens. I will make sure when I buy a coffee I will give my business to them. Its also nice to know that criminals may think twice before attacking SBs unlike the gun free zones that are constantly the scenes of mass shootings. GUN FREE ZONES ARE FREE KILL ZONES.

  21. william bilotta
    September 10, 2013

    Simple solution. If you do not agree with Starbuck’s policy of following the law and allowing legal law abiding citizens to carry a sidearm, then do not patronize them.

    There, now wasn’t that easier than trying to change the policy of an entire corporation?

  22. Derrick a.D.R.
    September 10, 2013

    The poll didn’t go the way you thought it would, and now you’re getting owned in the comments-section of your own blog as well. Embarrasing, dude.

    Never give up your 2. amendment rights, americans. Greetings from Europe.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Actually, you’re doing a wonderful job of demonstrating a point that happens when y’all descend on articles with which you disagree. The case for better screening can be made just by reading here.

      • SteveM
        September 10, 2013

        Wait!!! You post a article with a survey and then get peeved that those with opposing views vote or comment on it in opposition? Yep Typical Liberal

      • Jim Weston
        September 10, 2013

        By screening out those that dont trust a proven failed judicial system to pr0otect the public and effectively quench the law breakers? Please explain this.

      • Larry
        September 10, 2013

        All your limp wrist arguments are being voted down 30/40 to 1. You are just to stupid to figure it out. I am college educated, with honors, and a veteran and have owned guns for 58 years, In all that time my guns have NEVER been used illegally nor have they injured any innocent bystanders. They have on occasion protected myself and my family from some scumbags and they will continue to do so. I bet I have more “range time” than most LEO’s. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. It is time for you to SHUT UP and move along.

      • indyroadie
        September 10, 2013

        Actually, the only thing this proves is that there are more Pro Gun people than there are Anti Gun… or your side would be able to garner enough support to balance out the Pro Gun visitors.

      • Vladimir (@leninsghost)
        September 10, 2013

        Oh Mr Ross, how disappointing. You have no point to hang an argument on except for your own fear. You have no idea, it seems, of the rights of others – merely the rights of your own terror. You speculate endlessly about the possibilities – if that is the case are you terrified of liberal terrorism? After all your man in the white house is a friend of people who have bombed Americans. You made a ludicrous and rather juvenile article and wonder why you are being exposed as a nitwit?

        Maybe, just maybe you should start to mature a little,

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Yeah. We should start screening blogers before letting them excersise the first.. you consistently get your facts wrong.

      • jay bree
        September 10, 2013

        Your next rant can be anti First Amendment next time.

      • Eric
        September 10, 2013

        Oh, now we need screening huh?
        Tell me, how do you feel about voter identification laws?

      • Tony Thompson
        September 10, 2013

        I love how you keep using the term “y’all” in an attempt to depict your opponents as hicks or the like. You sir are nothing more than an elitist bigot who chooses to ignore facts the don’t support his views and runs off at the mouth about things he doesn’t understand. Not once have you responded to the greatest point that contradicts your view, Exactly how do you explain the fact that their have be little to no acts of violence committed by carry permit holders while at the same time most mass shooting occur in gun free zones by persons that would not likely be able to get a permit.

      • Mark Day
        September 10, 2013

        So, you are not merely anti second amendment, you are also anti first amendment. You are a poltroon and and a fool as well as a fascist. how enlightening.

      • bigbad401
        September 11, 2013

        Ah, so you can screen out the view point that does not follow what you believe in? So you are not for the First Amendment either then?

      • bigbad401
        September 11, 2013

        Ah, so you want to screen out the view point that does not follow what you believe in? So you are not for the First Amendment either?

      • Gene Mcdonald
        September 14, 2013

        Brian, your delusion is nothing short of astounding. I’ve read the same comments that you have and non have demonstrated an inkling of any thing that would “make a case for better screening”.
        In fact, the comments here have done nothing but expose , your ignorance and lies, which hurt your delicate sensibilities.
        You anti-gun nuts can really be described with one word. Cowards.
        Admit it, you are afraid and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, and seeing other people who aren’t afraid really is just a painful reminder of your cowardice.

    • Jim Weston
      September 10, 2013

      Amen bro! And thanks to ya from over the pond! :D I love it when dipshits like this make a fool of themselves. Its simple entertainment! :)

    • Jordan
      September 10, 2013

      Happy to see someone from Europe here, supporting our right. Thank you Derrick.

  23. Darryl McCreary
    September 10, 2013

    “… the increased risk of ‘gunplay?’ ” o_0

    And Mr. Ross, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance on the issue of open carry.

  24. Glen
    September 10, 2013

    So when the police sit down for their morning coffee they should disarm??? It’s so likely that the gun will just jump up out of the holster and go on a murderous rampage? Oh, and please define “gun nut” I bet mine is better! Describe the recent or past crimes by “gun nuts”. The focus needs to be on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. Before you spout off at the mouth do your research….Chicago, need I say more????? Starbucks supports LOCAL LAWS where their franchises are located, why??? Because they follow the law. If gay marriage is illegal in a state and a visiting married gay couple stops in a Starbucks should they be banned or arrested?? Do me a favor, please don’t go to Starbucks, you’re probably the self absorbed, fake businessperson in front of me holding up the line because you’re too busy talking about nothing on your damn phone while trying to order, that way I can get my coffee and get out with my really scary legally carried firearm (that you can’t see).

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      The mentally unstable and under-the-influence tend to be your gun “nuts” not the other 93% who carry. Again, reading being a challenge with my gun buddies here, the laws in most states allow Starbucks to opt out. Most businesses do because their insurance companies do the math and, actuarially, they shoot the argument right out from under you. If y’all would do more to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable and under-the-influence people, it would make concealed and open carry that much more credible. Instead you waste your time spinning articles which you get a C for comprehension. Oh, that and the NRA hasn’t told you that improved safety, something they were chartered to encourage, is an agenda item.

      Oh, and the police are permitted to carry anywhere anytime, but they are TRAINED. They’re not going to freak in some lightning strike robbery and shoot another patron. If you want your guns in stores that badly, how committed, by the way, are you to actually taking the crisis training 3-4 times a year so you can actually be effective with that weapon at doing what the permit implies?

      • Mike Hargrave
        September 10, 2013

        Talk about “smug supercilious snark” It seems when Brian’s facts are refuted or his point isn’t agreed with, that’s exactly what he resorts to. As for the police being “TRAINED” since Brian can use cap locks too, the average officer in most departments only shoots once a year when it’s time to requalify with their service weapon. Not sure how trained that would make one.

      • robert
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, just because cops are “trained” does not mean that they are in any way superior to the stress reaction! You said it yourself, cops freak out and accidentally shoot the law abiding citizen! Growing up with cops and knowing many cops I have talked to several after a shooting and let me tell ya buddy, they are just as likely to miss and to freeze as any of us! The advantage we have is we are already there and do not have to wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up and start the investigation to save ourselves! When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!

      • ianto94
        September 10, 2013

        Yeah Brian, just like the two cops in NY city did not freak when they shot nine, count them nine innocents. Cops have terrible hit rates, 30 percent or so because they train so little. True gun nuts I know train far more often. But you wouldn’t know that would you?

      • Frank
        September 10, 2013

        “The mentally unstable and under-the-influence tend to be your gun “nuts” not the other 93% who carry.” – Brian Ross

        I am what you would term as a “gun nut”, I do enjoy collecting historical weapons, as I love history. I am also a USMC Combat Veteran, and a National Guard Veteran. Yet by your terms, I am “mentally unstable and under-the-influence.” You disgust me as a wannabe writer for the simple fact is that you are trying to generalize a group of people.

        If our gov’t wouldn’t run guns with no strings attached, or they would actually enforce the laws that are on the books, then that would solve most of your problems right there. But the tone, and writing style of your work suggests that you wish to not have guns at all. You state that our second amendment is out of date, guess what, if it is then every other part of the Bill of Rights is as well. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.

        You should realize that all the United States are not the same. The laws of the local people or the states reflect the citizens wishes/wants. If the people do not want something they will put it in their laws. If they do, then they will allow it in their laws.

      • indyroadie
        September 10, 2013

        Once again you are incorrect. Being LE does not give you a “carry anywhere” pass. There are many businesses that include “Off Duty Law Enforcement” in their “No Guns” policies.

      • Larry
        September 10, 2013

        Actually I could care less about the “insurance cost” since there is not price on my or my families lives. And you are totally incorrect about the police not hitting innocent bystanders. In one recent incident 8-9 people were injured by the police shooting at a suspect. As for their “training” it is more like brain washing and my military training and personal dedication to shooting are just as effective if not more so. FYI, I have two brothers in law enforcement so I am well aware of their training.

      • Joanna Reichert Photography
        September 10, 2013

        So by your own admission, you want to disarm 100% of people to take care of that supposed 7% of people who pose a ‘possible’ risk?? Even though making something illegal has NEVER affected criminals anyways??

        I think you need to speak with a statistician.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        No, I want to have real background checks that disarm about 3-7% of people who never should have had a gun in the first place. The rest of you zealots can prance around with your firearms and thump your chests and more power to you. If you drink and carry, your gun should go away for good. If you can’t pass a mental health test, you shouldn’t carry.

      • Joanna Reichert Photography
        October 12, 2013

        What constitutes a “real” background check? The federal government going through our business isn’t enough? People who can hide mental issues aren’t going to be found out UNTIL something happens. We will never be able to plan for WHEN things go bad, the best we can do is be prepared when it does.

        I’ve never pranced with a firearm or thumped my chest – you don’t believe cavemen still exist, do you?

      • Brian Ross
        October 14, 2013

        A “real” background check as done in places with far less violence includes:

        • A criminal check – Done in most states
        • A check of for Temporary Restraining Orders TROs in all jurisdictions (We don’t have that one)
        • A standard psych eval – And before you freak out, its the same one administered to the military to make sure that they don’t have problems
        • A UI Check – People who have received drunk and disorderly citations (Misdemeanors) that haven’t elevated to a criminal DUI/DWI may not disqualify, but the combination of that and a bad psych profile might be grounds to disqualify.
        • Police incident report check – Again with no felony committed, its just a point in the total picture, but typically family abusers and stalkers have long jackets of citations, misdemeanors, and patrol car calls before they escalate. Not a deal breaker by itself, but again something in the totality of a background check that would save a lot of lives.
      • Jason
        September 10, 2013

        Mr. Ross, consider, if you will, the fabricated statistics you have in just this post. If you were to affix those to any other action, they would create just as much negative enthusiasm to the ignorant and uneducated.

        You are correct in saying that the states have given property owners the right to opt out, as it should be. No one person or entity has the right or power to force or require another to do something against their will. Starbucks, in this case, has decided that if their patrons are within the limits and context of the law, they will not require them to disarm.

        Don’t Sir, if anyone here is guilty of spin, I would suggest that you look at more than Boxer, Fienstien, The Huffington Post, and The Brady Center for your information. Even the CSC recognizes that firearms are but a small fraction of person to person deaths in this country.

        No one wants firearms in the hands of the mentally ill and deranged, just as no one wants other dangerous items in the hands or control of unbalanced or unpracticed individuals. You render your own argument invalid.

        You assume that law enforcement is better trained than the general, armed populace. Unfortunately, you are wrong. Many agencies do not have the funding to permit their officers to shoot their own service weapons more than once or twice a year for practice and qualifications. Add to those numbers, a large number of those officers are not “gun guys” and only shoot their weapons for qualifying purposes, a measurement that one with rudimentary training and proficiency can accomplish with a score that would be satisfactory for most departments.

        You have given yourself away several times in the comments of this story to be making up facts as they work in your favor. In one comment you profess that even the mighty law enforcement officer is subject to stress and mistaken identities, then in this response they are highly trained. So, which is it? You can’t have both.

        You ask how committed the average practitioners of open and concealed carry are to marksmanship? The reality may be hard for you to accept since it doesn’t fall in the propaganda that you and the rest of the anti-freedom, anti-gun crowd preach as truth. Most people who carry firearms for their own protection and that of their loved ones practice with that weapon and their method of carry routinely and often. You might even be surprised to learn that women are the fastest growing segment of the shooting public, and there are more women carrying firearms for their own protection today than ever.

        You seem to believe that gun owners suffer from cowboy mentality. I would argue that some don’t suffer with it, they relish in it. However, it does not change that the majority of gun owners are responsible, sound-minded people who mean no one harm. They simply wish to remain unmolested and have taken actions to secure that.

        I assure you, my weapon does not exist to provide aide to anyone but me and my family. Curtly, I haven’t one concern as to the welfare of you or anyone else. There are two ways to ever see my firearm : 1) ask me to show you , and 2) give me cause to.

      • Mac McAlluster
        September 10, 2013

        Do you consider yourself a journalist? Did you even think to do a five-second search to see how many articles there are about cops accidentally shooting themselves and other people because of stupid gun handling? The fact is that the typical non-LEO gun carrier cares about gun safety more than the typical LEO who carries one as part of the job and as a symbol of authority.

      • jim
        September 10, 2013

        Mr. Ross, I hit the range about 3 times a month and do all the things you local police train for..You really need to go ta a safety class on firearms and see actually what happens and then you would be more creditable.

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        Only .001% of gun permit owners committed any felonies last year almost half that of police officers.. where you get this made up 7%? Cite your source. Don’t bother it doesn’t exist.

      • Raffiki Von Castle
        September 10, 2013

        Actually, your worship of the infallibility of the police is also incorrect. Despite the limited amount of training their budgets allow them, police >dootherno oneright< guaranteed in the Constitution. Likewise, using a cell phone is NOT an exercise of 1st Amendment rights, it is using a technological means of communication. Using it unsafely is even LESS protected than using a weapon unsafely.

      • Brian S
        September 10, 2013

        You do know the police shoot more innocent bystanders than legally armed civilians, per capita, don’t you? Remember about a year ago the NYPD killed a bad guy that murdered his coworker in front of the Empire State Building, but also shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders in the process. That’s just one example. Your logic, “facts” and posts are full of fail.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

        There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

      • Tony Thompson
        September 10, 2013

        What does open carry have to do with keeping guns away from the mentally unstable and those under the influence. In all case where concealed carry is legal it is illegal to carry while under the influence and almost impossible for those diagnosed as mentally unstable to get a carry permit. Crimes, even those committed by the mentally unstable or those under the influence, aren’t being committed by law abiding concealed carry holders.

      • smthnclvr
        September 11, 2013

        Documentation of TRAINED police who “freak” in some lightning strike crime and shoot nine people.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

      • Brian Ross
        September 13, 2013

        Again, if the police are that poorly trained in crisis situations, it’s not a win for you. Your lower training only makes you doubly less likely of being effective in that moment. Thanks for sharing.

      • Chuck
        September 13, 2013

        “Again, if the police are that poorly trained in crisis situations, it’s not a win for you. Your lower training only makes you doubly less likely of being effective in that moment. Thanks for sharing.”

        So, on the one hand we have this, as evidence of ‘police training and restraint':

        http://jonathanturley.org/2012/08/27/all-nine-wounded-in-new-york-were-shot-by-nypd-officers/

        On the other hand, we have this as evidence of the ‘doubly less likely of being effective in that moment.’

        http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security_guard_said_he_had_rob.html

        As noted to you previously (and you abjectly ignored – you do that a lot), the _evidence_ is that private shooters are more restrained than police tend to be – and they tend to significantly reduce the overall casualty count in mass-shooting incidents.

        But that seriously busts your narrative, so you probably won’t respond to this.

  25. Phillip Rogers
    September 10, 2013

    Yes, Yes! Let’s put up signs saying NO GUNS! everywhere! That way the BAD MEN will have NOWHERE to go with their BAD GUNS, and they will have to stay home. Once they see the signs, they’ll give up on their intentions of robbery and murder, because if they can’t bring a gun, how can they do it, and the sign says NO GUNS!

    And while we’re at it, lets put signs up everywhere saying NO ROBBERY!, And NO MURDER!, and NO RAPING!.

    Then we can live happily ever after!

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Knee jerk reaction. The number of homicides in America, and even shootings, for that matter, that revolve around robbery and rape are a drop in the bucket behind drunken shootings, domestic dispute shootings, and suicides. Actuarially you stand more chance of being hit by a train in your bathtub than stopping crime with your weapon. Also, working with real numbers, you stand a greater likelihood of death or injury, or causing the death or injury of a loved one or friend, if you own a gun. Homeowners policies up-charge for them to meet that statistical probability.

      • Joshua Bell
        September 10, 2013

        Interesting hyperbole. Hit by a train while in your bathtub?

        Really now?

        My Google-fu is weak, because I could not find one documented case of this.

        Weapons used to stop a crime? I found tons of those.

        You keep spouting off percentages….please cite your sources? That is basic journalism.

      • Jim Weston
        September 10, 2013

        As a land owner myselfI call bullshit on that upcharge mention.

      • Ray
        September 10, 2013

        Well what do you know there is another non truth Brian ol boy. I have my weapons INSURED with the same company that has my homeowners and Auto ins. and guess what..NO UP-CHARGE Brian are you just a born liar or did you hang out with politicians for a few years?

      • exceltoexcel
        September 10, 2013

        That’s not true conservative estimates state over 1 million crimes stopped by personally carried firearms (john lott) as many as 4 million are suspected.

        There were exactly how many firearms deaths (non suicide) last year? Hum 12, 000.. well so long to your huge over blown nonsense. 70% to 85% were felons on felons. 30% where persons convicted of rape murder or kidnapping or attempted… want to cut the murder rate 30% never release a rapist murderer or kidnapper.

        15% of homicides were by persons with no felony record. That just over 1800. Most without a permit though that figure hasn’t been accurately calculated because the fbi doj wont release the raw data.

        You’re flat out making up numbers and drawing factless conclusions.

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Mr. Lott’s rather partisan fairy tales don’t jibe up with the FBI data tables (11,14), the DEA tables, or the CDC. But hey, what the heck do THEY know, right? They’re not partisan gun advocates. Also, since we’ve been tracking every shooting since Sandy Hook, the majority of homicides and general shootings are by first timers. Bar fights. Arguments. Property disputes. Love triangles. We catalog gun “saves” too. They make up 1-3% of the crime news we track. They might conceivably be somewhat higher for the non-reports, but since they non-report, Mr. Lott’s fantasyland for fanatics is a lot of hogwash.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        “About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000, despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.”

        Source—>Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, C. Cramer, and D. Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

  26. Jerry
    September 10, 2013

    Starbucks, one of the very few businesses willing to stand up to the far left PC crowd. I will make a point of buying from them as often as I can.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Which is why they do it. It drags knuckles out of Dunkin’ which apparently has smarter lawyers.

      • Patrick James
        September 10, 2013

        So you revert to name calling? That is typical socio-fascist behavior. if someone doesn’t agree with your point of view, ‘call names’! If they disprove your theories… erase them from your cyber-existence. What’s wrong Brian, were you bullied as a kid? Did you not learn that the only way to back a bully down, is to stand up and defend yourself?

        If people continue to ‘call on Law Enforcement’ everytime someone tries to force their will upon you, they will not have the resources available to take care of the ‘real’ problems in our country. They are already ‘overworked, underpaid’ and for the most part, disrespected by a vast majority of the population, and yet you expect them to respond to ‘every’ situation where a bully rears their ugly head. Stand up and defend yourself… defend the weak and innocent!

        “If you disarm the sheep dog, the wolves win!”

        Patrick James
        http://www.cdh2a.com

      • Eric T.
        September 10, 2013

        I dunno about anyone else, but I carry in Dunkins too… It’s never been a problem… *shrug*

  27. rbtaustin
    September 10, 2013

    I do not need the permission or authorization of some blogger to protect myself in public.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      No, but you need a retailer’s consent to bring a weapon into their premises under any of the concealed and open carry laws on the books. Most elect not to because you pose a danger to their store, employees, and customers. Starbucks is giving you a welcome mat, but after their first shooting, they will dump you faster than a blind date that hated their friend for fixing you up with them.

      • Tammy
        September 10, 2013

        Concealed means concealed.

      • Brian D Ritchie
        September 10, 2013

        most retailers in America have the same rule as Starbucks.
        there are a few exceptions, and every year a couple post no Guns and and couple take them Down.

      • Duane
        September 10, 2013

        Brian you are an absolute fool and an asshat. I pose no threat to anyone but criminals when I carry a concealed firearm in public or private.

      • Duane
        September 10, 2013

        Brian Ross you are incorrect.

      • ianto94
        September 10, 2013

        After their first shooting? But Brian you said there were hundreds of shootings by concealed carriers every day. But not at Starbucks that welcomes them. Then where?

      • indyroadie
        September 10, 2013

        So, your assertion is that when a criminal robs an SB and shoots a barista, that SB will enact a policy against guns, and this will protect everyone?
        Peets Coffee is famously touted as being “Gun Free”, it hasn’t stopped them from being robbed, nor did it stop a murder/suicide at one of their stores.
        The part of this you fail to grasp is that criminals are not going to obey a “No Guns” sign.

      • Dirty Harry
        September 10, 2013

        “Starbucks is giving you a welcome mat, but after their first shooting, ”

        Wishful thinking Brian? I bet it is, just like your liberal buddies in DC wishing for the next shooting to push their agenda as they did with Sandy Hook. Trampling over dead kids for more gun control. I can just imagine your Christmas wish list.
        “Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is another school shooting or even a Starbucks.”

      • TDS
        September 10, 2013

        Actually, you don’t.
        A “no guns” sign in a business carries absolutely no force of law.
        All that they can do if you break their “rule” is ask you to leave. If you don’t, it can be considered trespassing, but then it has nothing to do with you breaking a law by having a gun at their business.
        You really should learn the laws if you are going to try to talk smack about them.

      • TheDude
        September 10, 2013

        Where are you getting this? In most places by default you are allowed to carry if the state says you can (or you have a permit) – only by an acting agent of the property ASKING YOU TO LEAVE DIRECTLY are you running afoul of a trespassing citation.

        Signs hold zero weight in most places.

      • Beau
        September 10, 2013

        This isn’t true in Montana sir. They can post “no weapons allowed” all day long, but we don’t have to acknowledge them. The only time we can really, and should, only get into trouble is when the owner or employee asks you to leave their premises. Other than that, the signs are to let a person know that they will be asked to leave. And I have never once been asked to leave or had LEOs called.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        “Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control. These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving accidents, and people who engage in other risky behaviors”

        source—>Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, at 307, 312

      • jay bree
        September 10, 2013

        Absolutely and totally fiction.

        In my state I am free to carry anywhere , unless specially posted by the owner. As a matter of fact, that means the vast majority of businesses allow carry.

  28. mark leedom
    September 10, 2013

    Starbucks assumes, along with the NRA-paid representatives who put this ALEC-canned bill into law in those states, that all of the people with these concealed carry weapons are sane, rational, “law abiding” gun owners.

    You make the same assumption. Otherwise, posting a sign would have no effect. Most (if not every) state will only issue a CCW permit to law-abiding citizens, so Starbucks’ policy of following local law makes perfect sense. I recommend that you expend your efforts getting the 2nd amendment repealed rather than bullying businesses into forfeiting sales to a group that you disagree with even though they are not breaking any laws.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      No, I work with the law. If Starbucks posts, it removes liability for them. They still comport with local law, but they’re putting it out to you that they don’t have your back, that you have no business carrying in their place of business, and if you do, then, under those same laws, you are in violation and can and should be cited.

      • Brian D Ritchie
        September 10, 2013

        why do you keep repeating things, that are wrong, there is no liability in following the law to allow carry. Actually the argument could be made that if an establishment disallowed carry, and someone with a CCW was injured or killed attacked on the property, that the owner could be liable for restricting the ability to carry. Also it would be wise to acknowledge that in many states a no gun sign holds no true weight, that it is still legal to carry, or at the least, not a major crime, where in the owner who posted the sign can ask the carrier to leave, and if they refuse, and only then, they can seek the legal option of trespassing. By the way, you’re really getting your rear handed to you in your poll aren’t you.

      • wuzyoungoncetoo
        September 10, 2013

        - “No, I work with the law.”

        What an odd claim, considering that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest idea what “the law” actually says.

      • Duane
        September 10, 2013

        How do you work “with the Law” Brian? Picking up trash on the side of the road?

      • Eric T.
        September 10, 2013

        Simply posting a sign does not remove liability. And even having a sign doesn’t really do anything in most places. If someone carries in a place where there’s a sign saying “no guns”, then the worst they can do (again, in most places) is ask them to leave. If they do not, then it’s a case of trespassing, and has nothing to do with the firearm at all.

        Most fear that which they don’t understand. Maybe you should take a marksmanship class or two to learn about that which you’re preaching about?

      • Brian Ross
        September 10, 2013

        Posting a sign does remove civil liability under the ALEC canned statute most commonly in use. Lack of one is an endorsement of your point-of-view.

        I was whatever NRA-certified target shooter one could be back when I was a kid. I’ve been out to a firing range as an adult once. I personally found it more boring than golf, which is right up there with paint drying. I lack the paranoia of most folks who carry. I’m not even advocating that you should not carry, if you’re of the rapist at every corner, black helicopter school of thinking. That’s why it’s a free country. What I do think is that there are people who lack the common sense and/or have some diminished capacity through drug and alcohol abuse or varying degrees of mental illness. According to the US Census somewhere between 43 and 55 million households have a gun. The vast minority of owners take proper training, or engage in proper storage. Given the statistics on people who are diminished capacity carriers, about 7.85M “law abiding” gun owners have the potential to go off at any time. That is fulfilled by a weekly digest of hundreds of shootings nationwide. Starbucks, by inviting y’all in for a cup and a photo next to their logo with your gun increases the likelihood that some of those people will be doing their end-zone dances in a Starbucks to cheer them on in their gun advocacy. One wounding, one kill, and both the non-carrying consumer and Starbucks shareholders become immediately impacted. Risk-reward does not favor Starbucks current policy.

      • Ignorance Isn't Bliss
        September 10, 2013

        If your “work with the law” required some form of formal education, you should immediately apply for a refund. And if by some miracle, got there on a scholarship, give a refund to the foundation or school that gave it to you, because you wasted their time and resources that could have gone to someone that isn’t an idiot.

      • Patrick James
        September 10, 2013

        “Given the statistics on people who are diminished capacity carriers, about 7.85M “law abiding” gun owners have the potential to go off at any time. That is fulfilled by a weekly digest of hundreds of shootings nationwide.”

        Given your rational and use of statistics then we can ascertain that we need to abolish alcohol once again as well, if we consider these statistics:

        “According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year.”

        If 14.3% of the ‘law abiding’ gun owners have the ‘potential’ to go off at any time, then it only stands to reason that when 31% of all traffic deaths are the ‘direct’ result of alcohol use, alcohol should be banned as well. Of course that was done before… It only kept law abiding citizens from drinking. Criminals will always find a way.

        Take the blinders off Brian… Gun Control doesn’t work! Try education and awareness as well as stiffer penalties for violent offenders. Make examples of the criminals, instead of creating media super stars, and maybe your crime rates will decrease.

        Patrick James
        http://www.cdh2a.com

  29. Brad
    September 10, 2013

    A very long-winded article to simply say “I am butthurt because Starbucks won’t do what we say!”. Stop bellyaching, libs. You’re losing this one. Get over it. Your irrational fears of inanimate objects only illuminates your emotional overreactions to things you do not understand. The majority of this country does not align with your ideology. Get over it, or shut up. Either way, you’re not wanted or needed in this country.

  30. Chris Ryan
    September 10, 2013

    How short-sighted do you have to be to single out Starbucks? Almost everyone I know has applied for their CCW and carry everywhere that’s legal. So rather than single out Starbucks, start writing whiny letters to every restaurant, grocery store, gas station, fast food joint, mall, auto parts store, sporting goods, ice cream shop, cell phone store, home improvement store, etc. etc. As noted above; most of the worst shootings happen in either public or private “no gun” zones where the criminals don’t follow the rules, let alone the laws ( like don’t kill people). Why don’t you try to force every place that implements a “gun free” zone to provide “x” number of off-duty police officers to provide security per “x” number of customers? Surely you won’t mind paying the extra costs that get passed down to you.

  31. Daniel
    September 10, 2013

    Please keep defending your article and view point Brian Ross. I enjoy seeing Eric put you in your place.

  32. Picky Wassah
    September 10, 2013

    Taking the guns from the good guys is pro-criminal!
    Please choose you side wisely.
    You are either with the Nazi, criminals and or the UN or with the Police , military and or the good guys?

  33. Eric Erickson
    September 10, 2013

    So this article has no facts, no truth, no sources and the author is throwing insults around. Right. Well, this was a waste of time.

    • Mark Day
      September 10, 2013

      well, not totally- is sad but funny to watch an idiot (Mr. Ross) prove repeatedly that he is an idiot. especially with his magically made up “facts”.

  34. Ryan
    September 10, 2013

    Hey Brian, looks like this poll isn’t going the way you wanted, despite wording it in the most biased way possible–biased of course towards the side of anti-Constitution extremists. Will you include the results of this poll in your letter to Starbucks, or will you be a disingenuous coward who silences those with whom you disagree?

    Oh, and Starbucks has been complying with local and state regulations for decades now as it pertains to firearms. Thus, it would seem that your doom and gloom predictions of what will happen if Starbucks continues with their current policy are already controverted by decades worth of data.

    You would make an extremely poor scientist.

    Best of luck to you Brian. I can only hope that, someday, you will find the courage to be honest with yourself and realize just how much of a mindless sheep you truly are, for it is only then that you can start on the road to intellectual recovery.

  35. Amanda
    September 10, 2013

    I don’t drink coffee, but this kind of makes me want to take it up. Good for Starbucks for giving a crap about BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

    As for the morons whining about it with their illogical arguments founded in irrational emotion that runs completely counter to facts, I can only roll my eyes and move on.

  36. Gerald S.
    September 10, 2013

    Do people not understand the concept or property rights? They have a right to refuse or accept to do business with whomever they choose. Going all activist on a company because you disagree with how they assert their property rights in their stores is absolute idiocy. Forcing them to change their policies to fit your world view so you will find it acceptable to do business with you is also idiocy. Take your business elsewhere if you disagree with the company’s policies so strongly.

  37. creekside
    September 10, 2013

    The fact is, banning firearms in your retail business guarantees that armed robbers are more likely to attack your store, more likely to prolong the robbery and extend it to customers as well as to the register and merchandise, and therefore more likely to inflict serious injury and death. A sign saying “No Firearms Allowed” merely emboldens criminals and discourages the law-abiding customer. So yes, this is an issue of premise liability — but one of creating a new hazard. Permit holders are already all around you and have a safety record better than law enforcement.

  38. Bill Loeb
    September 10, 2013

    Apparently there is no lie too big for Mr. Ross.

    Even his premise that Starbucks supports gun rights is incorrect. They merely go along with local laws. If open carry is legal…fine. If not…fine. They don’t discriminate as the left would like them to.

    As to liability, I have in my will that if I am killed in a place where I am disarmed the estate must sue. This is not unique. If a company disarms the public they are liable if they do not provide security.

    Of course an honest, intelligent person would look at the statistics where guns are not allowed and see that mass murderers are drawn to these “gun free” zones. Mass murderers love unarmed victims and they ignore the signs.

  39. Eric
    September 10, 2013

    Brian, I would have replied to your post directly, but for some reason I don’t seem to see a “reply” link so I’ll just put it here.

    You said: “As a class, concealed carry holders are a mish-mash of abilities and few, if any get enough proper training in crisis situations. Ask law enforcement. That’s been their beef with these laws since day one.”

    I, personally, have the opportunity to spend lots of time with police officers. I see several of them at the shooting range each month at our IDPA shooting matches. Just to be clear, IDPA is a shooting competition which is intended to simulate self defense situations. Police officers come to these events as a form of training, it’s an opportunity to shoot in an environment other than simply standing in place and firing at a bulls-eye. We learn from them, and they learn from us.

    You might be surprised to learn that just like permit holders, law enforcement officers are also a mish-mash of abilities when it comes to their shooting skills. In fact, I can think of two recent incidents where police officers shot more people than the criminals they were sent to stop.

    • Duane
      September 10, 2013

      I have been a Deputy Sheriff for the past 25 years. I know that MANY Officers only shoot the 3 or 4 times a year they are required to do so. MANY MANY MANY non Law Enforcement shoot weekly , Monthly or much more often than that.

    • Jeremy Janson
      September 10, 2013

      Indeed. What’s more, police officers aren’t guilty of anything if they accidentally shoot you, whereas an ordinary citizen will face (at minimum) civil penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If they were doing anything even remotely wrong, they’re facing manslaughter and years in jail at the least, and if it was not wholly accidental, a minimum of second degree murder. If a policeman gets himself in to trouble by being stupid with a firearm, he could order you to help him, whereas a private citizen is responsible for his actions and their consequences. The reality is that a private citizen is more responsible than an LEO, who can frankly be reckless and abusive and face not even so much as the termination of his employment.

    • 805moparkid
      September 10, 2013

      exactly, most departments only have to qualify ONCE a year…

  40. Calvin Gordon Dodge
    September 10, 2013

    “Collateral damage is a very real and extremely likely consequence of the discharge of a weapon.”

    Evidence? By that I mean – how many such events have occurred with concealed carry license holders? Any? Bueller? Bueller?

    Meanwhile, I’m curious – are you aware of the multiple instances where mass-murder wannabes were STOPPED by citizens with concealed carry? Are you aware that Aurora, Virginia Tech, etc. were all “gun-free” zones?

  41. sean
    September 10, 2013

    Doesn’t look like Starbucks will lose many customers, just the bat shit crazy ones with mental problems that have a illogical fear of inanimate objects.

  42. John Faux-Cheesey Smith
    September 10, 2013

    We have to remember that all recent mass-shootings were self-proclaimed Democrats, and the media seems to skip the law-abiding-self-defense stories where children even protect themselves in their home from intruders with firearms, not to mention Democrats seem to be the ones that are seeking mental health treatment more than those who abstained from drugs.

  43. Thomas
    September 10, 2013

    I wasn’t aware it was the latest NRA fallacy to say the mass shootings happen in gun free zones…I thought that was a fact that can be proven by looking where the attacks took place. I thought that before this anti gun talk happened. It’s also a proven fact in a study of jailed criminals when asked if they were more likely to avoid homes or people they assumed were armed and they said yes. Thy prey on the week and unprotected. What about the news article in the town that required each home to own a firearm and in the end it had the lowest crime rate in America? People will always do acts against people out if anger with or without a gun. Mental imbalance will always cause a heightened risk of violence. Guns are not the issue with these things. There is no real evidence against gun ownership when speaking of lower crime rates being attributed to lower gun ownership. Look at all the gutless zones in America…it’s the worst place to be. In PA Philly is an A1 city that has laws against guns that are stricter than the rest if the state. It’s the worst part of the state to be in relation to violence and crime. Crime and violence is everywhere and will always be everywhere and banning guns will do nothing to stop that. The study Obama paid for came back with those results. Anti gun policies will not do anything to help the cause. It’s time to give up the headhunt and look for another way to fix the violence.

  44. John Faux-Cheesey Smith
    September 10, 2013

    “Firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.”

  45. Michael
    September 10, 2013

    Dear Mr. Ross,

    thank you for sharing your views. You are afforded them under the Constitution of these United States. As are mine to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

    While you have statistics and figures, they only prove one thing; Laws are broken by those who intend to do harm to themselves or others and you cannot legislate morality in people who intend to do harm to themselves or others either using weapons, drugs or any similar “tools”.

    Not to mention those in law enforcement also disagree with you. See the detailed report from over 15,000 Law Enforcement Officers here;

    http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

    I challenge you to produce such a clear survey to back up your claims in any area you mentioned.

    Starbucks has made its stance clear to you and a few others who have done what you are doing. They, as a private company, choose to respect the laws in the communities they serve as Dakota pointed out to you in the reply. Yet, this is not sufficient for you.

    Starbucks is NOT endorsing anything. You are in your assessment. You are choosing to put the proverbial words in their months by stating your opinion.

    Further you have stated this;

    “Intent of the carrying is like intent of the driving. 98% of the public can have perfectly fine intent. A handful of people who don’t think the laws of society apply to them, mentally ill from high grade sociopaths to low grade depressed, UI impaired, etc.”

    Yes I agree, “a handful of people who don’t think the laws of society don’t apply to them…” are the one’s committing the heinous crimes you are sharing and I can assure you that such people have absolutely no desire, no intent or care for the laws you are claiming are needed or “signs posted”.

    Additionally, you have stated;

    “Further, it has been demonstrated time and again that concealed or open carry holders don’t have the stress training to use their weapons properly in such an event.”

    I would very much like to see your facts to back this statement up. Law abiding gun owners are very well trained, seek continual training and purposefully “volunteer” for training all the time. Plus, there are thousands and thousands of non-law enforcement armed citizens that, quite frankly, are in fact better trained then many of the young, rookie cops you are stating can solve all the worlds problems upon their arrival to scene. The fact is no matter how much training people go through (feel free to ask any military person this and they will tell you the same) there is never enough training to cover every situation that occurs because everyone involved in such events are human beings subject to the same stresses you are alluding to.

    The police (according to the Supreme Court and other factual sources; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts) have no duty to protect you. In other words, you are on your own. Do your homework and you will find this and many other cases similar which has been in place since the 1980’s.

    Makes you appreciate the 2nd Amendment all the more doesn’t it?

    Finally, these are just some of the facts I can present to you from reputable sources like actual police officers (15,000 to be honest which is far more any of your polls or stats will ever have), the Supreme Court of the United States and law professors across the nation. Which you are, to my knowledge, none of the listed are you?

    Please feel free to respond with something witty, something bearing a resemblance to real hard facts or some opining rant about what you “feel” is important that will not be read or taken seriously. The laws are the laws, I suggest you take you positions and views to a legislative body because in this Republic, the people have spoken, just check your own poll to this article.

    Carry on.
    MP

  46. Patrick James
    September 10, 2013

    Although I believe, as per normal ‘pro-gun control’ advocates tactics, all rational pro-gun comments will be deleted, I wll still voice my opinion in hopes some may actually see it… before it goes in the cyber-trash.

    The statistics quoted can and will be twisted to favor whichever side is using them, Pro or Anti-gun control, statistics are just that… numbers compiled by one side of the argument to prove their points. The fact of the matter is not whether ‘BAD’ people exist, but whether you are prepared to deal with them when they show-up to the party.

    Does this mean that everyone should carry a weapon? No. Everyone who wants to, has training to and is licensed to.., should be able to. It is a creator bestowed, Constitutionally protected right to defend oneself, with equal or greater force than is used against you.

    Wake up people… Bad people (bullies) exist… they always will! It doesn’t matter if you are for or against the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ or not, they still exist. It doesn’t matter if you are the type to ‘stand and fight’ in the face of adversity or ‘cower, close and eyes while repeating over and over; “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home!” when a bully shows up to the party… they will still show up and they will always try to inflict their WILL on those who are weaker.

    We cannot continue to WISH we lived in a ‘Utopian’ society , we have to create that society. The only way to force a bully to comply with that form of idealism, is to force them. To play their game. To reverse the roles! Disarming the legal law-abiding citizen, only provides an unfair advantage for those who do not comply with the law!

    “If you disarm the ‘sheep dogs’, the wolves win!”

    Patrick James
    http://www.cdh2a.com

  47. Bill Loeb
    September 10, 2013

    Eric is 100% correct when he says that police, like the general public, is quite varied in their abilities.

    Many police view guns as another tool on their belt. Others are quite skilled.

    At IDPA and USPSA matches we see the elite of LEO shooters. Even some of them are “mid pack” or worse. I am quite sure that the average IDPA shooter is more skilled than the average policeman.

    Of course all CCL holders are not IDPA shooters. There is the woman who bought a gun because it was pink and shot it once and dropped it into her purse. Is she a great marksman? Nope. Is it likely that she could find her gun when the flag goes up? Nope.

    All of this is window-dressing. The statistics prove that the better armed you are the better your chances of surviving violent attack.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

  48. 2ACheck.com
    September 10, 2013

    See which companies support/deny your Second Amendment rights:

    http://www.2acheck.com/2a-ratings/

  49. WLJ
    September 10, 2013

    Me, I’m going to Starbucks

  50. Duane
    September 10, 2013

    A “Gun Free Zone” is a “Crime Spree Zone”

  51. Joshua
    September 10, 2013

    You can rest assured that the lawyers for Starbucks have examined fully the ramifications of following the law. I wouldn’t worry about Starbucks at all. Now what we should worry about is your apparent desire to bully a national chain into doing what you want. Your threats of lawsuits and of boycotts are nothing more than school yard bullying. .

  52. Paul
    September 10, 2013

    The issue here Brian is that you make a lot of wild claims about how those of us who carry are “cowboys” who are “untrained” and put patrons at risk. The problem is that there are absolutely NO facts to back up this claim. There are documented studies to show that firearm use saves thousands of lives every day. I have never seen a story about how an armed citizen killed or injured bystanders in an effort to protect themselves or others. You are like all antis. Lots of hyperbole and grandstanding, but no facts!

  53. diniann
    September 10, 2013

    Thank You Starbucks for standing with the law! I respect that very much! I have been a customer for many years and will continue to be one.

  54. Ryan
    September 10, 2013

    So then, is there a reason my previous comment hasn’t been approved? Are you really that much of a coward?

  55. Jeremy Janson
    September 10, 2013

    Of course they should be gun-friendly spaces. People bring expensive equipment in to a Starbucks – computers, leather bags, corporate files – to do work, and in some states, including Starbucks’ home state of Washington, attempting to steal such gives the person carrying the equipment the right to shoot you to prevent the theft, even if you are attempting to complete the theft by running away with the equipment.

    Further, its a whole lot safer to work at Starbucks because no one will hold one up at gunpoint. There are lots of young teenage high school kids doing their first job, whose life has barely started, who wouldn’t come home that night if there weren’t gun owners in Starbucks’ in all sensible states making robbing their cash register at gun point a less palatable proposition. I can understand not allowing people consuming alcohol to carry a gun, but Starbucks doesn’t even serve alcohol!

  56. Brevity
    September 10, 2013

    CCW does two things, allows defense of ones self, allows for defense of others.
    The wife carries, the daughters carry, are trained in more than just carry, but in serious life threatening confrontations.
    The reason being is I would rather have my wife/daughters explaining why that rapist is dead on the ground rather than have the police knocking on the door to tell me how they found her body.

    Brian, people around you carry every day, but you don’t know who, and you’d be surprised how few there really are. That is the premise of concealed carry. The bad guys don’t know WHO is carrying, and that in itself is a deterrent. It’s about mind-set, and confidence.
    It’s not for everyone, and certainly if you are not one to learn or carry, then maybe you would be better off hiring someone who is capable to protect you from whatever evil you perceive is out in the world.

  57. Wm Patton
    September 10, 2013

    Man it really bothers you they see the logic in just abiding local laws huh. Did you know numbers will confess to anything so long as you torture them long enough. So all your thoughts of being hit by a train in a bathtub could be made statistically true with the proper manipulation, are quite outside the realm of reality. You know it and I know it.

    Now let’s address your fear of a tool. That is after all what any firearm is a simple tool. You in your response have made up fantastic scenarios of death mayhem and destruction that, again in the world of reality, only occur when people have an irrational fear of tools and attempt to ban them. I have the inborn right to self-defense. That is indisputable. I have the right to utilize the most efficient means of that defense. That to is indisputable.

    You have the absolute right to limit the means of your defense out of fear. You do not have the right to force your phobia’s on others.

  58. Rebecca
    September 10, 2013

    Would Starbucks pat everyone down or install metal detectors to keep guns out? Just curious how the logistics would work, because if we’re relying on lawful gun owners to leave their guns outside (as they already do at govt bldgs, schools, buffalo wild wings, etc), we’re good. Now – for those criminals…I bet they’ll disarm themselves voluntarily once they see the sign too, right?

    I will defend myself. And you know what? I would defend you, too. It’s my right.

  59. Mary Henderson
    September 10, 2013

    What you paranoid, anti-gun freaks don’t realize is that there are guns ALL around you, every day. There is NO SUCH THING as a “gun free zone”. Even if Starbucks put “no guns” signs on their doors, it still doesn’t make it illegal to carry inside.

  60. Pete W
    September 10, 2013

    Dear Mr. Ross,

    I am not a “Rambo”
    I am not a “gun nut”
    I have a concealed carry permit with the requisite medical records and background check showing I am not a criminal or mentally ill.

    Who are you Sir, to decide whether or not I may defend myself when by law I have that right?

    Your myopic view that disarming those who legally carry a weapon will somehow make for a safer environment is an indication to me that you do not posses the common sense to make that decision on my behalf.

    If you feel safer in a “gun free zone” it is your choice to only frequent those establishments. Making an illogical argument that Starbucks should change it’s policy to create an environment were I feel less safe, is simply not your place.

    Enforcement of the many, many laws already written to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring firearms is the solution to the gun violence issue.

    Preventing law abiding citizens their constitutional right to defend themselves is not.

  61. geronimo509
    September 10, 2013

    It sounds like a more appropriate name for Brian’s blog would be shit-4-brains.

  62. Richard
    September 10, 2013

    Yay Starbucks.

  63. armedandsafe
    September 10, 2013

    @Brian Ross: Quakers are not necessarily pacificists. Friends are, but Quakers who are not members of the Society of Friends or have been shunned by the Society of Friends are not always. We prefer to follow the Word of God and to be able and willing to defend ourselves, our families, our communities and our fellow human beings when necessary. Certain tools are correct to use for this purpose, depending on the immediate circumstances. It might be pepper spray, a whistle, a knife or a gun. Under certain circumstances it might be a whip on the steps of your church.

  64. Jake
    September 10, 2013

    Brian,
    Accusing “gun nuts” of being illiterate in response to your belief that the 2nd amendment only applies to The National Guard really shows how uninformed and ignorant you are. First of all, the recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed the 2nd amendment does in fact apply to individual rights, as opposed to rights only guaranteed to a standing army as you implied (notice I did not mention law enforcement, as there was no specific mention of such a group in the constitution, but we can address that later). What many of you emotionally driven anti-gunners don’t want to admit is that the language used in the 2nd amendment, as well as the rest of literature of the period (which I’m sure you well versed in, being so scholarly and educated) is that words used during the period of the creation of the Constitution do not necessarily maintain similar definitions in current day American English. One of the most hotly contested lines in the 2nd amendment is “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the free state…” (Please note that the passage does not end here. This is significant). What many take this to mean is a government run (well regulated) military (militia). However, during this period, well regulated was more accurately taken to mean “in proper working order”, and in the case of a militia, well provisioned and trained. It made no mention of any kind of control by a government body or otherwise. George Mason was even quoted as saying that men in governmental positions should be excluded from militia duties, to maintain a clear separation of the government and the militia, and assure the militia not be used for government means. During The Revolutionary War, there was a clear distinction between “militiamen” and “regulars,” and it was not conceivable for them to have confused the two. In fact, many of the founding fathers adamantly opposed the creation of a standing army for fear it would be used as a tool for tyranny and oppression, as it had for hundreds of years throughout the rest of the civilized world.
    Your assertion that soldiers are the only members of our society whom the 2nd amendment wished anointed with the power of gun ownership is laughable to the point of bodily harm, especially considering the insults you’ve been tossing our way. To claim us illiterate only to show your blatant ignorance of the subject at hand really does a number on your credibility. I understand that it is probably really hard to argue things like this when all the facts are on our side, and I really am impressed with how much you can write on the subject with a base of only emotion and fear to work from. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are bad people with guns who may someday wish you harm, and the only thing that will stop them is a good guy with a gun. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
    What also doesn’t change is the fact that even if Starbucks decided to put up signs asking customers not to bring guns into their establishments, I can still legally carry my concealed weapon there. It has been found by numerous courts that a “no guns” sign is not considered a legal notification, which would mean I would still have to refuse to leave after being verbally asked before I am technically breaking any laws (trespassing). Keep that in mind next time you are there.
    It would be better to just admit you are afraid of guns, have a very poor grasp of how the real world really works (that’s the place outside your suburb, which is a few blocks further than the Starbucks it takes you longest to get to) and are not brave or selfless enough to protect yourself or others if the need arose.

    Jake

  65. Mark
    September 10, 2013

    “Oh darn, there’s a ‘no guns’ sign. Guess I’ll have to go kill a lot of people somewhere else”…said no active shooter, EVER.

  66. Jay
    September 10, 2013

    Wow, this article that was intended as a puff piece for liberals certainly turned into a debate board for those who enjoy their second Amendment rights. Brian Ross got burned… when an overwhelming response to the vote posted showed a lack of support for “gun free” zones, you know Starbucks picked the winning team. Just like with Chick-Fil-A, idiotic liberal protesting does nothing but embolden the opposition. Ironic how their protests will make a business thrive.

  67. brainclaw
    September 10, 2013

    Brian. Sir. Please. Here is the reality: We are carrying in Starbucks. We are carrying in Home Depot. We are carrying in church. We are carrying in college. We are carrying in every retail store, post office, bank, park, restaurant and every other imaginable place in our society. It is called concealed carry. Nobody knows I am carrying.

    It is as it should be.

    We are all around you every time you are in public, and often at the workplace and when a person comes to visit your home. Many of us are at least as well-trained as the local police, some of us more so. Some of us less so. Police commit crimes, are guilty of corruption and shoot innocent bystanders all of the time, unfortunately. They also have meltdowns and abuse private citizens. As per CDC findings, private citizens stop more active shooters than cops do by a wide margin for many reasons, one of which is that they are already on site. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…

    Nothing Starbucks does will really have any real impact on CC. Those of us who believe that carrying a gun keeps us safer will always do so.

    The latest CDC research ordered by President Obama reveals that people successfully defend themselves and their families all of the time, every day, all over the country, where people are allowed to own and carry firearms.

    More guns does not mean more crime, and there are no Wild West scenarios playing out in our Starbucks or other places where concealed carry goes on on a daily basis. Like the quote says, “80 million firearms owners DIDN’T kill anybody today.”

    These things are not really open to debate or repeal. They just are. And whether you want to believe it or not, you really are safer in a place where we carry.

    And for fuck’s sake, drop the “y’all.” You sound like the crazed redneck you accuse us of being. Come to the range and have a shooting day with one of us, and you will enjoy yourself, I promise. Nobody can ever make you carry a gun. You might just find that you enjoy shooting, however.

    Peace.

    – David Giuffre

  68. Adam Cook
    September 10, 2013

    If you’re a business in a state that allows open-carry….. as long as you DON’T PROHIBIT firearms, you are protected from liability. If you prohibit firearms in a state that allows any type of carry, you (BY LAW) must enforce that ban. If someone shoots the place up, you’ve lost your state protection and are liable for not enforcing your firearms ban. Do some research…..

  69. MosinTom
    September 10, 2013

    Judging by the poll results, your position is proven to be a wrong as your anti-gun fantasy.

  70. Berry J Griffin
    September 10, 2013

    Open carry? Not so much. Doesn’t bother me but I won’t do it. Concealed carry? If it is done right, nobody ever knows.

  71. turbobizz
    September 10, 2013

    Brian:
    Here in WA even posting a sign wont stop anyone from legally carrying into a Starbucks. All they can do is ask you to leave,if you refuse you can be cited for trespassing and that’s not even a criminal offense. So, if you carry concealed as I do,the signs mean nothing.
    And If someone does post a “no guns allowed” sign they have just assumed responsibility to protect anyone in the place since they have removed your method to protect yourself.

  72. Charles
    September 10, 2013

    Brian Ross, Managing Editor, truth-2-Power.com;

    I don’t believe I have ever read such a lengthy, fear-mongering, whiny article. You cry from one “point” to another without any supporting rational

    “Most shootings are domestic in nature, or the result of mental impairment, either through substance use or some mental defect, like rage, bipolar disorder, etc. Not robbery, or rape, the two most claimed causes that concealed carry holders use to justify packing a personal pistol”.

    Are these just “most” statistics you created or is it supported in a place other than your mind. “Most” of the people that I know that carry weapons do not claim robbery or rape as a reason, but to protect themselves and others from individuals in the laundry list of mental disease or defect, out of control, criminal, and irrational behaving persons that you detail. Persons in these categories are not going to be deterred by a sign. Besides, it is well known that Drunks, Addicts, Mentally Ill, and completely emotionally irrational individuals always follow the law and behave in calm and predictable ways, right?

    I sincerely hope that this paranoid screed is just an attention seeking device. If this is a true representation of the workings of your mind, I don’t know how you manage to live in such a scary world. Best Wishes

    • Charles
      September 10, 2013

      Also I note with profound amusement your assertion that gangsters and neighbors shooting are ” ‘domestic disputes’ according to the FBI”. According to the Crime Statistics Reporting guidelines put forth by the FBI for a situation to be counted as domestic violence (there is no “domestic dispute”) the parties must currently or in the past have lived together (partners, spouses, siblings, etc)

      So your statement that “Most “gang related” killings are purely domestic.” is not possible unless the gangsters are all bunking in together.

      Are you incapable of attempting to make your point without making up your “facts”

  73. Michael
    September 10, 2013

    Annnd the anti-gun crowd fails again!

  74. Vince Warde
    September 10, 2013

    The ENTIRE ARGUMENT in Mr. Ross’s letter has been proven wrong in every state that has established concealed carry. Indeed, study’s have shown that CCW holders are less likely to be involved in a “bad shoot” than police officers. This is why not one state that has established concealed carry in the last 25 years has ever repealed it. Those are the facts, Mr. Ross’s predictions are pure speculation that has been disproved 43 times.

    There are two other facts that are beyond rational dispute:

    1) Criminals and mass shooters are not stopped by signs that tell them to keep their guns outside.

    2) Criminals may be attracted by such signs and mass shooters definitely select “gun free zones” as locations to commit mass murder. Indeed, all but one of the recent shootings took place in such “safe places” (the Gifford’s shooting is the exception because it was outdoors). The Colorado theater shooter bypassed several other theaters to select the only one in the area where legal guns were banned. That theater has since changed its’ policy.

    Mr. Ross: Have you considered the possibility that Starbucks’ legal department has reached the conclusion that a ban on legally carried guns could expose them to much more legal liability than simply following the law wherever the store may be located? Trust me, there is more than enough proof that those little “no guns allowed” signs kill people – sooner or later there will be a precedent setting case.

  75. Dylan Carvin
    September 10, 2013

    LOL 95% pro gun, 5% anti gun… and STILL the anti’s are calling the pro’s CRAZY.
    If you don’t yet understand how an armed society PREVENTS crime, go to the nearest shooting range and simply OBSERVE how people interact with eachother. Its respect, caution, politeness and SAFETY. Not just firearm safety, but safety from CRIME. Criminals like guns, but they FEAR others with guns, and AVOID them at ALL costs! I guarantee you are more likely to get shot in a gun free zone and less likely to get shot where more LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are armed! It has been proven over and over and over and over and over….

  76. Michael
    September 10, 2013

    Ouch… The author is getting ripped apart on his own post!

  77. indyroadie
    September 10, 2013

    Mr. Ross,. You could not BE more wrong about Law Enforcement support of concealed carry, as evidenced by a recent survey of more than 15,000 Law Enforcement Officers

    http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

  78. Rodney
    September 10, 2013

    So wait, are we becoming a “Papers please?” nation? Brian, you state early:

    “Starbucks assumes, along with the NRA-paid representatives who put this ALEC-canned bill into law in those states, that all of the people with these concealed carry weapons are sane, rational, “law abiding” gun owners.”

    There is due process and as far as I know, the American thinking has ALWAYS been innocent until proven guilty. I would rather assume everyone is an innocent, law abiding PERSON, than to assume, ahem, judge people of any stereotype, wrong doing, or of shady character.

    As the Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So yes, all men/women/persons are created equal and I will assume that they are all (gun owner or not) sane, rational, and law abiding.

  79. mg
    September 10, 2013

    It doesn’t matter if Star Bucks supports or doesn’t support said “gun toters”. Simple fact of the matter is if someone wants to shoot up a Star Bucks they’re going to grab a gun (legal or illegal), go to a Star Bucks (ignore any signs that may be posted, any laws, etc.) and shoot the place up. Signs and laws are not going to stop people from committing such a crime. I’ll tell you what will stop a person from doing something like this, or at least minimize the number of casualties, that would be a law abiding “gun toting” citizen who may happen to be in the store at the time.

    Good luck on your crusade, until then you can find me at Star Bucks!

  80. Bill
    September 10, 2013

    Mr. Ross, I don’t know where you come up with your statistics, but I personally thing you are full of it. The majority of gun violence is not due to “domestic violence”, unless by that you mean to include gang/drug-related shootings. All I have to do is look in any newspaper around the country and see that’s what causes the most gun violence. And you and all your anti-gun nut friends want to pass laws that only restrict law-abiding citizens. We need no additional laws. We need enforcement of laws already on the books, DAs that will prosecute criminal use of firearms to the max, and judges to mete out the maximum sentences under the law.
    THAT will curb gun violence.

  81. The Bear
    September 10, 2013

    If employees were allowed to be lawfully armed, then the 1997 tragedy could been prevented.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/march99/starbucks070897.htm

  82. Matthew Maxey (@UncIejumbo)
    September 10, 2013

    I do hope Brian that you are actually a twelve year old posting on your father’s computer. Anyone beyond that age couldn’t possibly be so profoundly ignorant and grow to maturity. I have never seen as many patently false assertions stated as fact. Do you not read? Do you not comprehend what you read? Do you simply ignore that which doesn’t validate your absurd falsehoods?

    The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. The Supreme Court of the United States, the arbiters of the Constitution have ruled it thus.

    Guns are used in self defense anywhere from 50,000 up to 2.5 million times per year. Far greater than those killed by trains while in bathtubs.

    As for your “police are trained” assertions. As a police firearms instructor, I can tell you that casual shooters fire their guns far more often than police officers that have no interest in firearms. Did you note how many people the highly trained NYPD inadvertently shot in a recent defensive shooting?

    You are welcome to your irrational fears. You shouldn’t attempt to deceive the rest of us into adopting them.

  83. BuddyLama
    September 10, 2013

    This entire thread illustrates why Liberals deserve zero respect and should never be placed into position of authority over ANYONE else.

    Every law-abiding citizen of this country has the constitutionally guaranteed Right to keep and bear arms. As for a “right” to free health care, not so much (actually, not at all). Liberals have no comprehension of the meaning of RIGHTS, or the phrase, “Shall not be infringed.”

  84. TheButterZone
    September 10, 2013

    An Open Sentence to Criminals About Concealed Carry:
    Stop infringing the human right to self-defense so you can safely massacre disarmed and defenseless innocents.

  85. TheDude
    September 10, 2013

    I think all the pro-gun people got trolled.

    It doesn’t matter that the votes are 2,000 + to sub 200 in favor of pro-gun thinking; he got a bunch of traffic to his blog.

    $$$

  86. Cole
    September 10, 2013

    If what you ranted on about was true, where are all the deaths at Starbucks? How about armed robberies? Starbucks is one of the safest places that I know..you know why? Because criminals want easy..not death, and if a criminal tried to pull something they wouldn’t get far because people can protect themselves and others in Starbucks.

    More people die by another hand, hammers and knives. Are you wanting to outlaw people from taking these things into Starbucks?

    These are the facts that you can not get around. It is also the fact that the strictest areas for guns are also the most violent with gun violence. Telling people that they can not carry to protect themselves is ignorant and dangerous. Look no further than Chicago, New York, DC and LA for proof what gun confiscation does and what the strict gun laws do. Guns make people safer and saves lives.

    Thankfully, no one is buying into your hysteria and know what happens when guns are removed from society. There have been millions killed in the past 50 years because of this…all you need to do is start looking at history.

  87. TDS
    September 10, 2013

    I am truly loving this comments section.
    Dozens (if not hundreds) of people are posting replies to this, and so far, it has only been the author and only 2 others (probably his mom and his life partner) who have posted in support of his views, and all of his posts have a maximum of 1 or 2 thumbs-up (while the thumbs-downs he gets seem to usually be in the 40s or 50s, with a few well over 100).
    And he’s losing the opinion poll with ~95% of the respondents disagreeing with him.
    It almost makes me feel bad for this gun-grabbing douche…
    Almost…

  88. Max
    September 10, 2013

    ” It is a carry-over of custom from much more rugged times” says BR. Yep, your right Brian. But I would remind you that the first four of our rights were written by the same men at the same time. Your freedom of speech should be curtailed simply because the King no longer burns printing presses?

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      No, we need protection for free speech, because someone still has to stand up to ugly mobs and speak truth to power, including firepower and the well-trained NRA hordes. And guns, as the SCOTUS defines them, are protected, but we need safe and sane laws. Are you for mentally ill people carrying? How about those under the influence? Careless packers? If you answer no to all three, then we’re on the same page. Take those three small classes out of the picture and the rest of you can live your days out hugging your gun and waiting for the black helicopters or the scary guys lurking on every corner to your heart’s content.

      • Zeke
        September 11, 2013

        Brian, mentally ill people are already precluded from owning guns, much less carrying them in public. Under the influence? A DUII will preclude one from passing a background check. Careless packers? A negligent discharge is a crime. People who’ve committed gun crimes are precluded from owning guns. All of this is under present law. So what is it exactly that you are asking for?

        And which ugly mob are you talking about? People who are quietly going about their daily business while armed, without anyone knowing, or those who militantly picket stores that don’t favor their social policies? Perhaps those who write articles based on deliberate lies and distortions?

        Me, I’m not an illiterate drone whose actions are controlled by the NRA. I’m a person who went to law school, and who understands the US Constitution in detail from having read SCOTUS case law 60 hours a week for a few years. It is people like you who are the amateurs, driven by the self-serving, anti-gun fund raising groups, who supply you with false and distorted “facts”.

        Having recently read the Heller decision, I find that Justice Scalia, writing for the majority refuted nearly every point you’ve attempted to make about an individual right to keep and bear arms:

        “The Supreme Court held:

        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

        (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

        (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

        The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

      • Brandon Carter
        September 20, 2013

        The 2nd Amendment guarantees your Right to Free Speech. Nothing else does.
        How many times must I tell you that the mentally ill cannot LEGALLY possess firearms. It is illegal in every State to be intoxicated while you are under arms.
        I’m not even going to address the so-called careless packers until you come to terms with the fact that that particular demographic consists almost entirely of gang-bangers.

  89. Fred Collins
    September 10, 2013

    @Brian Ross

    “Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts, unless you belong to your National Guard, as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (I can use caps lock too) doesn’t provide for your personal ownership.”

    You are entitled to your personal opinion, but the US Supreme Court considered this exact argument in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and rejected it, holding that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of membership in a militia.

    Apparently, reading is not particularly favored by anti-firearm zealots, either.

  90. Jonathan Smith
    September 10, 2013

    Brian Ross- judging by the votes on each and every one of your comments, your responses are full of uselessness, as is this letter in the first place…

  91. 805moparkid
    September 10, 2013

    And one more thing… you just assume that if you carry a weapon that your going to use it right off the bat which is not true at all (unless you have someone running at you with a knife, etc) but its not, many of us carry a high output flashlights with strobe effects to disorientate a foe, believe it or not our cell phone (I have 911 and local sheriff/PD on speed dial for locations I frequent), pepper spray, and our voice. You can talk to most any high level martial arts person and they will tell you the same thing, its a last resort, run away, make a scene, but if you have to, do it, and do it well… #1 thing you are taught in a CCW class is to walk away, take the hit to your pride, Pull off and go to DQ and get a little single serve ice cream if your hot under the collar.

    You assume issues that you know nothing about, about people you know nothing about. Why not try out our life style and see what really comes with the BURDEN of carrying a firearm. I bet you wont be able to last one month with an unloaded firearm in your purse let alone a loaded one on your side out of sight. Its an amazing thing when you first start to carry, (and everyone has felt it) EVERYONE IS LOOKING AT YOU! but looking around they are not? why we all go thru it I don’t know but its something about stepping out from having someone else having to save your life to having your own life in your hands…

    Maybe someone else can explain it better.

  92. Richard Dubey
    September 10, 2013

    WOW Biran, you kinda got your ass handed to you in that poll. I personally hope very soon you need a gun to defend yourself… And don’t have one.

  93. Ray
    September 10, 2013

    Brian, you make way to many assumptions about the law enforcement in this country. First of all they are not trained. I have shot with many police officers and many of them are very poor marksman, especially under stress, but there is a very logical and acceptable reason for that…police work is 99% gun free. What that means is that even though police must qualify on a yearly basis 99% of their work does not include using their weapon. In addition to that fact police do not carry a sidearm to protect any citizen, they carry a sidearm to protect themselves. Not long ago the supreme court ruled that police do not have an obligation to defend the citizenry. If they are not obligated to do it then who will? You state many, many times here that civilians who carry firearms are not trained. Have you put many rounds down range? Just how much training do you think it takes to minimize the risk to bystanders? A firearm is a simple device, point the little hole at the target and squeeze the trigger. Yes bad people have used guns to murder and wound innocent people; that is an unfortunate fact, but would you rather a madman kill 10 people and a armed citizen stops him from killing 20,30,40, but in the process accidentally wounds or kills 1 other person? Or would you rather the madman kill as many people as he can unchallenged? You aren’t going to get it both ways here Brian history and human nature have proven that it is either one way or the other? With the exception that in most citizen defense scenarios no innocent bystanders are shot, only the criminal. From reading your posts here I see that you believe that law can protect, and law does have a small effect on a few people’s behavior, but by far and large it does not. Simply do a little research on Recidivism: 60%-70% which means that a huge portion of crime is committed by people doing it over and over, the law didn’t stop them the first time, being arrested and incarcerated didn’t stop them the first time, and they do it again and again. If someone decides to perpetrate a crime against you it will be you and them and that is it. Wouldn’t it be an awesome world if we could make laws that truly prevented crime? Be honest with yourself and everyone else here, it’s not that you don’t like guns, in fact you really like guns, you just want them to only be owned, carried, and used by local, state, and federal authorities, because you want those authorities to keep you safe and to use their guns to take my guns. So no you don’t dislike guns, you dislike citizens owning guns. One last thought, I don’t see anywhere here where you mention that citizens owning firearms is also a government deterrent? I did see where you referenced the 2nd amendment and stated that it only applied to a more rugged time, but I didn’t see any reference to citizens defending themselves against their own government? Research this: governments are the leading cause of mass murder in the history of the world.

  94. Jetpack
    September 10, 2013

    Who is Brian Ross and who posts his unintelligible crap? Why does he have any type of forum? Oh yeah…. AMERICA. The same laws that allow you to speak freely. Unfortunately, he doesn’t see the relevance.

  95. Jesse
    September 10, 2013

    The common misconception you liberal antigun people have is that all people with guns will kill someone. The law abiding gun owner is not going to shoot someone over a drink, arguemeant, ex girlfriend…etc. that is what the illegal gun possessors and mentally disturbed do. Hense the inner city and bar fight shootings. We, as the law abiding, wont even unholster our weapon unless we feel we or our family is in immediate eminent physical danger. Which means if some guy gets in our face about a minor fender bender in the street. We will remove ourselves from the situation not to escalate it. However, if the said guy tries to attack us we would let him know we are armed ( without brandishing a weapon first. If he persists after that we may have no choice but to unholster as the next step in our safety. In short, the guy would have to have a weapon and have the upper hand before we would even think about discharge ours. A thug would just pull it out and shoot. That is the difference between law abiding and illegal gun owners!

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      The law abiding gun owner shoots someone over a drink at least a dozen times a week. The law abiding gun owner loses it and shoots his neighbor, his girlfriend, etc on an almost daily basis. Your ethical code is not that of other “law abiding” gun owners, and far too often, when the job is gone, the house is in foreclosure, and there seems little way out, the law abiding gun owner kills his family and then himself. Or he just gets careless and leaves his holster and gun on the table and little Johnny blows his brains out. That’s about 3-8 times a month on average. Sadly, we’ve also seen “law abiding” citizens with guns in cars who’ve had a bit much to drink get shot by the police before they can even get the gun out to surrender it because their reaction time is compromised. Documented over and over and over again at the American Gun Victims Wall.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        Prove it.

      • Denon
        September 14, 2013

        Why do you think carrying while intoxicated, carelessly letting a child get a gun and shoot themselves (criminal negligence) or shooting/murdering people is abiding by the law?

        It seems pretty clear that these actions are breaking the law.

        It’s funny that the picture of carriers you used in the article are two non-threatening guys who are simply minding their own business and enjoying coffee.

  96. Bob
    September 10, 2013

    I think this is a well written article and I would normally respect your opinions ( while not agreeing with them ) if you didn’t use manipulative imagery to sell them. The bloody Starbucks cup is used to create a negative picture in the readers mind before they even read it. To me this nullifies all of your opinions as you don’t mean to share facts. You want to subconsciously convince me you’re correct.

    • Melissa
      September 11, 2013

      Bob, I couldn’t agree more. I was thinking to myself the same exact thing. I can definitely respect someone’s thoughts and opinions, even when directly opposite of mine, but I find difficulty having respect for someone that tries to claim neutral territory, then uses subliminal messaging or similar tactic, showing they are most definitely not neutral.

      That being said… I don’t carry or own a firearm specifically out of fear of my government. I carry and own firearms because I am a woman that loves her family. The police are not required to protect us as individuals. They can legally opt out of saving us if they so choose. That, coupled with the fact that because I am a woman, that makes me prey… I carry. ALWAYS. If I can’t carry there, I don’t go.

      Thanks for your time.

  97. Vrag Naroda
    September 10, 2013

    So…..how’s that poll working out for you?

  98. Nash
    September 10, 2013

    People have crashed cars into Starbucks. People have been stabbed at Starbucks. People have been shot at Starbucks. And people have been robbed at Starbucks. All of these things have already affected and been accounted for in liability insurance.

    Starbucks changing their corporate policy won’t stop somebody from breaking the law and shooting somebody if they want to. I’m amazed that people think that somebody will suddenly not do it because of a sign on a door and corporate policy and “liability”.

  99. Chris H
    September 10, 2013

    I was unaware Starbucks permits open carry – I don’t drink coffee, so i haven’t been a Starbucks patron, but next time I’m at the mall I’ll stop by and get a soda or something to show some support. Open carry, I believe, is not a tactically wise choice for law abiding gun owners, but carrying a weapon of some type is a common sense choice. Those who oppose this are self-deluding if they think the only weapons they’ll be near would be visible. A guy with a gun on his hip is more likely to repel illicit gun carriers – and perhaps a few utopian idealists who deny that illegal weapons are the common choice for illegal activities. Thank you Starbucks – keep up the common sense!

  100. Phred
    September 10, 2013

    I find it so interesting that you wish to negate one of the basic Bill of Rights provisions by exercising your right under another. Perhaps we should remove or restrict your right to speak your mind…

  101. joshua
    September 10, 2013

    Brian Ross can’t refute the facts surrounding “gun free zones” so he resorts emotional and illogical arguments. Typical of someone who knows nothing of guns.

  102. stevie
    September 10, 2013

    Brian Ross, your writing shows that you are incapable of logic and reason. That’s too bad that you can only make decisions based on feelings. Keep blaming the NRA. what you don’t realize is that the NRA is made up of everyday people who elect the leadership and board members of the organization.

    You absolutely cannot dispute the fact that every single one of these tragic mass murders has occurred in a gun free zone except one. The only one that did not occur in your precious yet misguided and grossly ineffective “gun free zone” is the Gabby Giffords shooting that occurred outside. Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Allegheny Law School, and Fort Hood every single one of these occurred in a gun free zone. As you can see, gun free zones do not hinder nor prevent a deranged person from committing a crime. In fact, these alleged “gun free zones” endanger people because it only disarms the law abiding.

  103. Sue
    September 10, 2013

    If people don’t want to frequent Starbucks because us “gun nuts” will be there, than don’t. There’s always a reason that people are afraid of guns. They either have no experience and they are going with the crowd, or they know they can’t be a “gun nut” because of their past experiences which would not allow them to own one. So if you are afraid, get educated. If you screwed up and you can’t have one, it’s your own fault. Don’t take your ire out on others. Either way, I couldn’t care less how you feel. I WILL continue to give Starbucks my business with or without you.

  104. Chuck Haggard
    September 10, 2013

    Sir,
    Your entire letter is predicated on personal feelings and a complete lack of facts, strong in emotion but way off base when it comes to reality.

    Starbucks posting their store as “no guns” does not make your safer, this is a silly illusion believed only by hoplophobes such as yourself.

    For the record, your characterization of the National Guard as the militia is completely false, that you can not even figure this out when the facts are so clear is illustrative of your lack of knowledge on this subject.

    I would add, from the viewpoint of a 26+ year police officer, that your thoughts on how cops feel about concealed carry is also completely off base.

  105. Ryan
    September 10, 2013

    Because anybody who plans to go into a Starbucks to shoot everybody is going to care what a sign on the door says…

    “Oh, the sign says I can’t bring a gun inside, I guess I can’t go in to shoot people.”

  106. Harold Craig Hill
    September 10, 2013

    Too both sides of this issue, I am a gun owner and carry a concealed weapon and believe it is my right to do so. I do however respect those who either disagree with my stance, are afraid of weapons etc., but I do not respect those who wish to inflict their beliefs on me. That IS NOT YOUR RIGHT!
    Likewise, even though I may have the Right to carry a weapon in an obvious manner, I choose to be as discrete relative to my possesion of a LEGAL weapon. Your fears which have, at this point, gone beyond rationality and entered a dangerous area of the political.This issue should be keep out of the sphere of a business not having anything to do with this issue. That being said, my efforts to shield my weapon from view does include the calculation of potential tense or fearful responses by others. This is however, several levels below the other TACTICAL reasons I choose to do so.
    We all should agree that there are people who should not have access to a weapon, any weapon. Typically these same people should not drive, operate machinary or many activities that pose a potential risk to others. Realistically, in our society, seperating an individual from a right/liberty with out justification, or because you & a group of friends don’t like it is contrary to the basic structure of this Country.
    In ending I would suggest that we all be more respectful to each other and endeavor to coexist without venting on businesses who just want to provide a service to their customers rather than make a political statement. I’m having a hard enough time with the idiots we have unfortunatly allowed to be or representatives in Washington on both sides of the asile.
    To Starbucks I like your product and will continue to purchase them & I also appreciate you trying to remain neutral which is the best policy in the long run.

  107. tim hazelmyer
    September 10, 2013

    brian ross you are a broken record and a pointless bumper sticker philosopher. in all the states that have shall issue and open carry laws crime is down. down. down. before these laws were passed we were told by people like you we would have shooting in the streets. the only place we have shooting in the streets is the cities where the people are not allowed to have guns, so the criminals feel empowered to do what they want because they knoiw no one around them can do anything to stop them. but you know all this. what is the real reason you want no one to be able to defend themselves? the case against guns grows weaker every day and as our government throws out the bill of rights, the people realize the second is all that much more important, go pedal your wares in france and ooh ohh stay out of the scary scary starbucks

  108. chrishernandezauthor
    September 10, 2013

    Mr. Ross,

    You embrace some significant logical fallacies in your response to Starbucks, and in the comments you’ve posted above.

    1) “Open carry is an insurance/liability nightmare.

    The law in those 43 states clearly allows carry. It says nothing, however, about the tort liability of the places where those guns are used.”

    Do you have any evidence backing this claim? Is there an incident you can cite where a business was successfully sued because their policy was to comply with local concealed carry laws? I’m not trying to be snarky with this comment; seriously, has this ever happened?

    Speaking as a non-attorney, I’d think a business that restricts concealed carry and experiences a shooting would also be open to liability. The threat of violence in public is well-documented, so if they do not allow customers to defend themselves, while also not providing protection, then the argument can be made that they are liable for any deaths or injuries resulting from criminal activity.

    2) “Further, if one of your welcomed Rambos, acting to “defend” the rest of your patrons, produces their concealed carry permitted weapon in one of these circumstances and draws, the likelihood that your defender is trained well enough in crisis situations to respond with lethal force that will actually hit the person with the weapon on the first shot is unlikely.”

    Police officers in a dynamic shooting situation rarely hit their target on the first shot. Neither do Soldiers and Marines in combat. That’s the nature of an armed encounter. I’m a cop, and a combat vet. If you only advocate concealed carry by those who can always hit with the first shot, then you should also oppose carry by police officers.

    3) “It is one of the reasons local law enforcement agencies aren’t fond of concealed carry.”

    Blatantly false. As another commenter mentioned, police chiefs, who tend to be political appointees, tend to be against armed self-defense. Rank and file officers (read: real cops) overwhelmingly support it. I’ve been a cop for almost 20 years, and have worked with officers from all over the country. I can’t recall a single police officer telling me that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t carry.

    4) “If police are dispatched, it also increases the likelihood that a concealed-carry customer could be dropped by the police reacting to the situation, further compounding already tragic circumstances.”

    Modern day police officers are not trained to immediately “shoot the guy with the gun”. Many legally armed, non-uniformed people can be on crime scenes; plainclothes and off-duty police officers, permit holders, business owners, etc. Yes, a concealed carrier could be mistakenly shot by police. However, I hardly believe that person would be somehow safer if they were unarmed and facing an armed murderer.

    5) “The sign removes the civil liability for you, the retailer.”

    As one of my criminal justice professors, an attorney, told us years ago: “I can sue you for killing my cat. I don’t even have a cat.” So no, I don’t see how that sign could be an automatic shield against civil liability.

    6) “So what Starbucks is doing is really above and beyond the law of the land in these places. It is an endorsement of the right to concealed carry.”

    It is an endorsement of state and local law. Just as Starbucks doesn’t allow concealed carry in states that prohibit it. Starbucks also endorses Free Speech, because it’s the law. I fail to see how Starbucks somehow becomes liable by complying with the law.

    7) “Along with coffee you sell community places where people can gather, talk, work away from home, relax. One discharge of a weapon at one store, and that goes away in every one of your locations.”

    On what do you base this claim? People still go to Luby’s despite the Killeen Luby’s Massace. People still go to McDonald’s despite the San Ysidro McDonald’s Massacre. People still go to the movies despite the Aurora Theater Massacre.

    8) “Yeah, that lady who talked the guy into surrendering in the school shot off her mouth, not a gun, and no one died.”

    Ms. Antoinette Tuff, a very brave woman, was also helped by the fact that police officers were inside the school firing on Michael Hill. Hill was under lethal threat when he chose to surrender.

    9) “Guys who are armed to the teeth to shoot up a movie theater or a school are usually beefed up enough with weaponry to waste most of you before you can get your gun out of the drawer, purse or holster anyway.”

    This is a beloved myth of the anti-self defense movement. The truth is that most mass killers are untrained, unskilled cowards. No bravery or skill is needed murder unarmed, helpless people. The majority of mass killers have barely been able to operate a weapon. One of the Columbine shooters even managed to break his own nose firing a shotgun. I’ve been a law enforcement Active Shooter instructor and have studied mass shootings. One thing that stands out in many cases is just how many opportunities there were for an armed, trained citizen to stop the killing. And your comment about not having enough time to draw a weapon is laughable; in places like Columbine and Virginia Tech, many people heard gunshots for minutes before they ever saw the shooters. If one of them had been armed, they would have had more than ample time to prepare for armed resistance.

    What I’ve written above is only a partial list of your argument’s weaknesses.

    You seem to buy into strong myths believed by most of those who support gun control: armed criminals are unstoppable monsters, yet armed law-abiding citizens are hopelessly outclassed and can only do more harm by resisting violence. Your apparent belief that the best way to respond to violence is by being a nonthreatening, cooperative victim has been disproven over and over. I applaud Starbucks for not buying into that ridiculous fallacy.

    Your argument is, to say the least, strong on emotion but weak on facts. Your continued use of inflammatory terms like “Rambo” and multiple semi-veiled insults against gun owners’ intelligence are very telling. You’re obviously an intelligent man yourself, but I have to ask if you’re capable of having a rational debate with someone who disagrees with you. Your attitude and tone suggests you can’t.

    I’ll be very surprised if you allow this comment on your blog.

    • Jesse
      September 10, 2013

      Best comment on this entire page. Cheers.

    • obloodyhell
      September 10, 2013

      Chris — excellent, well considered reply.

      I’ll also call your attention to the Kip Kinkle shootings in the 90s. Kinkle’s gun clicked, signifying it was empty — one of the other kids there, who had some experience with guns, recognized what that sound was, and, despite being shot himself, jumped on Kinkle while he knew he had the chance, because his gun was empty, requiring Kinkle to either reload or switch weapons. This allowed others to finish subduing Kinkle.

      So there is a relevant example — even if people are under fire, if the perp is shooting, at some point, they’ll have to reload. So someone armed is going to have a far better chance of stopping the perp than someone disarmed who has to jump across a room filled with random objects to tackle the perp.

      I’d feel a lot safer in a room with four armed CCers than a room with no one armed. Even in the exceptionally unlikely situation where one of them is a nutjob about to snap, I’m far more likely to survive because of those other three, than if I’m in a victim creation zone.

  109. Rick
    September 10, 2013

    Brian;

    I don’t ask for permission, nobody knows I carry concealed.

    I completed the required course of study and was vetted by the authority having jurisdiction. Who is the authority?
    County Sheriff, State Police, FBI
    Am I trained? US Marine 1975-1981
    A member of one of the Marine Corps competition pistol teams for four years.
    Since then, participating in rifle high-power matches.

    I completed the required CC course 10 years ago to discover what it was about.
    As a result of the recent domestic mass-shootings I re-took the class and applied for the permit.

    An unsung hero stopped the Clackamas Mall shooter.
    Ignoring the “no firearms” signs to shop the mall, no one knew he carried.
    When gunfire erupted (killing two folks), he ran towards the shooter, drew his weapon, and demanded his surrender. The shooter committed suicide.
    The police arrived tens of minutes after it was all over.

    The school shootings, Aurora Cinema and Clackamas Mall incidents contributed to my motivation to carry concealed.The statistics suggest I will never be involved in a gunfight.

    Equipped and hoping there will not be a need to use my gun.
    Rick from Oregon

  110. Tom
    September 10, 2013

    I will have to make a stop and buy some coffee, even though I hate their coffee. The person who wrote the reply seems confused about open carry vs concealed carry as many are. If open carry is legal you do not need a concealed carry license for it. If you are a drug addict, have a record of domestic violence or mental issues you are not allow to purchase a handgun, which is what the background check is for, let alone get a concealed carry license, which is a more extensive background check. Most people who are not allowed to legally possess a handgun, do not walk around with openly displayed and safely holstered on their side. Most people carrying a illegal gun stick it in their pocket with no holster. That’s when you have to be worried. I wish they could explain how putting up signs will stop the people who have an illegal gun from coming in. There is no open carry insurance. In fact it is the opposite, if you prevent someone from being allowed to defend themselves, you form what is called a CPZ (Criminal Protection Zone) and you are liable to protect them) If you are negligent in that duty, then you can be sued if they get hurt or killed and you made them leave the tool that could save their life in their car. If they shoot someone or have a negligent discharge then the person who was carrying is both criminally and civilly liable, not the establishment. Also they seem to make a lot of assumptions and “obvious” statement, without clear facts and examples to back them up.

  111. Ignorance Isn't Bliss
    September 10, 2013

    How bad does it suck to be you right now? That little poll of yours sure backfired, didn’t it? At least we know what the real 90% number is about now, huh? And I came across it because one of the losers from MDA posted it on the Starbucks page thinking she was going to get all sorts of support. Tell us, were your parents disappointed when they realized the boy they thought they had raised turned into a little girl afraid of inanimate objects?

  112. Bill Steinbacher
    September 10, 2013

    Putting this together really seems to be working out the way you intended…

    awesome. The comments in relation to this are perfect!

  113. nate
    September 10, 2013

    wow, this guy is a moron. You can’t defend yourself or your family against a gun without a gun and criminals don’t obey laws? You can’t fix stupid.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      Most people never have to defend themselves period. It just doesn’t happen much in large swaths of the country. The majority of gun deaths aren’t from “criminals” in spite of your fine NRA indoctrination. The majority of shootings in this country are committed by “law abiding” citizens, just like you, who don’t become criminals until they kill a relative, or a friend, or a neighbor, or the guy they think is sleeping with their wife, or the guy who talked back to them at the store, or the guy who made the grilled cheese wrong (another sad but true story). Most gun deaths are suicides or domestic disputes. You’re right in one sense, you can’t fix stupid. You should not let “stupid” have a gun in the first place, and you should make it really clear that drinking and carrying don’t mix with very stiff UI penalties.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        “About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000, despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.”

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        Just about everything you post is a lie.

      • Thor
        September 10, 2013

        Oh really Brian? Tell me, do you have a reliable souce that backs these claims up? or is it just talk out your a**? I think after 10 years on the Job I would see more “law abiding citizens committing the majority of the shootings”, but funny thing is, it’s quite the opposite.
        But I am sure a man of your stature has facts to back this up right? I’ll be waiting…

      • Rodney
        September 10, 2013

        You are using your first amendment right to defend yourself, as we all are here.

        Do you put your seat belt on? Do you buy home insurance? Do you have health insurance? Do you have a fire extinguisher?

        Why do you have these things if 99% of the time you won’t use them?

        Don’t tell us that we will never need a gun because we will never use it. I’m sorry, I’d rather be prepared for a situation than not. So I wear my seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, have home insurance, car insurance, health insurance.

      • Logan Tremblay
        September 10, 2013

        You sir, seem to have been afflicted by what I call the, “Redneck Virus.”
        You ASSUME that everyone who owns a gun or especially has a concealed carry permit is just some ticking time bomb ready to go off. You assume they’re heat packing meatheaded redneck when they just… Aren’t. In fact, pretty much all ACTUAL meatheaded rednecks aren’t that way. And I should know, I grew up in a community where EVERYONE, and I mean EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. Owned a gun. Hunting is part of the norm every winter, and yes, many of the people you call, “Gun Nuts,” are the type of people I grew up around… However… To the best of my knowledge and research, No one has EVER been shot and killed in New Auburn, WI. Why? Because everyone firstly gets along fairly well or is intelligent enough to deal with their problems nonviolently, and secondly, if you try and shoot someone, they WILL shoot back; and everyone knows this. Because of this fact the general mentality is,” Why would I bother being a violent asshole when I KNOW i’m going to get burned?” Now, these people are simple folk. Not stupid, just simple. But despite that they seem to all be rather more refined and intelligent that you and presumably the people you see as friends. For someone as educated and cultured as yourself, you sure can’t seem to remember many things from kindergarten… Namely not judging books by their cover.

  114. KC
    September 10, 2013

    Bob, I am curious, how does a sign or rule keep a mentally ill person from discharging a gun in Starbucks? Do these signs produce some sort of gun grabbing electoral force field that stop would be perpetrators in their tracks? I am also curious how a law would enforce anything, you and I both know the majority of gun crime is committed by people who have no care for the law, and get their guns illegally. You are aware that you must back a FBI background check to purchase a firearm, correct? I wonder how many citizens with CCWs commit violent crime, would you happen to have any statistics on that?

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      The sign indemnifies Starbucks, and also says that Starbucks is not ground zero for gun-toting aficionados. By endorsing y’all more armed people tend to go there than usual to “support” Starbucks endorsement of your particular lifestyle choices. That increases the risk of a mentally ill person being in Starbucks and going off. We connect all the dots?

      • obloodyhell
        September 10, 2013

        }}} That increases the risk of a mentally ill person being in Starbucks and going off. We connect all the dots?

        No, your rationale is ludicrous.

        Because, unless you’re claiming coffee attracts lunatics, you have no reason to presume that any given ARMED person is any more likely to be a lunatic there anywhere else. And any given ARMED person on the edge is not going to go somewhere that guns are EXPECTED to be found to go off. Even the lunatic is going to pick somewhere where they can expect to do the most damage, which is not a place where you find ARMED people but DISARMED people.

        Your failure to make this simple connection is … hilarious.
        That you actually invert it is even more laughable.

        The really sad thing is going to be if you win and then some nutjob makes the point for the rest of us and shoots up a starbucks …. because there’s NO ONE THERE who can stop him or her. Sure, that nutjob might have been able to kill a couple people before those others who were armed were able to respond, but otherwise there is NO ONE who is going to be there to stop him/her. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING FOR.

        You don’t get it — there are sheep, there are sheepdogs, and there are wolves.

        The fact that a sheepdog *might* go crazy and turn wolf does not justify defanging and declawing ALL the sheepdogs. That only clears the field for the wolf to attack ANYTIME.

        DUH.

        You want MORE sheepdogs, not less, if you want more safety. Otherwise your wolf can attack at any time and do whatever they want, and you sheep can only bleat and run away and hope that the farmer comes to save your asses… but that’s not going to happen until the wolf has had more than a lot of fun killing a lot of you.

        Grow up. This is the REAL WORLD. The wolves of the world don’t disappear because you ran off all the sheepdogs with their fangs and claws reminding you that wolves exist. The world does not go away just because you put your hands over your eyes.

      • KC
        September 10, 2013

        So you are still implying that mentally ill people carry legally, do you have any evidence to back that up? Do you have any statistics to show that there as been an influx of guns in Starbucks? How long has Starbucks had this policy, and how many deaths, injuries, or crimes have resulted as a consequence? Schools have had a 0 tolerance for guns, and yet it is continuously a place where mentally ill people “go off”. Can you show me some places that endorse open carry that have also had people commit mass murders or random acts of violence? Can you then show me places that restrict open or concealed carry, and have also had deaths, injuries, and crimes occur. Are you connecting the dots, Brian?

      • Jetpack
        September 10, 2013

        Oh. A mentally ill person needs a carry permit and permission from a store to bring in a gun to “go off”? I wasn’t aware. Makes perfect sense. -___-

      • Chuck
        September 10, 2013

        Actually, Brian, that’s not how the dots connect. By posting the property as a “no-carry” zone, Starbucks would be assuming the liability in the event that your “crazy gun owner” went in there. Since there’s a proven constitutional right to self-defense, Starbucks is denying their customers the right to exercise that right individually, and asserting a collective defense. Since they aren’t providing their own security, no defense occurs. Starbucks is now on the hook for the legal liability in creating that “gun free zone”.

        And before you say “that’s crazy”:

        http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23045656/judge-dismisses-negligence-claims-suit-by-aurora-theater

        “Jackson dismissed a claim of negligence but let stand a claim of wrongful death and another claim filed under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act.”

        Premises liability, and wrongful death. There ya go.

        So, let’s sum this up. Under your proposal, Starbucks should assume liability in the event there IS a shooting on their property, to satisfy… what?

      • Thor
        September 10, 2013

        Have any statistics to back that up Bri?

      • Brandon Carter
        September 20, 2013

        Stop with the mentally ill nonsense. DC V Heller:

        (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not

        unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon

        whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever

        purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have

        been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The

        [B]Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on

        longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms

        by felons and the mentally ill[/B], or laws forbidding the

        carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools

        and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and

        qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s

        holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in

        common use at the time” finds support in the historical

        tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and

        unusual weapons.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 20, 2013

        As do so many anti-gun types, you misrepresent the prohibitions against carrying. You surely meant to say “those ADJUDICATED mental ill.” Also, the prohibition against carrying a gun in a school zone is not that cut and dried if you actually read the law instead of spouting what you’ve heard. Neither is carrying in a post office, for that matter, if you read the whole of the law. We must also remember that just because laws have been enacted and enforced, it does not mean that they are legal (constitutional). The right to keep and bear arms has been upheld repeatedly and even used for decades, by the SCOTUS, as an example of a natural right that must not be violated. Read outside your little box, so that you don’t look quite so foolish. Just a helpful hint.

  115. Jim
    September 10, 2013

    Brian,

    You an an absolute idiot! Starbucks, by welcoming me in their establishment with my properly licensed firearm, creates a safer place for me. If you want to stand outside and get shot, feel free. We don’t need idiotic genes like yours in the gene pool.

  116. Joshua Bell
    September 10, 2013

    I will ask again, can you please cite your sources for your percentages?

    • jay bree
      September 10, 2013

      No…he won’t because he can’t.

    • Harold Racca
      September 10, 2013

      He cant, he has nothing.

    • Roger Baker
      September 10, 2013

      he cant or wont because he doesn’t actually have them. suicide, if someone wants to kill themselves they are going to do it, with or without a gun. domestic disputes, gang wars and drug shootings are not domestic disputes. I have never heard of a stabbing in prison by a rival gang or a canteen deal go wrong called a domestic dispute. You sir are trying to justify your supposed facts with incorrect wording of what domestic dispute is. I will cite a page for you about people that have used guns to protect themselveshttp://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html. 2 million is no small number.

    • kathy abbott
      September 10, 2013

      Well, name who you are asking, dude.

  117. Jesse
    September 10, 2013

    It’s amazing how “Brian Ross” continues to feebly attempt to defend his point after getting slammed on this thread. The only straw left for him to grasp is liability. That’s quite a leap from trying to guilt people into legislating away individual liberty.

  118. Shawn Thetacticalmedic
    September 10, 2013

    Boy that Starbucks, what a bunch of right wing kooks!…. Next thing you know they’re gonna support Woman’s suffrage and Gay Marriage, where does it end?….you Sir are a dolt…

  119. FistPeso
    September 10, 2013

    You have no idea how much crime is around you and getting worse everyday. Most of this crime is attributable to drugs. I spent the weekend with several local police officers discussing this very issue. You need to understand that it takes good people with guns to stop bad people with guns. The criminals today don’t give a rats tail about your life or anyone else, so are you so you want to live in a society where the good guys cant’ carry guns?

  120. lord ratimus
    September 10, 2013

    Anyone find the link to the poll on how many people now drink starbucks due to them following the letter of law ? I go everyweek now

  121. Wayne nedeAu
    September 10, 2013

    So, are you worried about drunk gunplay at Starbucks?? I’m confused… What do the Starbucks where you live sell. Mine here sell coffee, not liquor.

  122. obloodyhell
    September 10, 2013

    I have to ask, how many of these 60s liberal twits would still say this any more?

    “Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment.”
    — Huey Newton –

  123. Mike Tabone
    September 10, 2013

    You got to love a guy who writes a hit piece, doesn’t use fact based logics, and when the masses disagree continues to argue.

    Brian Ross : using George Carlin’s rubric you seem kinda of intelligent but are completely full of shit.

  124. Brandon Carter
    September 10, 2013

    First of all Brian, the Supreme Court does NOT grant any rights. Nor does the Constitution. The Constitution enshrines Natural Rights into law. Please tell me, when was the last mass shooting at a gun friendly establishment? You won’t find many because they overwhelmingly occur in Gun Free Zones.

    This debate was settled on this in 1791. We compromised in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. It is clear that people in your camp do not want compromise, you want total abolition of guns.

    We already have a turn-key tyrannical state. The Patriot Act, NDAA 2012, Illegal NSA spying on US CItizens, Domestic Drones, the list goes on and on. Our Government is clearly not in step with the definition of Liberty. And your ilk believe that disarming the public is the right answer?

    Guns are illegal in Chicago. Chicago has the highest gun violence rate in the nation. Coincidence?

    The fact that there are over 80 million “registered” gun owners, while gun deaths (including justifiable homicide events) average 10,000/year speaks volumes to how much of a non-issue guns are. If gun violence was a real issue, then the anti-gun crowd would cite Chicago every day in their mantra.

    The problem is the ground truth in Chicago flies in the face of your narrative, so you conveniently ignore it. Hundreds of school age black kids were killed in gun violence last year, but you lot in the media only wanted to talk about 20 white kids in Connecticut.

    On average 180,000 people die every year due to medical malpractice.
    Over 30,000 every year die from alcohol related traffic accidents.

    So, please explain why attacking a specifically enumerated Right of the People should be a priority for anyone? Clearly we have much larger killers in our nation.

    The 2nd Amendment says “right to keep and bear arms”. It does not say “right to keep and bear muskets”.

    Also, yes, the laws do assume that firearm carry permit holders are law abiding citizens. There are a few reasons for this. Number 1: The Presumption of Innocence, which is fairly important in any Constitution loving patriot’s eyes. Next is the fact that in most States (even Shall Issue States), one must submit to a background check to be issued the permit. Last time I checked, criminals don’t like submitting to background investigations.

    Do you need a background check to run your mouth on the internet? Do you need to show ID to express your opinion? Do you need to show ID to vote?

    The answer to those is, no you don’t. Firearm advocates have compromised enough. No more.

    How did alcohol prohibition work out? Aren’t narcotics prohibited items?
    Prohibition did not work. Narcotics are illegal yet readily available.

    The FBI has already documented that the 1994 AWB did not work and that another AWB would not achieve the desired results either.

    • Rodney
      September 10, 2013

      I can’t like your reply enough on this page.

  125. obloodyhell
    September 10, 2013

    }}} The majority of gun deaths aren’t from “criminals” in spite of your fine NRA indoctrination. The majority of shootings in this country are committed by “law abiding” citizens, just like you, who don’t become criminals until they kill a relative, or a friend, or a neighbor, or the guy they think is sleeping with their wife, or the guy who talked back to them at the store, or the guy who made the grilled cheese wrong (another sad but true story). Most gun deaths are suicides or domestic disputes.

    No, they are pretty much by definition, criminals.

    And if your assertion that they are “people you know” demonstrates the sheer and extreme depth of your ignorance on the subject.

    Most gun homicides in the USA come from gangland violence and criminals, nothing else.

    In fact, once you remove gang violence and “justified homicides” (cops killing people, wives protecting themselves from abusive husbands who won’t let them get away, women/children/seniors protecting themselves from armed thugs, etc.), then the homicide rate of the USA — all causes — drops down to positively EUROPEAN levels of homicide. This despite ALL the guns that Americans have.

    This is based on UN figures derived from POLICE around various nations, including the USA… they aren’t NRA “distortions”, they are cold, hard FACTS.

  126. John
    September 10, 2013

    It’s nice to know that deranged and insane people can be so easily dissuaded from following through with plans to kill people just by hanging a sign on a door. Too bad Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater didn’t have sign-… oh, wait…

  127. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

  128. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    William Rawle, authored “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:

    “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

  129. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 (“Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote

    “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

  130. Paul C. Norton
    September 10, 2013
  131. barryad1
    September 10, 2013

    “The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. NO ordinance, no policy, no regulation, no order, no bill, no act, no statute, no code, No Federal law, no State law, no County law, no City law, NO Amendment etc can be enforced that VIOLATES those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.”

    the only permit I need is the 2nd amendment.

  132. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    “we have well regulated militia (The National Guard)”

    Our National Guard is only one part of our Nations “Militia”

    U.S. Code
    10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

  133. Richard Dubey
    September 10, 2013

    Brian, you are a troll and a douchebag. Your argument has no merit, your beliefs no weight, and your facts no proof. You are a brainwashed fool who has never taken the time to even see if you would like to know how to shoot. Somewhere in your past someone filled your head with a lot of crap while it was still soft. Your poll was a joke and so are you. And again, I sincerely hope YOU need to defend yourself with a firearm while police are minutes away and seconds count you eat it because of you and your party line’s foolish beliefs. I can get along without the likes of you.

  134. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

    Harold Racca is a “Freeman”

  135. kathy abbott
    September 10, 2013

    Love your open letter. Those money-hungry Starbucks corporate people are certainly going to get theirs. . . Enough said.

  136. Rick Deckard
    September 10, 2013

    Hey Brian. You obviously aren’t going to let facts get in the way of your liberal leaning agenda. I do have a question for you though. Why are you not outraged about the number of people killed each year by drunk drivers and alcohol abuse? You are aware alcohol kills WAY more people each year than guns, right?? But somehow those deaths are acceptable. Why should you have to give up your cocktails just because a small group of people abuse something? You’re nothing but a hypocrite. Keep spewing your lies, maybe you will your poll votes up to 4 or 5 percent.

  137. Harold Racca
    September 10, 2013

    “As I’ve said very consistently, like all law it applies to a small minority of anyone in the general public. We do realize it. We realize y’all carry because every day, every day, someone who carries comes temporarily unglued and kills a loved one, or a spouse, or a neighbor, or their kid finds their gun and kills themselves or another kid. Still the small minority of gun owners out there, but because of the mass of y’all out there without a shred of screening in most states, the statistical likelihood increases that one or more people who would be walking around today are dead because some “law abiding” citizen went off the rails.”

    Your projecting.
    Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.

    Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed as an immature defence, the projection of one’s negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.

  138. Matt
    September 10, 2013

    It took less than 4 months to pass strict gun laws after the Newtown, CT school shooting. A total of 26 people were killed. According to statistics, 50 kids are backed over by cars a week!! That’s 2600 kids a year! Legislation passed over 2 years ago requiring the auto industry to reduce blind spots on New vehicles. However, no one is pushing that issue. These politicians are full of shit!! They are taking our freedoms away and using those lost souls as the reason. If it were really about saving children all cars would have back up alarms and you would be required to have a spotter! Those in favor of gun control are morons that are giving your rights away! Wake up and look around!

  139. John Weinrich
    September 10, 2013

    It’s probably a waste of time to convince Brian of his errors. He is either a Hoplophobe or someone that wants to destroy our country. But I do understand that we must get our points made for those that read this article. I do agree that we need to ban guns from folks, anti-gun folks that is. As it turns out many anti-gun Liberals are anti-gun because they can’t trust themselves with responsibility. This why they want the government to control their lives. And it also turns out that many, is not all the mass murders are liberals. So, yes, we should ban Liberals from owning and using firearms…

  140. Matk Falade
    September 10, 2013

    Let’s lump gang turf wars in under “domestic disputes” and try to use the resulting figures as proof of our point. Nice try. And, your ignorance shows all over the place in you comments too. there ARE laws against drinking and carrying. I agree with the rest of the posters here. Try researchingyourtopicand print facts instead of fallacies.

  141. bill
    September 10, 2013

    ” the likelihood that your defender is trained well enough…” How well is well enough? I live eight miles from Sandy Hook and the “trained officers” you “Amti-gun nuts” trust so much to protect you graduate from the CT State Police Academy with a sum total of 72 hours of firearms training. 8 hrs basic pistol safety, 8 hrs basic rifle/shotgun safety, 24 hrs combined firing range practice, 8 hrs range proficiency testing, 16 hrs instruction on firearm regulations, and a WHOPPING 8 hrs of shoot/no-shoot instruction. A CT concealed carry permit holder must under go the same 8 hrs of basic pistol safety training including a live fire safety proficiency test.. While I can’t speak for all other permit holders I spend 6-8 hrs/month at the range and at least 2 weekends/year at advanced tactical training and nearly every class has a waiting list. While statistics are not kept on encounters where the firearm is not discharged, a Florida State University study on defensive gun use estimated 20 bystander deaths annually for 6300 fatal defensive shootings .3%. With 5% of defensive shooters having been injured before drawing there weapon , these figures show a ratio greater than 15:1 of lives saved to innocents lost. But your logic seem to say it’s okay to let those 300 crime victims die.
    P.S. No data cited here came from the NRA or any other gun organization, it all comes from my own independent research of publicly available information.

  142. MajorTomNC
    September 10, 2013

    Wow, here I thought writers were somehow more ‘reasonable’ and ‘willing’ to consider where the discussion might lead. But, you seem determined to pick out a word of phrase and twist it round and round until YOU think you’ve made some truly brilliant comeback out of it! You Mr. Ross seem to be the only one here who keeps saying silly stuff that sounds suspiciously like the lame statement of a loser: “Yea, well, well you’re stupid!!!”. I feel sorry for folks like you who choose to demonize others without any reasonable attempt at providing a basis for your completely unrealistic and unsupported statements. If any of what you’ve presented were actually the “Truth” there would be dozens of rational examples for you to reference folks to “See” that you’re fears of future chaos must be true.

    Yes, I do feel sorry for you and those who suffer like you do.
    (P.S. sorry I needed so many words to give you this comment)
    (if they’re are too many, just read the sentence that starts with “Yes, I do . . . “)

  143. Louis Berei
    September 10, 2013

    Poor Brian Ross, I feel bad for his askew views.

  144. Paul P
    September 10, 2013

    After careful consideration of all posts, one thing is plain to see, the people that are anti-gun are FAR MORE frightening than the gun enthusiasts the call “nuts” because they have this delusional perception that WHEN they are the victim of a crime, the fact that they are unarmed will garner sympathy with their attacker. Oh you FOOLS!! Act like a sheep & the wolves will find you, act prepared & they’ll avoid you, unless they’re totally reckless…Oh yea, Brian Ross brought a pencil to a gun fight, and it wasn’t even sharp!!!

  145. Adam Luthman
    September 10, 2013

    I’m loving the poll results.

  146. Ricky Moore
    September 10, 2013

    The fact that people positioning for Starbucks to prohibit constitutional carry cannot tell the damn difference between a law abiding citizen (many of whom are off duty cops and security guards) and a 2 time felony gang banger astounds me.

    I mean, common sense says that people who are not allowed to own guns (you know, the violent criminals) would conceal the weapon regardless of permit.

    This all goes back to hoplophobia. The irrational fear of weapons that stems from mental illness and paranoia that needs to be treated by medical professionals.

    The constitution is the constitution.

    The same document that confirms our freedom of speech, freedom of privacy and property, also grants us freedom of protection and firearm carry.

    The constitution is like barrel of fine wine.

    You cannot pull the plug expecting some to come out and not all of it.

  147. Orwell 1984
    September 10, 2013

    Hey Brian you keep saying the NRA this and NRA that do you even know anything about the nra. In the 1950s and 60s it was the Republican party and the NRA who fought for the civil rights movement. It was the Democratic party who fought against the civil rights movement and helped fund and start the KKK.What you don’t understand is that on any given day no matter where you go there is some one carrying a weapon whether its open carry or hidden I bet on any given day at least 3 people around you have weapons

  148. DBJohnson
    September 10, 2013

    98.7% of all gang-banger murders are committed by Obama supporters.

    See? I can play your game of made-up statistics better than you can.

    • Brian Ross
      September 10, 2013

      We draw statistics from the FBI, DEA, and CDC tables annually. Data on domestic dispute calls comes from our counts daily of the shootings around the United States post Sandy Hook, and those of Slate and other record-keeping groups. Domestic disputes are the leading cause of death and injury in America. If you aggregate the national news flow every day, that is painfully clear.

      • Harold Racca
        September 10, 2013

        Brian, your wrong about everything. Read this recent Harvard study

        Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

        http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

        And have a look at this Study just released by one of your favorite Government institutions.

        http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

        “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed ”

        Brian, You have an unalienable right to be ignorant, but there is no requirement to work at it.

      • Brian Ross
        September 11, 2013

        No one here is suggesting a ban. Y’all keep having that argument with yourselves. Most people drive cars. We take away that privilege from people who drink, or who can’t safely operate one. There are numerous studies that show that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and those under-the-influence would affect the gun injury and death numbers greatly. It wouldn’t strip the majority of gun owners of their “rights” but affect about the same percentage of people who abuse the privilege to drive an automobile.

      • Gene Mcdonald
        September 14, 2013

        It is beyond dispute that most gun grime occurs in liberal/democrat localities.

      • Brian Ross
        September 14, 2013

        Gun crime? Gun violence happens more in suburban Red states than it does even in big violent cities like Chicago or Baltimore. Texas is a big state for shootings as well. Nice try.

      • ramstienge@yahoo.com
        September 14, 2013

        Brian your an idiot and not a journalist in the least. If half the gun owners were as violent as you say we are there would be none of you left to tell us that we are violent. Your lucky we have a high tolerance for bull chit cowards like you.

      • Brian Ross
        September 16, 2013

        It’s interesting isn’t it? I will repeat over and over again that we’re talking about 3-7% of the legal gun owners doing harm, and I will still get you knee-jerk types that don’t know how to read (or apparently, spell). I’ll do it slowly. Invite over a neighbor who reads without moving their lips: A SMALL MINORITY OF GUN OWNERS DO A LOT OF DAMAGE. Eliminate access to those with mental disorders. Have severe penalties for carry/open access while intoxicated. Keep guns out of the hands of children without supervision. Educate people that guns don’t end arguments. Small things that affect A MINORITY OF GUN OWNERS, but would wipe down the majority of gun deaths and injuries in America.

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 14, 2013

        LOL. I actually get all that Gun Crime info from the sources you claim to use. Funny that mine doesn’t say what yours does…

  149. Jerry
    September 10, 2013

    “Oh, and the police are permitted to carry anywhere anytime, but they are TRAINED. They’re not going to freak in some lightning strike robbery and shoot another patron. ”

    Brian, that turns out not to be the case. Most police officers never fire their weapons during the course of their career. Further, the vast majority of them never receive more than the most basic firearms training. Sure, the SWAT guys receive frequent training, but not the rank and file. And contrary to your comments, they do in fact frequently shoot innocent bystanders and/or each other. A great example came out of NYC not long ago when two LEOs engaged a shooter on a NYC sidewalk and managed to hit something on the order of either innocent civilians in addition to the shooter. This happens far more times each year than you might realize. And remember: when seconds count the police are only minutes away. I’ll protect myself, thank you very much.

  150. Jerry
    September 10, 2013

    ARRRGH! I meant: “….on the order of EIGHT innocent civilians…”

  151. John Weinrich
    September 10, 2013

    95.44%, hmmm, does Brian have any friends???

  152. Jerry
    September 10, 2013

    My mistake. Turns out the NYC cops shot NINE bystanders. So much for TRAINED professionals. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  153. Cally
    September 10, 2013

    I think the results of the poll simply says it all…and on a page bashing gun rights none the less.

  154. Grumpy Guy
    September 10, 2013

    Moronic drivel by someone who does not know what the Heller decision said, what the “militia” of the US is composed of, or that most US citizens support open carry, which is legal in some 43 states.

    You’ve got your butthurt; we have a constitution. YOU LOSE. But thanks for playing.

  155. Jerry
    September 10, 2013

    Here’s an example of a TRAINED professional shooting his partner in the heat of battle. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7228747

    Turns out when the lead starts flying, cops are just people, too.

  156. Chris Settles
    September 10, 2013

    I think the poll results speak for themsleves.

  157. Rodney
    September 11, 2013

    I just want to say with sincerity. I do mean with no sarcasm. I appreciate Brian allowing his opposing side post comments. I found my comments to be stuck in moderation zone, but it was eventually approved. Kudo’s to Brian to not deleting comments.

  158. Bob Ratliff
    September 11, 2013

    Imagine that: Starbucks actually approves of all of The Bill of Rights!

  159. American
    September 11, 2013

    Until you have been held up at gunpoint, with the barrel of a gun inches at your head – you don’t know – I feared guns for years, and years. But later in life decided I was not going to fear them any more. I learned how some of them worked (they re all a little different) – I don’t own many guns , therefore I am not a gun nut – I have a pistol and rifle. For my fears have become overcome – you dare call me a gun nut because I understand them – why not call me a gun safety nut, who knows that you can’t go gun blazing in areas that are not cleared. What are you calling the criminal perpetrator? The victim?

  160. Chuck Norris
    September 11, 2013

    Hey Brian, How’s the polling going?

  161. MoFoJoe
    September 11, 2013

    Brian’s poll painted a clear picture than Bob Ross could ever of

  162. D J Smith Jr.
    September 11, 2013

    Wow Brian, aren’t you amazed by how many of us gun nuts are out here!
    I am a legal concealed gun carrier so I guess that lumps me with the rest of the nuts, thank you.
    I’m going to let you in on a secret, most of us gun carriers whether open or concealed do not want to have to draw our weapons, but if the need arises we will.
    I personally will not draw if I don’t have a clear shot that won’t jeopardize someone else. If a criminal is actively shooting people I will try and protect myself as well as anyone around me. I will try to get into a position where I can safely mitigate the situation and that is probably true for most of us.
    If someone is shooting at me I’m not going to sit there with my thumb up my ass and hope I don’t get shot, that would be rather stupid.
    Saying all of that Brian I will ask you to wear some type of sticker that states you are against anyone that chooses to carry a weapon for self defense, that way we won’t make the mistake of trying to save your sorry ass, thank you for listening!

  163. Reaper63
    September 11, 2013

    “The “but one” (Giffords) occured in a federal “gun free zone” too, as it was right across the street from a school. Meaning if you carried in accordance with AZ’s Constitutional Carry law, you would have been a federal criminal.” This is incorrect. There are no schools near the intersection of Ina and Oracle in Tucson/Oro Valley. That being said, several firearms owners left their firearms in their vehicles out of respect for Congresswoman Giffords. Giffords refused police protection from at least 2 (Tucson PD and Pima County Sheriff’s Office) agencies.

    Mr Ross should have at LEAST 1 example of that which he says he fears would happen, but alas, there are none. Police shootings (you know,the “armed professionals”), on the other hand, show ample cause for concern. Can the author name or demonstrate an event involving armed citizens and a mass shooting of bystanders? If so, please link. I applaud Starbucks, and their decision to abide by local firearms laws.

  164. Brandon Carter
    September 11, 2013

    Brian, you said: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    This presumed that we needed everyone who had a gun to go out and use it if the British were coming. They haven’t been for a couple of centuries now, we have well regulated militia (The National Guard) and the whole premise predates cruise missles, hellfire missiles, drones, Apache helicopters, etc. etc. You can try to blow off the full intent, but most constitutional scholars will still point out that the only consideration that standard arms got from the government only pertained to the ability to defend a state that has become infinitely more lethally equipped. With the paranoia of the Red Dawn types accounted for, it still means now what it meant then. The Supreme Court gave the gun manufacturers a solid with their interpretation, and since they’re the arbiters for all the money, we roll with a 2nd Amendment that protects gun rights. Like all rights, though, the court has determined there are limits. Being a felon is one they’ve upheld. They need to do more about mental illness, under-the-influence, and safe storage and handling, but they can’t because the NRA greases those wheels to keep enough violence out there that the threat of it sells more guns, which perpetuates more violence in a very profitable vicious circle.
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Ok, wow. Uhm no most Constitutional Scholars will not agree with what you assert. The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment specifically, were authored 15 years after an armed Revolution. Every mind involved with the writing of the Constitution had a very healthy distrust for Government. Do you honestly believe that the very men whom had just violently overthrown their government didn’t have the foresight to envision a need to do it again?

    In all 50 States (seeing as Gun laws tend to be Federal): It is unlawful for felons to possess guns. It is unlawful for the mentally deficient to possess guns. It is unlawful to be intoxicated while in the possession of a gun. It is unlawful in nearly every State to brandish a firearm. And quite frankly, how I choose to store my guns in my home is none of your concern.
    //////////////////////////////////////////
    You said:
    As I’ve said very consistently, like all law it applies to a small minority of anyone in the general public. We do realize it. We realize y’all carry because every day, every day, someone who carries comes temporarily unglued and kills a loved one, or a spouse, or a neighbor, or their kid finds their gun and kills themselves or another kid. Still the small minority of gun owners out there, but because of the mass of y’all out there without a shred of screening in most states, the statistical likelihood increases that one or more people who would be walking around today are dead because some “law abiding” citizen went off the rails.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////
    Again, just “wow”. A “small” minority of Gun Owners. The population of the United States is roughly 350 Million. That accounts for every man, woman and child. The average household is roughly 2 adults and 2 kids. So, on average 4 people per home. There are over 80 million *registered* gun owners in America. Registered being the key word. That does not account for those who legally own guns that were gifted to them, or that bought them via a private transaction (which is 100% legal in every State). But let’s just stick with 80 million. 350 million divided by 4 gives us an average of 87.5 million households. Putting roughly, one registered gun owner in every home.

    Please explain to me again, how gun owners are a “small” minority?

  165. Yelena Poveda
    September 11, 2013

    Making Starbucks stores gun free will certainly prevent any possible shooting incidents in the future. You know, shooting never happens in gun free zones, because criminals obey their policies.

    • Brian
      September 11, 2013

      Prohibit guns through policy. That has worked well for movie theaters.

  166. TCguns_carry (@TCguns_carry)
    September 11, 2013

    Brian, Tens of thousands of businesses across the country allow lawful carry of firearms. Why are you bullying Starbucks? You and your fear-filled, extremist anti-gun zealots are nothing but bullies who screech and stomp their feet like little 5 year-olds having a full diaper tantrum.

    The fact of the matter is that you are surrounded every day every where by law abiding citizens carrying firearms and you don’t even know it.

    The other fact of the matter is that you and your lunatic fringe hoplophobes are the ones who should be banned from Starbucks and all other businesses, as you are the ones who have proven violent tendencies and terroristic behavior, as follows:

    Gun control proponent calls for murder of Michelle Bachmann:


    “I think we should shoot the bastards…. Especially Michele Bachmann. I think we should stick her up on a wall and put a bullet in her.”

    Texas Democratic Party Official Calls For Murder of NRA Members

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/texas-democratic-party-leader-calls-for-murder-of-nra-members/comment-page-3/

    http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-democratic-party-leader-blogger-calls-for-shooting-nra-members

    Texas Democrat Party official John Cobarruvias issued multiple terrorist threats to begin hunting and killing people who voice support for legal gun ownership:
    “Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?,” he wrote on Twitter, also writing on his blog, “They need to [be] wiped off the face of the earth.”

    Liberals on Twitter call for murder of NRA members

    http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-call-for-murder-of-nra-members-repeal-of-second-amendment

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/liberals-call-for-murder-of-nra-president-members-repeal-of-second-amendment/

    @prisonforbush: “Someone should shoot this m*****f****r NRA President David Keene,” added Michael Mayer.
    In at least two other tweets, “Mayer” suggested using Keene for “target practice.”

    @angrydemdotcom: “#GunControl will exist when some nutjob chooses to exercise their #2ndAmendment rights at #NRA headquarters…”

    @90sRememberer: “Murder every NRA member”

    @Arseburgers: “…Get every member of the NRA to stand in a circle, aim & shoot…”

    ****

    Post-Newtown witch hunt: NRA president and members bombarded with death threats

    http://twitchy.com/2012/12/16/post-newtown-witch-hunt-nra-president-and-members-bombarded-with-death-threats/

    Des Moines Register prints Donald Kaul Op/Ed calling for death of gun owners and dragging 2nd Amendment supporters behind a pick up truck

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121230/OPINION01/312300033/Kaul-Nation-needs-new-agenda-guns

    “…I would also raze the [NRA]’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth…”
    “…If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me.”
    “Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot … And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures.”

    Professor Calls for NRA Member’s Death By Firing Squad

    http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201305300071

    Mainstream media newspapers print addresses of law abiding gun owners and victims of domestic violence and stalkers

    Anti-Gun Newspaper’s Gun Map Leads to Stalking of Domestic Violence Victims

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/anti-gun-newspapers-gun-map-leads-to-stalking-of-domestic-violence-victims/

    Newspaper printed addresses of people who’d done nothing wrong, they published the addresses of victims of stalkers and victims of violent crime who’d purchased a firearm to protect themselves.

  167. Josiah Kenniv
    September 11, 2013

    Very interesting how many people disagree with you Brian. Does that not pose a question when it comes to the validity of your argument? While I’m not saying that disagreement proves an argument wrong, it’s interesting to note that the majority of the people voting on this issue said that Starbucks should not be gun free. It seems the people have spoken.

    • Brian Ross
      September 11, 2013

      If by “the people” you mean the network of gun “enthusiasts” who descended on the article like locusts, given the tracking we’ve been doing over the last 72 hours of all of the gun advocacy groups from where these commenters originate, I’d hardly call them a representative sampling of general public opinion. As for the people from their side of the debate, they have more than adequately represented their point of view.

      • chrishernandezauthor
        September 11, 2013

        That’s an easy, cop out method of dismissing valid arguments against your position. I’m not a member of any gun advocacy group, not even the NRA. Nor am I part of any network of gun enthusiasts. I simply hold a viewpoint counter to yours, based on logic and reason in addition to my own experience.

        Please, tell everyone what gun advocacy group I originate from.

        How about you respond to the substance of your critics’ arguments, rather than giving yourself a convenient yet horribly weak excuse for holding a logically indefensible position? I get the feeling that this is another mechanism for you to assure yourself your intelligence level is orders of magnitude higher than those who disagree with you. “I don’t have to listen to what those idiots say. They’re just part of a network of gun enthusiasts, orchestrated by gun advocacy groups.” That’s pretty much the equivalent of “I’m rubber, you’re glue…”.

        When I write opinion pieces, I invite criticism of my views. I own everything I write and any mistakes I make. If I write something that angers people, it’s no “network” of people criticizing me. It’s the people who I wrote for, and who I opened myself to criticism from.

        If you’re man enough to speak out, be man enough to take the heat for it.

      • Thor
        September 11, 2013

        “How about you respond to the substance of your critics’ arguments, rather than giving yourself a convenient yet horribly weak excuse for holding a logically indefensible position?”

        He can’t. He hasn’t yet, and any support shown towards the pro-gun side is “locusts” (because the anti crowd never stoops to that huh?). He will just claim you are a “plant” from one of the 2A groups. Thats all he’s done thus far on here….I gave up expecting anything better (of course, this will probably wind up deleted)

      • Chuck
        September 12, 2013

        Brian, you’re doing the sore loser thing. It isn’t all magically working out the way you want, so of course that means that anything that disagrees with you is invalid. As Chris noted, that’s a cop out, nothing more.

        How ’bout you respond to the multitude of factual disagreements that have piled up, rather than so blithely dismiss them.

        And as for a “representative sample of general public opinion” – that’s about as valid at this point as saying that the NRA bought the elections in Colorado yesterday. The reality there is that the MAIG/etc. folks outspent the NRA 6:1 – and still got their heads handed to them on a plate. You should face the potentially real possibility that you ARE seeing valid public opinion – and that your opinion is just flat-out wrong.

      • Josiah Kenniv
        September 12, 2013

        Brian, can you refute my observation with facts? Your cop out is very convenient yet at the same time weak in substance. It contains no concrete facts only a statement that is not supported with any substantial facts or evidence. As for your side of the argument, the survey clearly showed that your viewpoint was in the minority. Until you can take the heat for what you write without giving cheap cop outs, you are no better than our President.

      • Brian Ross
        September 13, 2013

        My viewpoint comports with about 89% of the American public, if you follow PEW Center polls much, who don’t want to see a gun ban, but do want tighter controls placed on registration, and limits on the minority of gun owners, like the minority of licensed drivers, who abuse the privilege of owning a weapon. The problem for the gun swarms is that we track incoming source data, and there was a concerted effort by pro-gun enthusiasts to stomp the polling data, which renders it pretty much useless, other than to point out that y’all are really much better at organizing and making yourself heard, which I did point out in an article at the Daily KOS earlier this week.

        The CDC tables on suicides by guns and the FBI tables are quite clear. I document more of that in In Guns We Trust. I don’t have the time to hash this out with every last one of you, so you can pass this along to your tribe.

        The anecdotal data is being compiled into a study from the American Gun Victims Wall’s daily digest of shootings and deaths, but even there, we have a clear winner in the causes of death and injury by guns. The majority of shootings are domestic disputes, even the “gang-related” ones, because they most often are scores being settled over sleights, jealousies, and basic arguments. The gang-related sticker gets thrown on a lot of urban shootings, but we’ve found, by tracking follow-up articles on stories, that most turn out to be simple arguments about property, a woman, etc. In other words, guns are that final period at the end of the last word on an argument. There are a ton of bar shootings as well. Most of the mass shootings in America tend to be at bars and public events (a mass shooting being three or more people at one time). The top causes of shootings are suicides; domestic disputes/under-the-influence shootings, failure to comply (police shootings); accidental shootings; murder-suicides; crime (robbery, rape with a firearm used (rare), home invasions), mass killings.

        Questions for you: Do you think that mentally ill people should have guns? What should the punishment be for carrying/possession of an unsecured weapon under-the-influence? Failing to secure a weapon in a home with children, or people who suffer from mental impairment? Should people whom a court of law has already determined suffer from control/rage issues that have failed treatment but have not landed them in a capital crime yet have their gun rights suspended temporarily, or taken away by a court of law with due process?

        Aside from the paranoia of that NRA “slippery slope” theory that all gun law leads to their banning, we are talking realistic solutions in a country where there are now as many guns as there are people, and the concentration of those weapons keeps drifting into fewer and fewer hands as overall gun-ownership declines (ATF study).

      • chris h
        September 13, 2013

        do the “gun advocacy groups” you’re seeing come from facebook? That’s where I saw this – a friend of a friend posted this etc… That’s the only buzz you’ll be getting to this article, because the anti-gun crowd consists of a few folks in power who intend to stay in power, the tiny faction who listen to the folks in power, and the huge population of people personally interested passing along info regarding their power. You’ll keep seeing the gun advocates, because there are plenty of us. We join together voluntarily because at the moment we’re still allowed to.

      • indyroadie
        September 13, 2013

        Brian: I actually saw the link on an ANTI gun page, Moms Demand Action..
        One still has to wonder, if “the majority of Americans” support your position, why can’t you even get a larger portion of them to come here to take your poll? If they are the majority, and we are the minority, even if a small part of them came here, the poll would be more balanced. It’s basic math, and it doesn’t add up

  168. Brandon Carter
    September 11, 2013

    Brian, you said: If by “the people” you mean the network of gun “enthusiasts” who descended on the article like locusts, given the tracking we’ve been doing over the last 72 hours of all of the gun advocacy groups from where these commenters originate, I’d hardly call them a representative sampling of general public opinion. As for the people from their side of the debate, they have more than adequately represented their point of view.
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Here is something you can take as an example of general sampling. In every Anti-gun rally held over the last 12+ months the anti-gun attendees amount to around 1 to 2 dozen per event. At the same time, and at the same locations, there were also pro-Gun rallies where the attendees numbered in the hundreds to thousands.

    Didn’t two Colorado State Senators get recalled yesterday over their stance on guns?

    • indyroadie
      September 12, 2013

      Indeed. If anti gunners were the “majority of Americans” like they claim to be, and/or if they were truly passionate about their cause, why didn’t THEY “descended on the article like locusts”?

  169. Dick Rettke
    September 12, 2013

    Your comments seem to consistently refer to concealed carry, whereas Starbucks response speaks to the 43 states that allow OPEN CARRY (i.e Not Concealed). Look at the pictures, it’s open carry!

    In regards to liability. In the Great State of Wisconsin, the Concealed Carry Law is specifically written that if a business does NOT post it’s premises to prevent Firearms, then it is NOT liable, period. If on the other hand it does post it’s premises to prevent Firearms, then the business is completely liable. The exact opposite of your claim.

  170. Max
    September 12, 2013

    “I’d hardly call them a representative sampling of general public opinion.” Says BR. Really? So how do you explain the recalls in Colorado? I know :Vast right wing conspiracy! The tools here that are trying to whip up a fervor for a boycott, are the same bunch of idiots who tried (and failed) to boycott Chick Filet.

    • Brian Ross
      September 13, 2013

      No conspiracy. Organization. Timing. Off-election recalls are very effective. 21% and 36% turned out in the two counties in question. There were less than 65 over our 200 year history prior to the arrival of the Libertarian drive into the GOP. They effectively stoke different constituencies to try to knock Democrats out of the box, and the gun laws which were passed in Colorado were not initiated by either of the two targeted legislators. They were just in districts with enough motivated gun owners who would turn out in an election that was still very close (1%) but benefitted from the same kind of hive-like organization that we saw strike this article. That organization is to your credit, as it makes you effective advocates of your point-of-view.

      The good news (not for you) is that the relatively moderate Democratic leader of the Senate in Colorado, John Morse, whom you targeted, is a downright conservative guy compared to senator Morgan Carroll, who will be replacing him. She is far more pro gun regulation than Morse was because she’s from the district with Aurora in it.

      So you could say that the NRA spent $360K to shoot itself in the foot. Another victim of the careless handling of weapons (legislation). And really do you need to get behind putting large capacity magazines back into the hands of people, and remove screenings for the mental illness markers that would have kept a gun out of the hands of this yo-yo?

      • chris h
        September 13, 2013

        Brian, that’s a well reasoned response, and I’m curious to hear what my fellow 2nd Amendment advocates have to say about John Morse vs. Morgan Carroll.

        I’ll still maintain that if there were FEWER prohibitions regarding firearms, specifically those restricting the ability of citizens to lawfully carry in a place like a movie theater, shootings like Aurora would be fewer because there would simply be less “low-hanging fruit” for these cowardly and/or disturbed monsters to view as bait. If anything, a return to firearm training for children in public schooling would be a more wise response to Aurora than the myopic and foolhardy attempt to outlaw weapons to curb their use by outlaws. The arguments of availability and proliferation tend to ignore the basic economic principles of Substitutes in Consumption, where the decreased availability of one product is likely to manifest in increased consumption of another.

        If you want to look at underlying statistical issues regarding someone like Holmes, the attention would be more effectively directed towards the likelihood of psychosis as a side-effect of psychoactive medications. Those numbers, compared to deaths via high-capacity magazines and “assault” rifles, are through the roof.

  171. Pingback: Another one of dem dar polls ........

  172. Dan C
    September 13, 2013

    Every time there is a terrorist incident we are told not to label all Muslims or whatever group the terrorists are part of as evil. How about offering the same consideration to the 80 million gun owners in this country.

    • Brian Ross
      September 13, 2013

      Gun owners have booked more than a million deaths since John Lennon was shot. Terrorists in America? They barely touch you in the body count. Only the tobacco companies have you beat for killing Americans.

      • Ray
        September 18, 2013

        Don’t forget governments throughout history. They hold the all-time record for murder. Makes all the “Citizen gun deaths” look like a bruised knee in comparison. And you are proposing that the majority of guns be owned by government entities! Democide, look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
        Will citizens owning guns completely prevent democide? No. It would and has effected democide in the past however and the real question is, if it ever comes to that would you rather die fighting or hiding under a table?

      • Brandon Carter
        September 20, 2013

        False.
        Vehicle crashes kill 3x the amount of Americans as firearms per year.

        http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/DidYouKnow.aspx

        Medical Malpractice kills 15x more Americans every year than guns.

        http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

        Where is the call to ban cars and doctors?

      • Brian Ross
        September 22, 2013

        Brandon – Thanks! We get a lot of you Delusional State grads. You keep having an argument with yourselves. Worse, you undercut your own argument. In both of the above cases we have laws that deal with what to do if someone uses their car or their medical license inappropriately. You can have your license taken away for driving irresponsibly. You can have your license taken away if you practice medicine recklessly. The only thing you can’t have taken away is your gun. Unless you kill someone of course. Then you’re a “criminal” and you stop being a “law abiding” citizen. No one here is advocating a gun ban, in spite of your rabid paranoia. We’d like to see guns stay out of the hands of people with mental illnesses, and more accountability for people who use a weapon while under the influence, and accountability for those who don’t store and secure their weapon safely, per your buddies the NRA.

        Read slowly, or get a friend to help you: No ban. Accountability for a few gun owners who misuse their weapons.

        Now that wasn’t hard, was it?

  173. Stephen
    September 13, 2013

    Stupid thing won’t let me reply where I want to but the whole article is ridiculous.

    The main thing I wanted to respond to was the point Brian made about him not being paranoid. Have you even read what you have been writing. You are super paranoid. You think everyone might go off at any point. Scary!

  174. The Carbonator
    September 13, 2013

    Self protection is a right.

    After the Newton incident the Obama administration did everything in its power to attack law abiding gun owners. As usual the Democrat political Machine, backed by Governor Cuomo of NY went right after the innocent and the lawful.

    Since this assault on Civil Liberties started, I have signed up several families to my local gun club.
    I have been taking my 2 daughters to the Range every chance I get.
    I teach my children responsibility, and they know who is going after their rights, they will vote the right way.

    I will NEVER vote for a Democrat in my life, ever again. EVER!

    • Brian Ross
      September 14, 2013

      Doubt you ever did. And its Newtown. So basically you’re for mentally ill people holding guns? And for cops having to contend with mentally ill people with high capacity weapons. Most gun deaths are from domestic shootings, arguments, under-the-influence, mental illness. I’ve never advocated for the removal of all guns. Nor has Mr. Obama. Taking them out of the hands of the 3-7% of people who misuse them is no different than taking a drunk driver off the road. You want your kids safe. If you think arming yourself helps, go for it, but take the guns out of the hands of the “law abiding” people who become criminals when they use the bad judgment of pointing the weapon and someone and firing before that opportunity can occur. Most of them the cops can see coming, and screenings for mental defect at registration would have knocked out more than half of the shooting injuries and deaths we have annually in one of the most violent countries in the world.

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 14, 2013

        I have to say I >slightly< agree with you here Brian, Screenings MAY have stopped some shootings, BUT, from facts already proven, Simply keep guns out of the hands of Liberals, and save MANY lives.

      • Brandon Carter
        September 20, 2013

        I’ve already explained that in EVERY State, it is illegal for the mentally ill to have guns.
        Next, Adam Lanza STOLE the guns after he KILLED his mother. Pretty sure that theft and murder are still crimes.

        The point you are missing is that laws do not apply to criminals until they get caught.

        The United States is ranked 4th in gun violence globally. But, if you remove Washington DC, Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit from the statistical data, the US drops to 4th from the bottom of that list. Ironically, all four of the cities I mentioned already have draconian gun laws. But as I said, laws don’t apply to criminals – that’s why they are criminals.

  175. Jake
    September 13, 2013

    Well, I’m done with the Huffington Post…

    • Brian Ross
      September 14, 2013

      Well, I doubt you read it in the first place. Go for Fox News. More to your speed, and they use lots of easy, inflammatory rhetoric that will make you dance happily around your TV.

      • Denon
        September 14, 2013

        As if your writing is at a higher standard…

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 14, 2013

        Quietly sitting here trying to figure out why anyone would hire you to write. You rely on falsehood, NON facts, Disproven rumor, and stereotyping to try to prove a point that cannot be proven. Quite bluntly, I would fail you in any class I have taught.

      • Brian Ross
        September 16, 2013

        Articles are well grounded in data. If you can demonstrate proveable data not from the NRA or one of its propaganda outlets… You know, the alleged FBI tables that you claim to use, go for it. Call. You don’t have it, because the data doesn’t track your way.

        Beyond that, are you all for giving mentally ill people weapons? I never get an answer out of y’all on this. You’re too busy puffing up your chests and being insulting, but then, that’s all you’ve got.

  176. Rick
    September 14, 2013

    Brian

    Just returned from seeing “The Family” at the cinema. De Nero and Pfeiffer were great, I carried concealed and nobody was shot tonite.

    Tomorrow and Sunday, will supervise range safety for an “Appleseed Match”
    Pretty sure nobody will get hurt. Wish us luck?

  177. DeSniper
    September 14, 2013

    Bahahahahahahaahaha AntiGun Liberals They are so funny.

  178. Talon Trevor MacDonald
    September 14, 2013

    Sorry Brian, Regardless of your attempt to re-interpret the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution was not written in anything but DIRECT speech. It was written so, to keep people from re-interpreting it. The Second Amendment provided for the People to have similar arms to any Military force. It did this to keep a Government form doing what Britain had done, and tyrannically suppressing any oppisition to unjust rule.
    In attempting to make all places unfriendly to persons LEGALLY carrying weapons, Brian, You are attempting to Tyrannically control the people.
    A note on your opinion that Persons concealing may not be Sane… Persons that are NOT sane, or have Illeggal intent, are not supposed to be carrying anyways. The LEGAL carriers will certainly dispose of an ILLEGAL carrier at the time he tries to attempt to use his weapon illegally. It’s what we do, Brian.
    Instead of attempting to abuse the Law of the Land, Perhaps you should take the time to learn what LEGAL Carriers actually do on a daily basis. You obviously assume that all carriers are out lookinfg for a fight.
    Finally, bear in mind that better that 85 % of ALL police polled on whether or not citizen carry makes the street safer AGREED that it does. This poll had better than 120 thousand responders Brian.
    I am armed every day. I have used my weapon in my job, to keep people like you safe. I carry Off duty. I have used my weapon TWICE while Off duty to protect people like yourself. In EACH instance where I had to draw my weapon, and use it, The person that brought it on Was NOT a legal carrier of a Firearm (Or knife in two cases).
    The LEGAL carrier may save your life one day… But, Brian, If you insist on dying, instead of being protected, simply run at the next criminal that happens along, instead of letting the armed citizen handle him :)

  179. Brian
    September 14, 2013

    Brian . Have you looked at the ratio of thumbs up vs thumbs down for your rants ? Why are you still writing ?

    • Brian Ross
      September 14, 2013

      Much like Oskar Schindler, or Ghandi, or anyone who stands up to bullies, tyrants, and hordes of zealots, the numbers of people attacking this from your gun jihadist bulletin boards, fb pages etc do not make you right, nor do they sway the truth of the matter. You keep coming because there is truth to it, and because you want it silenced. It will not be so.

      • chrishernandezauthor
        September 14, 2013

        ” More to your speed, and they use lots of easy, inflammatory rhetoric that will make you dance happily around your TV.”

        Please tell us all about the evils of inflammatory language as you compare yourself to Ghandi and refer to your opponents as “gun jihadists”.

        Again, please tell me what “gun jihadist” organization I belong to. Tell me about the vast conspiracy that brought me here to debate. Tell me how a mere 11% of the population who supports gun rights has so skewed your own poll on your own web site. And explain how the 89% of America who you say agrees with you, hundreds of millions of people, can’t even muster the energy to come here and speak in your defense.

        Actually, why don’t you just remove the comments from people directed here from pro-gun web sites? Then we can strictly debate facts and logic, and you won’t have a reason to say “I don’t have to listen to you, you’re part of a vast pro-gun conspiracy”.

        As it stands right now, you’re just throwing a tantrum, complete with personal insults against people who disagree with you.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 14, 2013

        Brian, I am a rape survivor and a rape attempt survivor. The reason the second time was an attempt is because I was armed. I did not have to shoot my attacker; the presence of the firearm made him turn loose of my hair, drop the knife, and get on the ground, where we waited until a highway patrolman arrived. Did I want to shoot him, especially after having been raped already, 5 years earlier? Hell, yes. But since he was no longer an immediate threat, I did not, and I do not regret that decision. My children needed me.

        However, once my children were grown and on their own, I began training in and outside of the NRA, and am an NRA pistol instructor and Training Counselor, a Patron member of the NRA (a gift from my late husband), and am devoted to training women, children, and yes, also men, in the safe and effective use of firearms. I do not want any woman, or indeed anyone else, to go through what I went through because s/he does not know how to use that tool for self-defense, or because s/he has no access because of stupid, unconstitutional laws or whiny morons like you.

        A man following the school buses targeted my house and started trying to talk my daughter into opening the door. When she didn’t, and asked him to leave, he tried to force his way in. When that didn’t work, he went around trying the windows. My daughter had called the Sheriff but it would be 45 minutes before anyone could get to the house and I was 30 minutes from home, on my way from work. When the man came back around and started really hauling on the storm door, my daughter – whom I had trained with firearms beginning at age 5 – retrieved my handgun from the nightstand, aimed it at him through the glass, and demanded that he leave. He did. I don’t want to think about what might have happened to my children if he had gained entry to the house, but I do, in nightmares.

        Before you decide to say something really stupid and crude about us being targeted by criminals (like an NPR interviewer who said, “I wonder why – you’re really not that pretty,” do some research into the 89-year old woman in New Hampshire who was held captive, raped, and beaten by a man who was just happening by, looking for someone, when she was taking her garbage can out to the road for pickup.

        In every women-only NRA class I have conducted, there is at least one student who is a rape survivor. More than once, rape survivors made up more than half the class.

        We all live with that life-changing, terrifying event for the rest of our lives.

        “Broader polling” does NOT show that 89% of the American public disagrees with pro-gun advocates, specifically honed and narrow polling might almost show it, but rarely does. It’s equally amusing and infuriating that you and your ilk just pull those factoids out of your nether regions and think that we’re stupid enough to believe them. We know better, and so do you.

        Your whining about your poll showing the truth proves that you are not interested in the truth – which is, of course, no big surprise.

        I want to personally thank you for working to make us more vulnerable to the predators and other criminals out there. Really, and thanks from my daughter, too. And all the women, and others, who could have defended themselves with firearms if they’d had access and training available. You’re just a real great guy.

        Go to hell, Brian.

      • Talon Trevor MacDonald
        September 14, 2013

        Little bit of an inflated self image?
        FYI punkin, Some of us are here because YOU are pretty funny.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 16, 2013

        Really, Brian? You count yourself in the same league as Schindler or Ghandi? Why not claim to be Christ-like, as well? And your paranoid fantasies that you are being persecuted by “gun jihadists” suggests that you need to consider counseling, and quickly. I know you’re just all wiggly with delight at the attention you’re getting, you poor wee creature. Babble away. It’s amusing, at least. Sad, but amusing.

  180. Tammy
    September 14, 2013

    Brian,
    The poll shows over 95% of the responses say NO. Starbucks should NOT be gun free. Less than 4% say Yes. Starbucks should be gun free.
    I think you read the statistics incorrectly. Or perhaps you read the question incorrectly. Either way, the people voting in this poll CLEARLY support the right for an individual to carry a firearm in Starbucks.

    • Brian Ross
      September 14, 2013

      See previous replies about the coordination of the postings from organized gun groups. The poll is rendered useless by the skewing of those groups wishing to make a point. Broader polling shows 89% of the American public disagrees with you. You apparently don’t have enough fanatics to skew those numbers. Have a great day.

      • Brandon Carter
        September 20, 2013

        Actually no, you are flat out wrong. Both Pew and Rasmussen conducted a poll a few months ago pertaining to what American find to be the most important issue: Gun Control was rated at 4% That means that only 4% polled though Gun Control was the most important issue.

        Further, common sense dictates most situations. As I pointed out earlier, take a look at the photos from Anti-Gun rallies. Then take a look at photos from Pro-Gun rallies. There is NO comparison.

  181. Roger Townsend
    September 14, 2013

    Stumbled across this thread, WOW!!
    After 20+ years as a certified Firearm safety instructor, State and 4H, Brian Ross your one of the most “Clueless” individuals I’ve come across.

    You spew figures(numbers) that are absolutely wrong. Wikipedia definition of “propaganda” fits you to a tee!

    If you consider yourself to be a “investigative reporter” I would look hard and fast for a different line of work.

    Your knowledge of the “Founding” of this country is lacking greatly also, which is one of the reason you print what you do and are part of the Puffington Post’s family. Birds of a feather flock together as the ole saying goes.

    From the comment here you’ve be “slapped down” very easily with the facts, which your mind can’t comprehend.

    FYI for you Brian, there are a lot of organizations outside of your office who with just for the asking, will give you a “pocket” copy of the Constitution of the United States. Where you’ll get a “unbiased” view of what the Founders gave us. NOT some lawyers opinion, nor college professor or journalist satire.

    You do understand the “English” language, don’t you?????? I don’t think to many places today make that a requirement for getting hired. Let alone a knowledge of History.

    Liberalism is a disease, its only cure is a open mind that still works.

    • Brian Ross
      September 14, 2013

      You can spout off your credentials, but they don’t counter the FBI, CDC and ATF (Pre-neutered) data, nor do they account for the ongoing data collection that we do daily as the shooting stories from across America are aggregated. The laws are commonly available for review, and most are the ALEC flavor so they are reasonably consistent in that they were adept enough to put tort outs for civil liability into these laws so that restaurant owners would not object. I’m well versed on the 2nd Amendment, and both the practical and political shaping of it subsequent to its writing.

      Condescention may be appealing in the “feel good” department for y’all, but when you toss in the dimunition of those with whom you disagree (e.g. “Liberalism is a disease) it shows a lack of ability to discuss common ground, one of the major problems in dealing with reducing the death and injury rates. It also shows that your mind is anything but open.

      • chrishernandezauthor
        September 15, 2013

        “Condescention may be appealing in the “feel good” department for y’all, but when you toss in the dimunition of those with whom you disagree (e.g. “Liberalism is a disease) it shows a lack of ability to discuss common ground, one of the major problems in dealing with reducing the death and injury rates. It also shows that your mind is anything but open.”

        Holy cow. YOU’RE complaining about someone being condescending and diminishing those who don’t agree? What do you call all these comments, that you yourself made?

        1) “Again, reading being a definite shortcoming of gun nuts,…”

        2) “…especially if, say, someone is holding the ex-spouse at knife point and citizen Rambo decides to involve themselves…”

        3) “Or around smug supercilious snark like yours (Look it up)….” [By the way, kudos for amazing display of hypocrisy here. You accusing someone else of smugness is pretty rich.]

        4) “The case for better screening can be made just by reading here.”

        5) “Again, reading being a challenge with my gun buddies here,…”

        6) “The rest of you zealots can prance around with your firearms and thump your chests and more power to you.”

        7) “I lack the paranoia of most folks who carry. I’m not even advocating that you should not carry, if you’re of the rapist at every corner, black helicopter school of thinking.”

        8) “Take those three small classes out of the picture and the rest of you can live your days out hugging your gun and waiting for the black helicopters or the scary guys lurking on every corner to your heart’s content.”

        9) “Well, I doubt you read it in the first place. Go for Fox News. More to your speed, and they use lots of easy, inflammatory rhetoric that will make you dance happily around your TV.”

        10) “Broader polling shows 89% of the American public disagrees with you. You apparently don’t have enough fanatics to skew those numbers. Have a great day.”

        Yes, you’re a fantastic example of even-tempered, non-insulting, non-inflammatory debate.

        I’ll ask you again, what pro-gun organization did I come from? You haven’t responded to any of my comments, despite the fact that I’m speaking strictly for myself, not as a spokesman or “secret plant” from any gun rights organization. I’m not even a member of the NRA. How about you respond to the substance of my arguments?

        It’s interesting that while you accuse us of being part of an organized effort against you, you’re writing about this essay and response to it on the Daily Kos in an effort to get more people from your side into the debate.

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/11/1238067/-Whacking-Gun-Zealot-Beehives-And-Why-They-Make-Anti-Gunners-Their-Biatch#

        So are the one or two voices here speaking in agreement with you part of a vast left wing conspiracy, since maybe they were referred here by the Kos?

        And before you accuse me of having reading comprehension problems, yes I realize you wrote that article in a manner designed to insult both gun owners and liberals. You illustrated a good point, that liberals far too often get up in arms about utter nonsense (offensive language) while ignoring real problems (gun violence).

        Just for kicks, here are a couple more instances of you being condescending toward and diminishing people who disagree with you, from your Daily Kos article:

        “Like the scene from High Noon, it was just me surrounded by 7500 armed people with around 200 of their rabid dogs barking bile for two straight days.”

        “As I drew together for “In Guns We Trust,” possession of a firearm for protection speaks to a personality type that is fear-driven. Fear of being assaulted. Fear of the ‘other.'”

        Your credibility on many levels is running at just about zero. Every time you whine about being insulted while insulting others, you just look like a spoiled child. Your blind insistence that “the pounding I’ve taken on my poll means nothing” is simply evidence that YOUR mind is “anything but open”.

        I’m willing to debate you, without being insulting, without speaking on behalf of gun rights organizations, but with an eye toward finding common ground. I don’t think that’s what you’re searching for, though. I think you just want to tear down everyone who disagrees. And when your argument’s weakness is exposed, rather than face those weaknesses you simply run to a more receptive audience, like Daily Kos readers. To bad you pissed all of them off too.

        And for what it’s worth, I do agree that the mentally ill shouldn’t own guns. The law agrees as well. What I disagree with is your apparent belief that all of us are potential future mentally ill gun owners liable to murder people for no reason.

  182. Rick
    September 14, 2013

    Brian and all you out there;

    Thanks for wishing us good fortune for today.
    It started rainy and foggy. Ended up hot and 90ish degrees.
    9 hours on the firing line, 35 shooters participating in Appleseed’s training.
    Most are inexperienced, some have never fired a gun.
    No fatalities, no helicopter rescue, no arrests, no first aid. Three thirty-ish ladies told me they had never touched a firearm before today. One of them “Laura” scored 214 out of 300 points at the end of the day, earning a “rifleman patch” only two awarded today. Her rifle was a store bought Ruger 10-22.

    Appleseed http://www.appleseedinfo.org/ teaches responsible firearms training and historical events surrounding 19 April 1775. Their “textbook” is “Paul Revere’s Ride” written by historian David Hackett Fisher, available on Kindle or in book form at Amazon.com. I was astonished at the depth author Fisher devoted to the participants at Concord, Lexington, and Boston Mass.

    Among those participating were 8 teen girls, 7 teen boys. A 6 year old girl was shooting a “junior” .22 rifle with her grandpa’s help.

    My job as range safety officer was boring. No one to bandage or chastise, everyone behaving and aware of their personal responsibility using a firearm.

    Tomorrow offers rain by end of the day. How will “Laura” and the others finish? Stay tuned…

    P.S. Appleseed is a volunteer group, their time to teach is donated, their handout documents are paid from their own pockets.
    My time is donated, I paid to become a certified Range Safety Officer, the range time is donated by Douglas Ridge Rifle Club. As ammunition is expensive and scarce, much is also donated. Some participants come without a firearm, better equipped participants share their guns so everyone participates.

  183. DeSniper
    September 15, 2013

    Next time you see someone yelling, screaming and waving their (illegally obtained) firearm and shooting people, and the cops are more than 15 minutes away. You are going to wish that there was a well trained CCW there to protect you, and if they are not, oh well I guess, Its a darn shame to have one less idiot roaming around on the planet.

    • Brian Ross
      September 16, 2013

      You are aware that the majority of shootings in this country are by fully approved, legally obtained firearms. Even bangers can get them. They go to gun shows, you see. Totally legal. No background checks. What you are espousing is that NRA fear of the “other” (e.g. Minorities) that sells so many guns. So what, in effect, you’re trying to share with us all here is that when the minorities packing their legal heat come around to get you, you’ll be prepared. The problem is that you’re more likely to be shot by your drunk pissed off neighbor, your wife, girlfriend, child, best friend when they’re not happy with you or drunk or depressed. Hopefully you have a good gun safe.

      • Evelyn Logan
        September 16, 2013

        That “no background checks at gun shows” b.s. has been so repeatedly disproven that I’m surprised that you would risk the last shred of your credibility by brining it up. And I note that, since you have no hope of being taken seriously any longer, you drag up “minorities” to cya. Really? How trite, how pathetic. I’m beginning to feel sorry for you, Brian. You and Rita are both just … well, sad.

      • indyroadie
        September 16, 2013

        Odd. The CDC and the NCHS both disagree with you, and say that between 80 and 90% of homicides are gang related.. Also, I work gun shows, I can tell you that Dealers do not sell guns without a background check. Period. There are no such thing as “unlicensed dealers”. Gun shows do not rent tables to people selling guns that do not have an FFL, and therefore run the NICS check. You can perpetuate the lies and half truths all you want, it doesn’t change their veracity.

      • indyroadie
        September 16, 2013

        Forgot something.. The 80 to 90% data was reflected in the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System, and published Jan. 26 2012 in the CDC journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

  184. Evelyn Logan
    September 15, 2013

    By the way, Rita, please point out to us where, in the Bill of Rights, the right to own and use a vehicle without infringement is delineated. You should know, being the expert you think you are, that one may own and drive a vehicle on one’s own property (or another’s, with permission) without ever registering the vehicle or obtaining any sort of license. It’s driving on publicly-owned roads that requires such foolishness, and I don’t know where the government got the right to regulate that, either.

  185. Rick
    September 16, 2013

    Brian;

    Today was the 2nd and last day of this Appleseed training shoot at Douglas Ridge Rifle Club, Estacada, OR.
    Weather was raining to start and raining to end with 70ish dry spell in-between.
    Nobody died, nobody was injured, no blood spilled.

    18 shooters (half) participated today. They shot their .22 rifles at reduced targets set at 27 yards (25 meters). Reduced targets simulate the size of a target seen at 100 yards, 200 yards, 300 yards, and 400 yards. Then they set their targets at the 100 yard line. And struck their targets with .22s!
    Yup, ya’all, I felt mighty proud for them!

    My afternoon’s highlight was helping a lady to understand how elbow position affects sight alignment. She learned to cycle the bolt with just her fingertips without moving her elbow. She went from a 4 inch group to punching the center out of a 1 inch square. Her profession is MD, physical therapy.

    After lunch the shooters were presented with a target challenge.
    A (stale, tried one) pepperment pattie was taped to the target center.
    The shooters were given one shot to hit the pattie. Whomever hit it could shoot the black powder Kentucky long rifle provided by Don. It was fun to watch everyone concentrate on that shot. While the winners lined up to shoot the black powder rifle, the rest were given another chance to blast the candy. Some more folks succeeded, and lined-up at the black powder station, And so the afternoon went.

    Don is the primitive firearms director at Douglas Ridge club. His period costume represents a rural pioneer circa 1800, He makes his own knife, hatchet, and possibles bag He displayed many of the accroutiments our pioneer ancestors made and used to live in fronteer America.

    He and the other pioneer shooters meet 3rd Saturday every month at the Silhouette-Tactical Shotgun Range.

    We finished later than planned, was 7pm when I rolled past the gate.

    In a couple weeks, the “Ruger Steel Challenge”

  186. Brian Ross
    September 16, 2013

    If that NRA wool over your eyes is getting a little itchy and uncomfortable, and you want to see what really goes in in the way of shootings and gun deaths, check out this page: http://goo.gl/iVI9E7 They welcome contributions of links from legitimate news sources (Newspapers, not gun club or gun-victim newsletters, or other partisan rhetoric), so if you find that “save” that these gun news aggregator volunteers find, you can toss it into the mix. There is no truth until you get all of the news out there, and you can evaluate. Based upon that, though, the data from this group is compelling. Most gun violence is domestic in nature (arguments, disputes, family situations, etc.)

  187. Max
    September 16, 2013

    Brian, I am an NRA, DOD and have been a DOJ certified Firearms Instructor. I am also a retired Counterintelligence Agent, Marine and former Law Enforcement Officer. I am actually one of the “Black Helicopter” people, as in I occasionally rode in one to do my job. I have used a weapon in Combat, the streets and as a private citizen. After I retired I came to the aid of neighbor, whose ex had driven 1500 miles to break into her hose and assault her. I arrived and found his hands firmly wrapped around her throat. He was armed but I was able to stop him without firing on him. It took the police 17 minutes to arrive. Had I not been there that means she would have been dead for about 15 minutes, the ex would have escaped, and having killed his wife would have been a dangerous armed felon on the run. Perhaps I stopped not only the immediate crime but a later gunfight as well.

    I personally don’t have a problem undergoing a background check. Here in Virginia that usually takes about 15-30 minutes for most buyers. I undergo this check every time I buy a firearm at a gun shop. That’s the law. Unfortunately, I am usually delayed for two or three days. It seems that I am “Flagged” in the system. Not as a criminal, but because I fall into a special category. Still I don’t mind all that much. The problem is, If I want to sell a gun (or any of my property) to a friend, student, neighbor, or give a gun to a family member, it’s really none of the Governments business. I do understand the arguments, but the simple fact of the matter is I don’t trust the government to stop there. Additional checks wont stop your bad guys, and that will require even more draconian efforts in the future. Each making it harder and harder for the law abiding.

    All told I have trained a few less than 500 civilians. Most of these were for the Concealed Carry class. About 65% of these were ladies. To my knowledge only one has had to use her firearm. Three shots, a six inch group and roughly $1.75 in ammo bagged a very bad man with a history of drug abuse, sexual assault, and burglary. I make no excuses for feeling pretty dog gone good about teaching her..

    • Evelyn Logan
      September 16, 2013

      Max, thank you for what you do and what you have done. You have a new fan, here.

      • Max
        September 16, 2013

        Thanks EL! I had a pretty good run and pretty fair career. Served with some damn fine people and unfortunately lost a few here and there. The “Brian’s” of the world have very little understanding just what it takes to keep the barbarians at bay or I’m afraid what I would consider the duties of citizenship.

    • Robert Wheeler Todd
      November 28, 2013

      When I meet this man in heaven who rescued the woman, I want to give him a big hug. Google K7VHQ click on San Jacinto

  188. Lulu
    September 25, 2013

    After reading these comments, I wish I had a gun to shoot myself with.

    • Robert Wheeler Todd
      November 28, 2013

      …with which I wish to shoot myself. No “with” on the end of a sentence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Past on T2P

Stay Connected.

Catch up. Catch on! Text T2Power to 22828!

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Top Posts & Pages

Get Forward Thinking

Sign up here for Forward Thinking, a monthly newsletter delivered to your email box with special features from the various RossGroupFT publications, including new titles from RossBooksFT.
For Email Marketing you can trust

Copyright Notice

The Truth-2-Power.com (T2P) website and all text, design and artwork elements not part of the standard WordPress template or an article, and all T2P logos and trademarks are copyright ©2011 and future years by TheRossGroupFT, LLC. All rights reserved. All articles' text is the copyright of its author. T2P is a forum for free speech of its invited authors, and the opinions and information that they present are their own. TheRossGroupFT, its principals, agents and assigns are not responsible for the opinions or content of any article.
TheRossGroupFT - Forward Thinking for New Media

Writing for T2P

We're looking for passionate, out-of-the-box, outside-the-Beltway writing and thinking. To find out more about how to audition your work for us, click here.

Follow t2PTweets on Twitter!

About Truth-2-Power

A phrase coined by the Quakers during in the mid-1950's, "Speak truth to power," was a call for the United States to stand firm against fascism and other forms of totalitarianism; it is a phrase that seems to unnerve political right, with reason. The Founding Fathers of United States risked their lives in order to speak truth to the power of King George and the mighty British Empire. It was and is considered courageous. Join us!

The Forward Thinking Store

Get your t2p gear at the Forward-Thinking Store

Share us on LinkedIN

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 701 other followers

%d bloggers like this: