Starbucks & Guns

[RKeaton 234]

[Name 2616]

Heard this dude before, he's a damn good speaker, but he's wrong.

 

At the end of the day, Starbucks stores are privately held enterprises. I'm sure they have a marketing department, and I'm sure they've run the potential losses and gains on this decision. Starbucks netted $2 billion of profit last year, they're clearly doing business right.

[Detective Nom Noms 1033]

I can't believe there are people that are outraged about this.

This guy and everyone else that is complaining that they can't have their guns, concealed or not, in a coffeeshop are just down right silly.

[Sakata 1088]

Any publicity is good publicity.

[LOPEZ 1750]

How could you compare bringing a gun into a coffeeshop with a gay man and his 'gayness'?

[Name 2616]

How could you compare bringing a gun into a coffeeshop with a gay man and his 'gayness'?

What he's saying is the right to bear arms should be a natural one, and that you shouldn't discriminate people based on it, much like homosexuality. Not that either one is or should be, this is just what he's saying. Personally, I agree, but it's not how the world works. 

[IntoxicatedDog 125]

Heard this dude before, he's a damn good speaker, but he's wrong.

 

How is he wrong. It's an opinion on an issue he hardly even takes a side.

[Joscal 339]

/>/>/>

What he's saying is the right to bear arms should be a natural one, and that you shouldn't discriminate people based on it, much like homosexuality. Not that either one is or should be, this is just what he's saying. Personally, I agree, but it's not how the world works.

Edit: blah fucked up what I was thinking. But I still say there is a large difference between property and sexual orientation. Edited September 24, 2013 by Joscal

[LOPEZ 1750]

What he's saying is the right to bear arms should be a natural one, and that you shouldn't discriminate people based on it, much like homosexuality. Not that either one is or should be, this is just what he's saying. Personally, I agree, but it's not how the world works. 

 

homosexuality is something you're born with. 

 

A gun isn't. 

[Name 2616]

homosexuality is something you're born with. 

 

A gun isn't. 

But you are as an American born with the right to bear arms. I mean, technically. You actually have to get a license and shit. But still, the right to bear arms is constitutionalized and if you're licensed, it's a natural right. This of course only speaks for Americans, but seeing as 65% of Starbucks stores are in America, I think it's okay to generalize to that population.

[xmen 983]

homosexuality is something you're born with. 

 

A gun isn't. 

This. It's like asking ppl not to bring their bikes/rollerblades in the store.

 

This rant makes no sence at all...

 

Ppl aren't going on like "I have the right to express my mobility"

Edited September 24, 2013 by xmen

[Skotti 2105]

If they wanted to be able to carry publicly into starbucks, they shouldnt of fucking brought their rifles and shotguns into public. Starbuck's gun allowment was a publicity stunt and ended up hurting the company because most of their income came from people who would rather eat at panera or some shit than Starbucks across the room from a guy with a loaded weapon capable of killing half the people in the room. Its the gun right activists that ruined this for everyone. Gg you retards.

-a smart gun rights activist.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy SIII via Tapatalk 4.

[Dyscivist 5686]

They're a private organization, they can do whatever they want. Doesn't change the fact that I think it's retarded.

[ElectronicDrug 7496]

homosexuality is something you're born with.

A gun isn't.

But you are as an American born with the right to bear arms. I mean, technically. You actually have to get a license and shit. But still, the right to bear arms is constitutionalized and if you're licensed, it's a natural right. This of course only speaks for Americans, but seeing as 65% of Starbucks stores are in America, I think it's okay to generalize to that population.

You don't have to get a license. Only if you want to conceal carry.

[Dead Donkey 49]

First 20 seconds, he compares guns to gays. kk.

 

Guns serve one practical purpose, and are designed for one reason; to kill. The UK and ireland combined have maybe 80~ gun-related deaths each year. The US has 10,000+. It doesn't matter what the average person intends to do with their gun or the safety measures they say they take, accidents happen, fits of rage happen, crimes of passion happen, mass shootings happen. No good can come for starbucks by allowing guns into their businesses.

 

A constitutional right is not a human right, and as such shouldn't be argued for on moral grounds. Just because it's in the same document doesn't give it the same weight as freedom of speech or religion.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Dead Donkey

[IntoxicatedDog 125]

The UK and ireland combined have maybe 80~ gun-related deaths each year. The US has 10,000+. 

UK is more around ~150 while the US is around 30,000. But I agree with you on the purpose.

 

 

 

A constitutional right is not a human right, and as such shouldn't be argued for on moral grounds. Just because it's in the same document doesn't give it the same weight as freedom of speech or religion.

Don't really agree with you on that. Using that logic, none of the constitutional rights are human rights and none of them should be argued for on moral grounds. It all really depends on what someone defines as a 'human right' and 'moral grounds' which is extremely subjective. So really the 'weight' something carries depends on the person.

[Papa 231]

So people want guns in starbucks to protect themselves from other people, potentially carrying guns, from stealing their shit?

 

What ever happened to punching someone in the face? Enough of this shooting and stabbing bullshit.

[Name 2616]

They're a private organization, they can do whatever they want. Doesn't change the fact that I think it's retarded.

WHAT AN ASSHOLE

 

POSTS AGREEING COMPLETELY WITH WHAT I SAID, NEGREPS ME ANYWAY

[Dyscivist 5686]

Guns serve one practical purpose, and are designed for one reason; to kill.

Plainly stupid. They can also deter crime without being used at all. If you see someone walking around with a pistol holstered on their side the likelihood that you're going to commit a crime drops drastically.

 

The UK and ireland combined have maybe 80~ gun-related deaths each year. The US has 10,000+.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the rates of homicide and rape have rose steadily since firearms have been restricted. You're over twice as likely to be raped in the UK than you are in the US, and the violent crime rate of Britian in 2008 was almost 5 times higher than that of the US (446 vs. 2034 pre 100,000 population). The rate of firearm crime in the UK has ironically doubled since handguns were banned there.

 

It doesn't matter what the average person intends to do with their gun or the safety measures they say they take, accidents happen, fits of rage happen, crimes of passion happen, mass shootings happen. No good can come for starbucks by allowing guns into their businesses.

 

A constitutional right is not a human right, and as such shouldn't be argued for on moral grounds. Just because it's in the same document doesn't give it the same weight as freedom of speech or religion.

Acting like any of this completely subjective shit is less subjective than any of the rest of it is dumb, and you're dumb for doing it. "Rights" in general are a human fabrication.

 

So people want guns in starbucks to protect themselves from other people, potentially carrying guns, from stealing their shit?

 

What ever happened to punching someone in the face? Enough of this shooting and stabbing bullshit.

 

What ever happened to women or less physically capable people being able to defend themselves against violent Neanderthals? Also, it's not likely most of them would be protecting themselves from guns so much as they would be trying to prevent people from running in and stealing their MacBook Pro while they're sipping their chai latte.

 

WHAT AN ASSHOLE

 

POSTS AGREEING COMPLETELY WITH WHAT I SAID, NEGREPS ME ANYWAY

Except for that you said he was wrong when he never explicitly stated that Starbucks didn't have a legal right to restrict or even ask people to not carry guns there, and rather just argued against it which is in no way incorrect.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Dyscivist

[Joscal 339]

While agree with most of what you said Dys.

 

Confounding variables man, graphs of these types(first two), especially when they involve significant socioeconomic changes happening in the background, more than likely don't show half the picture of causation.

[Dyscivist 5686]

While agree with most of what you said Dys.

 

Confounding variables man, graphs of these types(first two), especially when they involve significant socioeconomic changes happening in the background, more than likely don't show half the picture of causation.

I've never said the rise in crime was necessarily or entirely caused by gun restrictions, but advocacy for them given the data we have is retarded.

[Joscal 339]

/>

I've never said the rise in crime was necessarily or entirely caused by gun restrictions, but advocacy for them given the data we have is retarded.

Alrighty, my inference was off base.

[Lesbian Dad 555]

if you're that mad, just carry it concealed, not like Starbucks security is going to search you while you're waiting for your latte.

[Dead Donkey 49]

UK is more around ~150 while the US is around 30,000. But I agree with you on the purpose.

 

Don't really agree with you on that. Using that logic, none of the constitutional rights are human rights and none of them should be argued for on moral grounds. It all really depends on what someone defines as a 'human right' and 'moral grounds' which is extremely subjective. So really the 'weight' something carries depends on the person.

No, what I was trying to say is that something which is a constitutional right is not by default a human right or a necessity, but that does not mean that a constitutional right cannot be a human right. Example - Free speech, freedom of religion, gender equality, all people free and equal, these are human rights and included in constitutions. Depriving someone of the "right" to own a deadly weapon is not a violation of their human rights by any means.

 

Edit: Any numbers I got wrong in the above post, yeah, I was going from memory, though as an update, within the next 30 years there could be as many as 1,000,000 firearm related deaths in the US, and in the last 10 years there has been 300,000+ deaths. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km5WXejf47s

Also, I don't see the relevance of rates of rape in the UK to gun violence.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Dead Donkey

[Christmas 643]

Plainly stupid. They can also deter crime without being used at all. If you see someone walking around with a pistol holstered on their side the likelihood that you're going to commit a crime drops drastically.

 

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the rates of homicide and rape have rose steadily since firearms have been restricted. You're over twice as likely to be raped in the UK than you are in the US, and the violent crime rate of Britian in 2008 was almost 5 times higher than that of the US (446 vs. 2034 pre 100,000 population). The rate of firearm crime in the UK has ironically doubled since handguns were banned there.

Just FYI, this figure is misleading. Violent crime is defined differently in the United States than Britain. Britain includes more crimes in their number than the US does, which greatly skews the number. I have not seen anything that gives accurate data if all things were created equal, but one would have to assume the number is significantly lower. No I am not saying that this would show that gun control is right and gun ownership is wrong or anything like that. Just putting in some context to the statistic you used to make your point. Also are you using the 2007 number for violent crime in the US and UK? I do believe it has lowered since then.