Starbucks' CEO makes a "respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms."


jaydub

New member
Starbucks' CEO makes a "respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms."

While he's not banning guns in his stores, he is making them a target for crime-seekers with this request. It's clear that he's hearing "open carry" stuff from people going too far and overreacting with this request: "I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas."

An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company
http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268

Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz
 

Yeah!!! Yeah!!! Yeah!!! You look so super politically correct Mr.Schultz, a good reason to stay out of your overpriced coffee joints. Now go kiss up to some other anti-firearm crankers you BUM.
 
Dear Mr. Schultz....

I understand your concern's and will continue to carry 'concealed' as I have done for many years so as not to upset any of your anti-gun customer's.

~Keep it secret, keep it safe~
 
Dear Mr. Schultz....

I understand your concern's and will continue to carry 'concealed' as I have done for many years so as not to upset any of your anti-gun customer's.

~Keep it secret, keep it safe~

Why would you support a company that requests that you not bring your firearm into their store?
 
A lot of people are missing the deviousness of Starbucks statement. Starbucks has pretty much disavowed any chance of being portrayed as "the bad guy" on this. Let's say someone brings a firearm into Starbucks... who's the bad guy? Is it Starbucks? No, not Starbucks....why? Because Starbucks didn't PROHIBIT firearms in their stores. Starbucks would never do that. They just politely asked the customer not to bring his gun into their store. But that guy with the gun - look at how inconsiderate he is! Starbucks was so nice just to politely ask him not to bring his gun into the store, but he won't listen to polite a polite request not to.

What is the anti-gun crowd going to do with that? "SEE! LOOK! We told you all about those pro-gun guys! They won't listen to polite requests! See how dangerous they are?!? It's not enough to just ask them to leave their guns outside, we must have laws to make them leave their guns outside! Poor, poor Starbucks! Those gun guys just won't respect their polite requests!"

I would rather Starbucks "manned up" and just posted their stores and prohibited firearms instead of taking the easy way out and pushing any and all bad publicity onto the pro-gun side.
 
And notice this from the letter:

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

Who was doing the "threatening?" Was it the pro-gun crowd? NO. Look at the bold part!
 
You nailed it on the head. It's very underhanded and devious. Then to say it's putting everyone in danger to ask people who are open carrying to leave... I don't support businesses like that. I'm going to show this to every one of my non-gunshy friends. I haven't seen anything about an open carry debate getting uncivil, have you? We all just want to freaking concealed carry so the bad guys DON'T know who can shoot them back. In a room with people wearing open holsters, who is the first to go down? They know their target there.

I'm rather happy assuming that 10% of my church is packing under their jackets. I feel safer on Sunday with 4,000 people than anywhere else I go.
 
In a room with people wearing open holsters, who is the first to go down?

Somebody in the convenience store or coffee shop down the street where there are no visibly armed customers present? Why would the criminal choose to attack the fraction of 1% of the population that they can clearly see has the ability to kill them, when there is 99+% of the population that doesn't show that capability available to them as potential targets?
 
Agreed. Just saying that if a criminal goes into a store expecting no one to be carrying in order to commit a crime, and they see someone carrying, that person goes down before anything else happens. With concealed carry, they are forced to play their hand in a more random way. Open carry is a target on your back a few notches behind not packing in a "no guns" zone like we keep seeing in the news.

The common thread keeps being gun-free zones where people have to wait for people with guns to come. Open beheading on the streets of London... waited over 20 minutes for people with guns to appear. Very sad, indeed.
 
Agreed. Just saying that if a criminal goes into a store expecting no one to be carrying in order to commit a crime, and they see someone carrying, that person goes down before anything else happens.

They do? You can provide us an example? Wow. I've been doing it wrong all these years.
 
Gun Owner Saves Lives In The Richmond VA Golden Market Shooting

Open carry was an advantage in this case because in the video I saw just how fast the GO managed to draw his gun and begin to return fire. You always hear about how open carry is so bad tactically – you’ll be the first one shot, etc. Oh, yeah? The GO had a HUGE gun in plain sight and he was NOT shot. Who got shot first? An unarmed store owner.

Link Removed

Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

And to think, I had no idea that "Open carry is a target on your back a few notches behind not packing in a 'no guns' zone." I guess that is what I get for being in a state that has no training required to get a Concealed Pistol License...
 
Example: That's how LE and the military clear rooms when taking a house. They look for the person brandishing something that will take them down.

In the instance of someone about to commit a crime and they see someone carrying, I would hope they have the brains to walk back out, but if they are hell bent on going through with it, an open carry goes down first because at that point they are the only threat. With the history of convenience store crimes, I'd never work there without multiple weapons concealed on and around me... and if I were a criminal, I'd assume the store clerk feels the same way and avoid convenience stores.

In the end, I think we'll see a polarization of places increasing their stance to be gun-free and places more open to the CCL public than just not posting signs that weapons aren't welcome. Criminals don't heed signs or "polite requests" - that's because they are criminals.
 
but if they are hell bent on going through with it, an open carry goes down first because at that point they are the only threat.

So, you have examples of this happening in real life? It's a nice theory, but without examples, isn't that all it is...theory? I didn't realize we were talking about military or law enforcement clearing a room... I thought we were talking about a criminal rushing into a coffee shop to rob the place and shooting Joe Civilian first because Joe Civilian had a gun visible on his belt. And what about the odds? Are the odds that the criminal is going to observe their target first before attacking so they can determine if that is the target they want to attack at that particular moment, or do they want to pick another target or wait for a better time or are the odds really in favor of just shooting the open carrier first? I mean it wouldn't make much sense to rush into a coffee shop to rob the place to find a squad of police officers there, unless their real intent was to shoot police officers like happened in Lakewood, WA. If the odds are in favor of the visible gun just causing the criminal to move on, then why wouldn't a person bet on those odds? I would much rather that a criminal just move on than to rely on drawing my gun and yelling "SURPRISE" after they have already attacked me.
 
It happened yesterday. Encountering no armed guards inside and as soon as Alexis was confronted with someone with a gun, he shot them and took the weapon: Moment by moment: How the Navy Yard shooting unfolded
Seven minutes after the initial call, police officers outside Building 197 heard shots and immediately entered the building, Lanier said.

As alarms sounded and workers fled, federal investigators believe, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer, took the officer's handgun and returned to the balcony overlooking the atrium, where he continued to shoot, the federal official said.

Searches pull up a majority cases where guards shot robbers at the get-away stage, but then there is the Father's Day Bank Massacre where the robber targeted a guard and immediately went to the guard room, the source of immediate resistance in the building: Father's Day Bank Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But can we circle back about how ridiculous Schultz is? I wonder what could cause him to forget the lessons learned from the atrocity tied so closely to his ethnicity - I was just reading this on the USACarry blog and Schultz immediately popped into my head: Judge Reminds Us of the #1 Reason We Own Guns - USA Carry
 
But can we circle back about how ridiculous Schultz is? I wonder what could cause him to forget the lessons learned from the atrocity tied so closely to his ethnicity - I was just reading this on the USACarry blog and Schultz immediately popped into my head: Judge Reminds Us of the #1 Reason We Own Guns - USA Carry

OK. I was just wondering about your initial statement "In a room with people wearing open holsters, who is the first to go down? They know their target there." and what it really had to do with the Starbucks issues. It sounds a little bit like an anti-open carry statement to me.
 
Why would you support a company that requests that you not bring your firearm into their store?

A 'polite request' does not mean anything in the real world.

I personally enjoy a nice morning cup of joe at my local Starbuck's, therefore, I will continue to carry concealed into their establishment's until they decide to stupidly brandish a 30.06 sign that would legally prohibit me.

Then and only then would I boycott their coffee house's.

Until then, I will continue to ~Keep it secret & keep it safe.~ as I enjoy my coffee alongside the clueless libtard's within Starbuck's.

That's my prerogative.

P.s.
I completely support the right to open carry, but I personally prefer to carry 'concealed' because I don't want to experience the hassle's of dealing with ignorant LEO's on a daily basis.
 
Jaydub, I appreciate the OP. I think (almost) everybody does. This is weird for me for a couple of reasons. 1) I used to own a gourmet coffee shop and competed head-to-head with Starbucks (as well as other cookie-cutter "Seattle-style" clones), and we did very well doing it. They made us better by forcing us to offer something they didn't have, which we did by having live music and "after-hours" jams (not really "after-hours" since we sold coffee and bakery goods all night, but that was the "schtick").

2) though, is more timely. Starbucks has enjoyed the image of being "pro" open carry for what? A year and a half? Maybe two years? Not sure, but I kept my distance from them thinking that it wouldn't be long before they flipped. Today's news only proves I was wrong about it not taking long, but flip they did, just like I figured they would. It was just a short time ago that another "Appreciation Day" was held because of planned protests against Starbucks for them remaining tolerant of OC'ers. I think it was two or three weeks ago, maybe a little longer than that. For the first time since these events started, I called my wife and asked her to stop by on her way home, buy us a couple of drinks, and make sure to tell the manager why she specifically stopped by on that Saturday. Now I wish I had held off in allowing myself to patronize their business based only on their extremely tepid "support" (it never really was "support," rather, just begrudging *tolerance*, but I was admittedly fooled - oops) for OC.

Oh well, lesson learned; from now on I will listen to my instincts just as I usually do. They caught me at a weak moment I guess.

Now, on the OC thing and getting singled out to be engaged first by a bad-guy: You have opened a topic that has been thoroughly debunked on this forum for years. NavyLCDR alluded to it, but if you research your assertion in that regard, you will find no statistical data supporting it. You will even be hard-pressed to find any anecdotal evidence of the existence of such a meme. There are many daily OC'ers on this forum (of which, I am not one, but I do actively support their right to do it....well, and my and everybody else's right to also, I just haven't yet(?)). Navy is one, and he along with most of them are very well-versed in both the legalities of doing it, and the good and rational reasons why they do.

Let me just say that your impressions are mistaken. No big deal. It happens. It's no reason why you shouldn't keep participating here, but it would be a good reason to make sure you have your ducks in a row if you plan on arguing the point with the OC'ers here. When you look to put those ducks in a row, you'll find that you have no ducks, and you'll only lay a big egg hoping it hatches into a duck.

Wow, even I had to wince at that metaphor! LOL Anyway, thanks again for the OP, and don't get your feelings hurt if you decide to argue about OC'ers being easier or "first" targets and you get thoroughly trounced. It would be easier if you just searched the forums for the topic(s) and read the arguments that have been going on for years around here.

Blues
 
Thanks, Bluestringer. I think I'm good now - and lesson learned. :biggrin: I actually just found out about OC yesterday because FL isn't an OC state for handguns. It was news to me. Idaho has potatoes. I like potatoes. ...
 
Thanks, Bluestringer. I think I'm good now - and lesson learned. :biggrin: I actually just found out about OC yesterday because FL isn't an OC state for handguns. It was news to me. Idaho has potatoes. I like potatoes. ...

If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't all that long ago that FL was an OC state. Maybe S&W645 or another knowledgeable Floridian will answer that.

Bama literally just became a full-on, protected-by-statute OC state. The reason I said "yet(?)" above when thinking about myself carrying that way is that I've been carrying for about 30 out of the last 35 years, all of it concealed. Not something that will definitely never change, but for now, it's just so deeply ingrained within my comfort zone to go concealed. May happen. We'll see.

My first permission slip was in WA State, where at least two of the more vocal OC'ers on the forum are from, but that was back starting in about '78. I don't recall seeing anyone OC'ing in town there, but I do recall lots of folks carrying openly out where I lived in the sticks (Carnation/Duvall to be exact). It made obvious sense to me out there though, what with the Ferrel Sasquatches runnin' around loose.
ROFLMAO_emote_by_morima.gif
Anyway, Navy, Bikenut, Firefighterchen and others have convinced me that OC is more a deterrent than an attractant to being targeted first (or otherwise), I just haven't implemented that knowledge yet now that I can. 'Course, I'm home WAY too much due to health issues, so it's not like I'm out and about much these days anyway.

Anyway, Schultz is a putz! I respect him as a business man, but as an American, well, I wish there were fewer with his ideology and more with mine. Then everything would end up......well......just exactly like they're going to end up anyway! But I wouldn't be as frustrated with my countrymen while waiting for it to happen.

Maranatha!

Blues
 
Getting back on target....... this announcement is because of a decision the pro gun movement made in their Starbucks Appreciation day. Starbucks was never pro gun, they were trying to stay out of the fight. The decision to strap on rifles, make national news, flaunt youtube videos and be flamboyantly pro gun gave them the excuse to post notice.

You want to CC then do it get your coffee and be happy. You want to OC then do it, get your coffee be happy and go about your day like you would any other day. You want to have an OC appreciation day then go to a decidedly pro gun store and twirl your long gun for the whole world to see.

But being flamboyantly pro gun at Starbucks pushed them in the wrong direction and emboldened the anti morons.

Before the pro OC group gets all up in arms, it's the flamboyant that is the problem. You want to OC more power to you. You want to "educate" and make YouTube videos of you interactions you had better be educated and literate so you don't come across as a boob that can't do more than stutter about rights and make gun owners look like idiots.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top