New York Times says Starbucks shouldn't tolerate firearms in its stores

A Times editorial says: "Should customers be free to sip Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Lattes at their laptop screens while brandishing a gleaming Ruger .357? So far, Starbucks executives say yes, claiming they are quite safety-minded within a policy that "supports the federal, state and local laws in the communities in which we do business." The paper wants Starbucks to follow Peet's and say, No guns! || Read "Who can relax this way?"

Comments

[Indy Rob]

I hate handguns. It is so easy to unthinkingly use a handgun, and so quick, that handguns scare me. Having said that, I believe in the second amendment; everyone has the right to bear arms due to the potential need to protect oneself from the government. If Starbucks were to ban guns, the same number of Starbucks would get robbed, the number of people shot in or near a Starbucks would be unchanged, and Starbucks business would decrease by a small amount due to some gun owners buying their coffee someplace else.

[hawaiiandy]

Well gosh,

Maybe retail establishments would train their employees how to handle a situation such as a hold up.

By the way, it's much more than just taking classes and passing background checks to get a license.

I'm a member of the US military and employed at starbucks,
I know how to properly handle a gun.

Just because we carry guns doesn't make us back-woods hick cowboys.

A firearm is just another tool to be considered for the unexpected. No different than carrying a set of jumper cables, first-aid kit, or a flashlight.

-cheers

[JadedConsumer]

Lawfully carrying under a concealed weapons permit is completely inconsistent with "brandishing" firearms as suggested in the article.

I suspect someone involved in framing the issue in such a way has an agenda.

[bob]

Only cowards carry.............

[David]

The Second Amendment reads as such...

"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 first part ensures that the militia (being represented by the people of the States of the Republic) exists to protect the State itself. The second part helps that militia because the people make that militia, and they must have arms to defend their home.

You and I make up the People of the United States, and thus we have the right to maintain and keep our arms for our security. It's not saying you have to carry any arms, but it does say that if it is needed, the people will form the militia with their own arms.

In all of this, I agree with CCLs being and their ability to carry anywhere, but the guy with the longrifle is a bit ridiculous. Those who don't carry their arms responsibility ruin it for the rest of us who do (and I proudly do).

[Tim Giangiobbe]

One Latte and a Clip of ammo to go please.Will the criminals follow this rule,HELL NO.I feel the registered owners are legal and should not be an issue.I am a veteran however who does not like irresponsible gun owners who have not even fired the weapon in a range to get the feel.I am for responsible owners only but that is not always reality.Thugs will be thugs and they like GUNS.