Starbucks asks customers to leave guns at home

Sep 18, 2013 Full story: RTE.ie 69

Starbucks has requested that customers leave their firearms at home, shifting company policy amid an increasingly fractious debate over US gun rights in the wake of multiple mass shootings.

Full Story
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#23 Sep 19, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>They are if they are legally liable but at the end of the day it is the customer who pays.
They don't care about the customer but they do care about the bottom line. Hit them in the wallet with a few multi million dollar suits for not protecting the customers and they will take notice. Personally I own a coffee maker at home.

“Pompous pontificator”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#24 Sep 19, 2013
One poster said s/he carries concealed, so it doesn't matter. Well, I CCW too, BUT I SURELY will NOT spend a dime anywhere I am not wanted. If you don't want my gun, you don't want me and my money.

I often remember my Dad saying: "I can spend my damn-money anywhere I like".

So, I guess I can NOT spend my money...anywhere I like. I have a policy of never rewarding incompetence, poor service, poor performance or indifference. This policy would apply to Starbucks and ALL gun-free zones.
Quit

Santa Fe, NM

#25 Sep 19, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
"Starbucks asks customers to leave guns at home"
Well, they can ask. But, if I'm carrying concealed -- as is my right to do -- how will they know?
I'm curious, will Starbucks apply the same policy to LEO's? If they are robbed will they not call the police for fear of allowing a possibly armed policeman into their gun-free sanctuary?
If it came to a choice between going home and locking up my firearm before stopping in for a $5 cup of coffee, I guess I'll have to forego the coffee.
lying. The policy indicates a preference and no employee will be confronting some idiot who feels like he needs to bring a gun into a coffee shop.
Yes

Santa Fe, NM

#26 Sep 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
.
a policeman stopped a robbery. The robber being a criminal with a gun.
Laws

Santa Fe, NM

#27 Sep 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
The examples I gave were not only gun free stores but in gun free cities. To bad anti gun laws only apply to the law abiding.
apply to everyone, dummy
another

Santa Fe, NM

#28 Sep 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>TORRANCE - A man who robbed a Torrance Starbucks store at gunpoint
guntoter.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#29 Sep 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>They don't care about the customer but they do care about the bottom line. Hit them in the wallet with a few multi million dollar suits for not protecting the customers and they will take notice. Personally I own a coffee maker at home.
Starbucks has a legal right to restrict firearms on their property.

Are you advocating suing Starbucks for exercising their rights.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#31 Sep 19, 2013
Quit wrote:
<quoted text>
lying. The policy indicates a preference and no employee will be confronting some idiot who feels like he needs to bring a gun into a coffee shop.
Great! Venti Cappuccino, please. Hold the sugar.
CTM

Southbury, CT

#32 Sep 19, 2013
Have they been doing better at getting the orders right since they realized people carry?
ima

Santa Fe, NM

#33 Sep 19, 2013
people died obama lied wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try...but wrong.... It's not the coffe shop that is the problem...it's walking to and from the coffee shop that is the issue.
scared little goober

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#34 Sep 19, 2013
ima wrote:
<quoted text>scared little goober
Forgive me for saying so but it seems your fear of firearms is causing you to make irrational generalization about those with whom you disagree.

I frequently carry and I feel neither more more less afraid when I do than when I don't. Fear is situational. If I found myself in a situation where I was forced to use my firearm for protection I guarantee you I would still feel fear.

What I wouldn't feel is unprepared.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#35 Sep 20, 2013
Yes wrote:
<quoted text>
a policeman stopped a robbery. The robber being a criminal with a gun.
OFF DUTY. A man with a gun stopped a criminal with a gun. Police officer or not he had no chance of stopping the criminal if he had not had a gun. It still blows your crap of not needing a gun in a coffee shop.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#36 Sep 20, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Starbucks has a legal right to restrict firearms on their property.
Are you advocating suing Starbucks for exercising their rights.
Where did I say they didn't have that right? Where did I say sue for not being allowed to carry in their store? My comment is if you intend to remove a persons right to self defense then you take on the responsibility for that self defense. IF you were to be harmed in that store BECAUSE your right to self defense was removed then sue the hell out of them. Many courts across the country has agreed and awarded LARGE sums of money to the defenseless victims on defense free property. We can only hope the tread continues.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#37 Sep 20, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Starbucks has a legal right to restrict firearms on their property.
Are you advocating suing Starbucks for exercising their rights.
Would you feel the same if instead of a no guns sign they placed a sign that said "Dear criminals. We have provided defenseless victims in our store for you to rob, assault, or kill at your leisure with no hint of resistance from our employees."?
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#38 Sep 20, 2013
Laws wrote:
<quoted text>
apply to everyone, dummy
Explain that to the criminals who carried guns and robbed DEFENSELESS victims in areas where guns were illegal. WOW each time I think you have posted the stupidest comment you can, you come back with one even more idiotic.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#39 Sep 20, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Would you feel the same if instead of a no guns sign they placed a sign that said "Dear criminals. We have provided defenseless victims in our store for you to rob, assault, or kill at your leisure with no hint of resistance from our employees."?
A sign like this one: http://www.compliancesigns.com/NHE-16346.shtm...
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#40 Sep 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
A sign like this one: http://www.compliancesigns.com/NHE-16346.shtm...
Ha ha ha. Yep.
nope

Santa Fe, NM

#41 Sep 20, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> OFF DUTY. A man with a gun stopped a criminal with a gun. Police officer or not he had no chance of stopping the criminal if he had not had a gun. It still blows your crap of not needing a gun in a coffee shop.
He was a trained LEO - not a some goober with a gun looking for a Rambo moment or someone too scared to leave his house without it.
Yes

Santa Fe, NM

#42 Sep 20, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Would you feel the same if instead of a no guns sign they placed a sign that said "Dear criminals. We have provided defenseless victims in our store for you to rob, assault, or kill at your leisure with no hint of resistance from our employees."?
you are paranoid and nuts. Is your world defined by video games?
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#44 Sep 20, 2013
nope wrote:
<quoted text>
He was a trained LEO - not a some goober with a gun looking for a Rambo moment or someone too scared to leave his house without it.
1 Obviously you know nothing of how little training cops get. 2 He was OFF duty so why did he need to have his gun? 3 Do you deny people have been in danger in Starbucks from criminals? Please say yes so I can flood this site with cases to yet again make a fool of you. 3 Please provide how you came up with law abiding citizens (rightfully so) being concerned with their safety from criminals so lawfully arming themselves in self defense being called "goober or Rambo". You are horribly miss informed. CCW people are from all walks of life including doctors, lawyers, business professionals, teachers, college professors, current and ex politicians, and yes off duty and retired police who know the realistic risk of being unarmed. If retired police carry because they know they can't depend on police for protection 24/7 then why would the average citizen be different? If there is a "goober" here it would be you.

A study examined reports of gun incidents in Missouri,

involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were

successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the

time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians

intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were

police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by

police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a

criminal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 27 min obama race team 12,103
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot 22 hr Independent1 9
Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Ex-Hu... Dec 13 Here Is One 3
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Dec 11 Vern5554566 4
Deer Hunting Time Dec 9 kurtcooksalot16 1
Bill would stiffen background checks Dec 8 Independent1 3
SAFE Act PROTEST draws crowd in Lewis County (Jun '13) Dec 7 lowville resident 4
More from around the web