Editorial: Starbucks averts gun fight with civility(TX)

dallasnews.com ^ | 16 March, 2010 | Staff

[marktwain]

Sometimes, the most civil response is no response at all. That was the option Starbucks wisely chose when the company recently found itself in the middle of a confrontation between handgun opponents and "open-carry" advocates. No matter which side Starbucks took, the choice seemed destined to provoke outrage and widen the nation's political chasm.

As some gun-rights advocates suggested, Starbucks was the perfect place to stage an open-carry demonstration because of its reputation as a bastion for laid-back, left-leaning latte-swillers. But it was the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that initially forced the issue in a Feb. 4 letter to the chairman of Starbucks, accusing the company of "evasion" for not banning firearms in its stores. Gun-rights advocates took that as an invitation to strap on holsters and get caffeinated.

A showy confrontation spread around the nation in early March, making Starbucks the place to see and be seen for protesters on both sides of the issue. In Virginia, one man exercised his open-carry rights by displaying an antique shotgun at a Starbucks entrance. This is an issue of great sensitivity for Starbucks, which lost three employees in 1997 when a gunman opened fire in a Washington, D.C., store.

Starbucks stores suddenly were on the front pages of American newspapers and the focus of intense television-news coverage. The display of firepower clearly didn't fit with the image Starbucks has cultivated over the years. Instead of taking the bait, however, Chairman Howard Shultz declared that this was a matter for local, state and federal lawmakers to decide. Starbucks says it is not inclined to oust law-abiding customers from its stores.

[marktwain]

A weird editorial that seems all wrapped up in image. In a sense it was, and the good guys won. The editorial seems as though it may be "damage control".

I do not care what they call it as long as they take the attitude that private companies should not wrap themselve up in political correctness.

[Hardastarboard]

No matter which side Starbucks took, the choice seemed destined to provoke outrage and widen the nation's political chasm.

Umm, it seems to me that there really isn't so much controversy over owning guns now as there was. Sure, there are a few loud mouth nut cases out there that squeal and whine whenever they hear the letters G, U, and N used in the same word, but mostly they're marginalized. I'm frankly stunned at how the debate has turned since the days of Bill Clinton, when I thought that lying criminal scumbag was going to take everything that wasn't a single shot .22 from us.

[JimRed]

...Starbucks was the perfect place to stage an open-carry demonstration because of its reputation as a bastion for laid-back, left-leaning latte-swillers.

That's why I've never patronized one. I may have to rethink that. Even if I do have to rub elbows with metrosexuals!

[Cicero]

The Brady Campaign just doesn’t have as much power as it used to. Democrat politicians, except for those in big cities like NYC, DC, and Chicago, have discovered that gun grabbing is a losing issue at the polls.

For instance, it was an important reason why Al Gore lost in 2000 in key swing states.

[Billthedrill]

Starbucks essentially stated that as a business they would respect the law in whatever location their stores were established. The Brady Bunch insisted on a political statement with certain costs associated and no apparent return. The only intelligent business decision was “no.”