Monday, January 23, 2012

Starbucks Targeted For Another Anti Firearms Rights Boycott

Starbucks was targeted by a well known anti gun rights group recently because they took “No position” on firearms in their stores. They couldn’t coerce Starbucks into banning guns in Starbucks for everyone except criminals who don't care about "No guns" policies. Again, Starbucks is the target of a boycott beginning on February 14th by another anti gun rights group. Starbucks has the right to run their business as they see fit.

They cite England’s gun laws as a model to follow. But, English criminals are stealing guns, converting starter pistols to shooters, and are making their own too. They call themselves an “economic force” that will economically force anti gun rights laws by using the buying power of “14 million” gun victims, gun assault survivors, supporters, and religious groups against businesses that allow guns in their businesses or on their property.

They say that their economic leverage can’t be overcome because they outnumber “NRA Extremists” by
50 to 1. Currently the NRA has 4,300,000 dues paying members. That multiplied by 50 would be  215,000,000 who sympathize with this group. They apparently didn’t do the math. That’s quite a stretch. They claim that, “ Sane gun laws will simultaneously protect the Second Amendment right of the legal gun owner and the non-gun owner’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as written in the Declaration of Independence.”

This latest group complains that a tiny, dangerous minority endanger the safety of the “overwhelming” majority who don’t want guns in Starbucks. We agree that there is a dangerous minority who shouldn’t have guns in Starbucks or anywhere else. They are called predatory criminals. We don’t want guns in criminal’s hands in Starbucks or anywhere else either. These criminals who illegally carry guns won’t be stopped by any no guns policy anywhere. Many career criminals view getting caught with a gun is just a cost of doing business. May times the additional charge of using or carrying a gun in the course of committing a felony can simply be plea bargained away.  

The pressure from these kinds of groups has met some limited success and has caused some business chains to cave in to pressure. The anti gun rights groups took their cause to last year’s Starbucks shareholder’s meeting, and walked away empty handed, disgraced, and defeated. But, there is always an undercurrent at work to disarm Americans, leaving an open door to anyone who doesn’t follow a no guns policy or obey a no guns sign. Never do they address the mass killings at restaurants, and the simple fact that "No guns" policies don't work anywhere. They never have and never will work, except  for those who already obey laws and rules.

When a murderer is determined to commit the ultimate crime, "No guns" policies and signs won't stop them. We challenge anti gun groups to cite any facts or actual situations to the contrary. They can't. They don't exist.
And, these anti gun rights groups fail to understand that in 49 states, one of their members may be standing, sitting, walking in a parking lot, or shopping when a concealed pistol permit holder is right next to them, or all around them at any given moment and they don't even know it. Wouldn't that be a shock to their systems to know that? But, ignorance is bliss.

Here are some of the stark facts about “no guns allowed” in restaurants and the resulting carnage.

An incident of mass murder occurred on July 18, 1984, in a McDonalds restaurant in the San Ysidro section of San Diego, California. The shootings resulted in 22 deaths (including the perpetrator James Huberty) and the injuries of 19 others. These were random killings.

Eight people were shot at a Carson City International House of Pancakes with a semi automatic weapon September 6th, 2011. These were random killings

On October 16, 1991, 35-year-old George Pierre Hennard,
 who was described by others as angry and withdrawn, with a dislike of women, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. Yelling "This is what Bell County has done to me!" Hennard then opened fire on its patrons and staff with a pistol. He shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. Approximately 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. These were random killings. This slaughter was the impetus of the Texas Concealed handgun rights law. It just took the killing of 23 and wounding of 20 happening in a small Texas town in just seconds. And, don't forget the "No guns" policy at Virginia Tech. 

And, there was t
he Westroads Mall killings in 2007 in Omaha, where a murderer killed nine people including himself and wounded four others. This killer left a suicide note that said he wanted to take a few pieces of S*** with him, and said that he would be famous. He did this with a stolen rifle. The mall's "No Guns" policy didn't work. 

God forbid that a patron at these eateries and the mall would have had a gun and shot it at the killers. Someone could have gotten hurt. But, that was not allowed. Does anyone really believe that a "No Guns" Restaurant policy or a "No guns" sign will stop a madman? These examples make a no gun policy in businesses ridiculous. Would such a policy have stopped old "George," or any of the other killers?

All of the victims above were disarmed and absolutely helpless. What sense does this make? Why are the instruments of death blamed by anti gun groups and not the persons holding them? 

Firearms as a deterrence and a tool for self defense works. These groups claim that because of the element of the criminal using surprise, it is virtually impossible to defend one’s self. But, readers of this and other blogs know otherwise. So does an 82 year old man who fought off a home invader last week. That burglar was one of the close to 50 armed robbers and burglars killed by their would be victims that we recently reported on in the last week. And, that didn’t scratch the surface. They also say that to exercise the right to vote, one must first register. But that is to prevent multiple voting and voter fraud. Gun registration is not similar, except perhaps to locate gun owners and to determine how many guns, and what kind are owned. How does registration prevent gun violence? It does not.


The Enemy Expatriation Act - We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us

No comments:

Post a Comment