Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/003698.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/003698.php on line 91
March 04, 2010
The Essence

Or maybe I mean, "the money quote." Either way, there's always one line in a news story that tells the story. Sometimes you just have to read for it.

Starbucks in crosshairs on gun-control debate is obviously about one of those fence-straddling issues. Personally, I dislike guns and I most emphatically don't think people need to carry guns around casually in our society. No sane person really needs to have a pocketful of lead to get through their day.

Over and over and over, we read the headlines. Disgruntled ex-employees gunning down former co-workers. Disturbed students opening fire on school campuses. Poorer neighborhoods suffering from periodic outbursts of armed warfare. How can any reasonable person argue that gun control is not in society's best interest?

Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the NRA.

However, it's a right covered by Constitutional law and while I think an amendment to ban rapid-fire or automatic assault rifles of a kind never envisioned by the Founding Fathers would be a wise and civilized step, I mostly stay out of the debate.

The "28,000 members" boasted of by the 'internet community' referenced is unimpressive. It's just a rather small fringe group and the only reason I can think of for the article getting posted is the national media's ridiculous groping after drama for each day's headlines. Other national chains have successfully implemented a ban on firearms-toting customers, illustrating that it's quite possible to do so. Starbucks, much like Google, tries to take a more laissez-faire approach to their clientele. And that's fine--it's not really their job to make or enforce laws.

We should do that. Seriously. My thought is that if we can require shirts and shoes in food-dispensing areas for safety and health reasons, we should certainly be equally able to ban potential lead poisoning under the same grounds.

The aforementioned money quote (emphasis mine):

Starbucks said if it were to adopt a policy prohibiting customers from carrying guns in states where it is legal to bear firearms, that would require its employees to ask law abiding customers to leave stores, putting them in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

Bottom line? The only reason for someone to walk into Starbucks carrying a gun is so that they can shoot any coffee-pouring employee unwise enough to ask them to leave their guns on the other side of the door.

I'd like to see guns banned in a lot of places. Schools. Shopping malls. Grocery stores. Pharmacies. Restaurants. Car washes. Gas stations. Water treatment plants. Office buildings. Doctor's offices. Libraries. Pawn shops. Hospitals. Sidewalks. Public parks. National parks. Public buses. Trains. Airplanes. Bike paths. Pre-schools. Government buildings. Nuclear reactor sites. Warehouses.

I think guns should be licensed under a system considerably more restrictive than what it takes to get a driver's license. I think concealed carry of handguns should be absolutely illegal for anyone who isn't a law enforcement officer. I think cash-and-carry gun shops and gun shows should be outlawed.

For those people who simply must wander around slaughtering wildlife and pretending to be Davy Crockett, there are a limited, very limited number of guns that are actually suitable for "sporting" and they can get licensed for those accordingly. You don't need an AK-47 to shoot pheasant and while you might need a heavier rifle to shoot a bear, you shouldn't be hunting bears.

Now that I think of it, the people who demand the right to slaughter wildlife as a "sport" should be confined to bows and arrows. After all, it's not a "sport" if both sides don't have a fair chance of winning, is it? Those who argue differently are just revealing that for them, the bottom line is killing things which is not precisely a sport. More of a mental illness.

I don't always feel quite this strongly about the subject, but I'm irritated today.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:09 PM


Yes, yes, and yes.

Posted by: Ahistoricality at March 4, 2010 08:31 PM

LOL. Every time I suspect I've gone right 'round the bend in ranting, you come along and make me feel more sane. :)

Posted by: Anne at March 5, 2010 11:55 AM

(Thank you, by the way.)

Posted by: Anne at March 5, 2010 11:56 AM