Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Do the math Previous entry: Per your request: Austin to Brooklyn

Put down that latte and stroke my pistol

Choads

Anne at Balloon Juice posted on what initially seems like the stupidest “protest” of all time—-men parading around Starbucks showing off their guns to protest…..nothing, really.  Starbucks lets them do it, it turns out, though now the gun wavers have provoked gun control advocates to respond in anger and fear, which is the wrong thing to do, which I’ll return to in a moment.  But first I want to talk about how Anne isn’t being a very sympathetic person towards the gun-wavers. 

Starbucks? This is your bold, patriotic idea of a dangerous venue in which to flaunt your precious Second Amendment pacifiers? Because laptop-wielding hipsters are soooo freaking terrifying? Because the baristers are armed with… scalding hot milk foam?

Anne, anxious masculinity is a real problem that many men struggle with, and we should sympathize with them.  Perhaps you don’t know many men suffering from anxious masculinity.  Perhaps the men in your life are secure in themselves and their manhood, and so are capable of doing things like reading books, listening to women, watching movies with dialogue, and perhaps even reminiscing about their wedding in ways that imply they remember it.  Maybe most of the men she knows feel like their balls aren’t going to shrivel up and fall off the second they look in a mirror to see if they look good, admit they know the difference between bar soap and shampoo, or drive a car that gets over 20 mpg.  The men she knows don’t know what it’s like to be one of these pathetic wingnuts, plagued night and day by the secret suspicion that you’re not a real man.  It’s hard to say what causes it—-statistically, it seems unlikely they all have tiny penises, though perhaps they think they do because they watch too much porn—-but there it is.  A whole bunch of men living in a whole bunch of fear that they’re not real men.

Do you know what hell that is, feeling like you have to constantly prove like you’re a man, because you think other people have their doubts like you do?  You have to wear the stupidest looking clothes: ugly shirts, ill-fitting jeans, and facial hair that’s at least 15 years out of fashion. Because having any inclination towards aesthetics is so feminine, and we can’t have that!  Do you think it’s fun to have your entertainment limited to events where men toss a ball around—-and that even then, some ball-throwing events can’t be enjoyed, because they’re too Euro-weenie, like soccer!  It get so boring after awhile.  And having a case of the anxious masculinity is not only boring, stupid, and ugly.  It’s also bad for your health.  These poor sufferers can’t eat healthy diets, for god’s sake.  That will turn them into walking vaginas immediately.  Yes, the condition of anxious masculinity has a high fatality rate, because years of shoveling meat and shunning vegetables not covered in gravy to prove your manhood leads many men to the realm of clogged arteries and heart attacks.  Sad, really.

For profound sufferers, life is a living hell.  They bust their asses day and night to scrub any threatening femininity from their lives, and then suddenly! A Starbucks opens up down the street.  Starbucks!  With its girlie mermaid logo and its silly, foamy drinks with faux Italian names. To make it worse, coffee used to be a safe drink for sufferers of anxious masculinity.  It was a simple syllogism to know when you were safe drinking what you were drinking: male/female, beer/wine, coffee/tea.  Coffee was the drink of diners and truck stops, and ideally it tastes like shit to prove you don’t care about frou-frou girl shit like comfort and taste.  But now Starbucks is redefining coffee in middle America as some girly shit that’s supposed to taste good and be served by “baristas”.  Masculinity itself, always fragile, is under direct attack.  The anxiously male are on red alert, which is where you have to fight off the impending femininity by whipping out your cock and waving it off directly with phallic power. 

But the problem with that, of course, is that flashing a bunch of soccer moms at the Starbucks is definitely illegal, and anyway, showing your real penis can backfire, since they’re not all that impressive soft.  They have no choice but to parade around with their guns.  If they don’t, they fear the venti lattes will dissolve their testicles.  You laugh, because it’s impossible, but imagine how scary that would be if you really believed it.

As much as the sufferers of anxious masculinity deserve our pity, though, I understand that they are a public menace.  You may accept that rats are feeling creatures, but you don’t want them in your Starbucks, which everyone can understand.  So, how do you get rid of the gun wavers?

Being afraid and complaining isn’t really the way to go about it.  Remember, these men are in constant need of reassurance that they aren’t women (because they were raised to believe that was the worst thing you could possibly be), and so by sending signals that you find them alarming or scary is rewarding the behavior.  The behavior needs to be linked to undesirable outcomes for them.  Laughing and pointing at gun wielders could work—-because it makes them feel the gun is the source of their emasculation—-but is dangerous for those who do it, because the targets do have guns.  Making fun of them on the internet or on “The Colbert Report” helps, but it’s limited because of the anxious masculinity ban on reading anything but right wing tirades online or watching anything that’s not sports or Glenn Beck.  Perhaps a sign in Starbucks that says “The Bigger The Gun, The Smaller The Cock”?  Sure, some parents might complain about the wording, but it’s better than having a bunch of men who clearly feel they have something to prove running around with guns, isn’t it?

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:43 PM • (211) Comments

Well done, Amanda, an instant classic! Speaking of coffee, I’m sure glad I wasn’t drinking any whilst reading this…

Comment #1: Steve LaBonne  on  03/04  at  12:50 PM

Maybe most of the men she knows feel like their balls aren’t going to shrivel up and fall off the second they look in a mirror to see if they look good, admit they know the difference between bar soap and shampoo, or drive a car that gets over 20 mpg.

Shrivel up? Shit, I’m aroused!

Comment #2: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/04  at  01:03 PM

Still not as bad as bringing an assault rifle to a town hall. The only way to deal with people like that on mass is contempt. If everyone refuses to talk to them but continues to talk to each other they will eventually pick up on what is and is not acceptable in social spaces. Maybe some will thrive on that almost everyone feels the need to be accepted on a basic level by other people.

Comment #3: pharmakos  on  03/04  at  01:05 PM

ROTFL!  So fucking true, and I live in the very lair of the beast (Seattle).  And you nailed the sheer fragility of it all.

(tangential) You ever notice how small the guns are in the old noir films?  They look tiny.  I guess Robert Mitchum or Humphrey Bogart didn’t need 10 pounds of steel to demonstrate their masculinity.

Comment #4: Eric_RoM  on  03/04  at  01:06 PM

Coffee was the drink of diners and truck stops, and ideally it tastes like shit to prove you don’t care about frou-frou girl shit like comfort and taste.

This reminds me of something funny, actually. A while back my ex-wife was doing a quick survey exercise for a class about what constitues a “girly” drink or a “manly” drink. A disturbing number of people responded by saying that a girly drink is anything that tastes good, while a manly drink has to taste bad. It was really weird. Oh, and also, my girlfriend constantly complains that no one makes decent drinks here (Raleigh) because everyone just assumes women want some icky saccharin-sweet drink in which whatever fruity mixer there is completely drowns out the taste of the actual liquor.

As odd as the gendering of a lot of other food and drink is, alcohol’s gendering is severely fucked up. I wonder how many men secretly want to drink a well-made margarita but are worried that their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser…

Comment #5: Jeff  on  03/04  at  01:10 PM

Two quick comments:

I always thought it was “The bigger the truck, the smaller the cock”.

I don’t care much for Starbucks “coffee”. I do enjoy their fancy pants latte drinks though. Especially at christmas when they have the egg nog lattes. They are seiously delicious even though they’re like a bajillion calories. Knowing how many calories something has probably makes me gay though. Especially since I don’t own any guns either.

Comment #6: Mark  on  03/04  at  01:15 PM

Also, if you want some good coffee, try this stuff…

http://www.monkeyandson.com/

Comment #7: Mark  on  03/04  at  01:16 PM

The flip of that, Jeff, is a lot of women who seem to blanch at the idea of even giving something stiffer-tasting a try.  Many get over it, often in service of another feminine requirement, which is not to suck down a gazillion calories every time you open your mouth.  Those frou-frou sugary cocktails are caloric monsters.  Whiskey on the rocks?  Not so bad.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  01:16 PM

Pretty funny, Amanda.

Laughing and pointing at gun wielders could work—-because it makes them feel the gun is the source of their emasculation—-but is dangerous for those who do it, because the targets do have guns.

More precisely, it’s dangerous because they’re gun-wielders who don’t take firearms seriously. Someone who flaunts his weapon in a safe and predictable retail chain store to make a statement is, in the end, almost as “girly” as the women who tote around pink revolvers encrusted in Swarovski crystals.

Also, I’m betting none of these clowns would dare open-carry in a tough bar or a rough neighbourhood—making the generous assumption that they’d actually go to such places.

Comment #9: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  01:18 PM

This is so funny and so sad at the same time.  I really feel bad for guys (or anyone) who feel this insecure, but do they really think they are fooling anyone besides themselves?

Comment #10: bananacat  on  03/04  at  01:19 PM

I prefer a whiskey on the rocks to an choco-tini anyday.

Of course, I’m a traditionalist. Even Manhattan’s are too sweet for my taste. Classic martinis with either gin or vodka and vermouth, and a splash of olive brine if I’m feeling punchy. Simple stuff. Gin and Tonic when I’m feeling like I need something more “refreshing” than a dirti martini.

What’s interesting about the Starbucks commandos is that they’re basically making Starbucks into a dogwhistle to identify each other with. Sort of like the gay community had to do. So instead of going to that particular bar over in the west village, or having your ear pierced a certain way, or dropping your love of Judy Garland into casual conversation as a way of identifying yourself as a member of a subculture, we have guys who are going to that particular Starbucks next to the mall, and having their gun holster a certain way, and dropping their love of Glenn Beck in a casual conversation as a way of identifying themselves as a member of a different subculture.

If it wouldn’t result in immediate retaliatory gay-bashing to prove how manly they are, it might be funny to point out to them that what they’re doing is totally gay.

Comment #11: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/04  at  01:28 PM

As odd as the gendering of a lot of other food and drink is, alcohol’s gendering is severely fucked up. I wonder how many men secretly want to drink a well-made margarita but are worried that their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser…

I’ll admit to making fun of my brother’s preference for girly drinks—if anyone else does, they whisper, because he’s a lumbering 6’5” & covered with body hair & tattoos—at least in part because I can’t even fathom how he survives all that sugar the next morning given how many he has to drink to get a buzz.

Comment #12: latts  on  03/04  at  01:31 PM

If it wouldn’t result in immediate retaliatory gay-bashing to prove how manly they are, it might be funny to point out to them that what they’re doing is totally gay.

Oh man. That hadn’t occurred to me and its hilarious.

Comment #13: pharmakos  on  03/04  at  01:32 PM

their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser

Which is extra funny, since Budweiser has always struck me as a pretty girly beer. grin

(Maybe it’s different because I’m in the UK, where no-one really drinks Bud once they get out of their teens?)

Comment #14: Nic_C  on  03/04  at  01:38 PM

As odd as the gendering of a lot of other food and drink is, alcohol’s gendering is severely fucked up. I wonder how many men secretly want to drink a well-made margarita but are worried that their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser…

This reminds me of an amusing encounter I had a few years ago in one of my favorite bars.

So I’m sitting at the bar during happy hour on a Friday.  It’s the day before a football game between U-Dub and Notre Dame, and some ND fans come into the bar to have some drinks.  It’s pretty clear by their giddiness that they’ve been fueling up for a while.  Anyway, after trading a few barbs about the respective teams, they ask me what’s good on tap.  I tell them, they order, and they thank me.  Cosmopolitans were on special at the bar, and I felt like drinking one, so I did.  One of the ND guys notices what I’m drinking and asks me, “Is that a cosmo?”  At this point, I’m thinking, “Oh great, here’s where I get razzed for what I’m drinking.”  Nevertheless, I confirm that my drink is indeed a cosmo.  He gives me a nod and says, “Man, you can get fucked up on those.”

I had to laugh.

Comment #15: Linnaeus  on  03/04  at  01:38 PM

Nic, Budweiser and Coors are the manly beers among the frat boy populations and the ignerent-morons-who-don’t-know-shit-about-beer populations.

My brother and I used to go into liquor stores and laugh at the fratsters picking up cases of Bud Lite. If they’re gonna get that watery crap, they may as well go for appletinis and frozen daiquiris and at least get something that tastes nice…

Comment #16: Scott  on  03/04  at  01:43 PM

Even Manhattan’s are too sweet for my taste.

OK, I have to make one major exception. If I’m watching The Big Lebowski, there will be Caucasians on the menu.

Comment #17: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/04  at  01:43 PM

@Mighty Ponygirl: My ex is convinced that White Russians are girly drinks, though in the survey they came out as the most androgynous drink there is.

The Dude: threatening alcohol-based gender norms, since 1998.

Comment #18: Jeff  on  03/04  at  01:56 PM

</blockquote>I always thought it was “The bigger the truck, the smaller the cock”. <blockquote>

Yes, have you heard about truck nutz?  If not, then Google if you dare.  I’ve always wondered if America’s obsession for SUVs among people that only drive them to the office and to pick up kids from school really says something about our cultural attitudes about masculinity.

Comment #19: bananacat  on  03/04  at  02:12 PM

nic, no one in the states drinks budweiser, after they’ve developed taste buds. i couldn’t stand it in high school or college, and that hasn’t changed in 30 years. i remember having coors, that was brought back from colorado, by a buddy of mine. i couldn’t figure out what the big deal was all about, tasted nearly as crappy as bud.

to the primary issue of this thread:

for myself, i prefer a 40mm electric cannon, as a side-arm. granted, it’s unwieldy, but by GOD it makes a statement! unfortunately, the statement it makes is that i’m an idiot. on the other hand, i do get to the front of lines quicker at the post office.

Comment #20: cpinva  on  03/04  at  02:18 PM

I don’t know how much of this is a direct gun=cock ethos as opposed to every once in a while the NRA decides that they’re going to go out and get something. Just to get it. Just to prove that they can get anything - ANYTHING - they want. E.g. the national park thing. Cop-killer bullets. Plastic guns. Etc.

Which is a slightly less-direct masculinity thing, I guess.

Comment #21: RickMassimo  on  03/04  at  02:20 PM

When my sister was working in Galveston one summer on an archaeological dig in the harbour, she was the only Canadian (and one of very few girls) amongst a bunch of male Texas A&M;students. Who thought nothing of driving drunk. And she couldn’t take their keys away (which is what we do here in urban parts of Canada, at least), because they were Americans in Texas, and what if they had guns?

So she bought a bicycle. A pink bicycle. Made in China, in a state-owned bicycle factory. And the pink communist bicycle became her transportation for the summer.

I’m not sure my point, except that I think a pink communist bicycle is a great antidote to men with guns.

Comment #22: JPlum  on  03/04  at  02:31 PM

I would think this would hurt Starbuck’s business.  I know I wouldn’t go there if there were a bunch of angry men with guns strolling around; not because I’m afraid of them as much as I really don’t want to be around people who are deliberately trying to annoy and/or intimidate me. Life is aggravating enough without going looking for trouble.  There are a lot of coffee bars around these days.  I’ll go somewhere where I can get my coffee without a serving of asshole.

Comment #23: BadKitty  on  03/04  at  02:32 PM

Any idiot who wonders around in public with a gun for no good reason is not someone I want to be around.

Comment #24: helen w. h.  on  03/04  at  02:34 PM

I’m sure Amanda’s heard this one:  “The bigger the buckle, the smaller the ranch.”

Comment #25: elmo  on  03/04  at  02:34 PM

I refuse to drink coors because of the whole Heritage Foundation thing. From their website.

Without Joe Coors, The Heritage Foundation wouldn’t exist—and the conservative movement it nurtures would be immeasurably poorer. Thanks in large part to Joe, though, we can look back on a record of accomplishment that stretches back three decades.

Comment #26: pharmakos  on  03/04  at  02:35 PM

This is happening in my area. I’ve resolved to call the cops immediately any time I see one of these jokers, which isn’t likely given that I never go to Starbucks. That said, calling the cops is legit, and has been done a few times around here, because the thing is, *casual observers can’t tell if your gun is loaded or not*. The CA open-carry law says it’s OK to carry an unloaded weapon, but—surprise!—no one can see the diff. We have to rely on the honesty of folks who are carrying guns around our downtown suburban shopping area. I don’t think so.

The sign is pure genius. And for fun, I’m for bringing some of those big kid’s super-soaker gaudy plastic water machineguns to Starbucks just to up the size, blatancy and ridiculousness ante.

Comment #27: means are the ends  on  03/04  at  02:35 PM

It is a PR move—this movement has actually been going on for years, and the purpose of it is to convince people that (1) carrying guns is legal and (2) normal and (3) not scary.  So in CA, people are carrying unloaded guns to Starbucks and Peets (because in CA you cannot open carry a loaded weapon because of laws passed when the black panthers started doing it back in the day) in order to raise awareness.

It isn’t meant to be a threat at all, just to get people talking.

(This is what I get for hanging out with target shooters/being a pro second-amendment liberal.)

Comment #28: Ismone  on  03/04  at  02:49 PM

Yes, pharmakos is right, never, ever buy Coors. Or Blue Moon, or Molson (owned by Coors).

That family is just terrible.

Comment #29: Ben D.  on  03/04  at  02:51 PM

I think coffee houses are being chosen because they are so universal, and normal, and social.  If you want to demonstrate in favor of the right to carry, or make the argument that people who carry (concealed or openly) are law-abiding, you want to pick a venue that a broad cross-section of society frequents.

Comment #30: Ismone  on  03/04  at  02:51 PM

Nic, Budweiser and Coors are the manly beers among the frat boy populations and the ignerent-morons-who-don’t-know-shit-about-beer populations.

My brother and I used to go into liquor stores and laugh at the fratsters picking up cases of Bud Lite. If they’re gonna get that watery crap, they may as well go for appletinis and frozen daiquiris and at least get something that tastes nice…

Second that.  If your goal is to get fucked up for cheap, malt liquor is the much better deal.  Back in undergrad, when my friends and I were low on cash, we’d get $0.99 forties of Silver Thunder.  Silver Thunder might even taste better than Bud.  wink

But when we had money we got the good stuff, like Celis or other smaller brews that actually tasted like beer.  I don’t think we ever got actual beer that was below Shiner Bock in quality (and this was back when Shiner Bock was independent and IMHO higher quality).

These days, we only drink quality beer.  “Manly men” can keep the Bud.

Comment #31: Richard Goblin  on  03/04  at  02:53 PM

Oh and I’ve seen people open carry a few times in public places like McDonalds. Nobody freaks out or really even gives it more than a glance, but then again, this is the south.

Comment #32: Ben D.  on  03/04  at  02:53 PM

Yes, the movement is trying to normalize carrying weapons here in the Sf area. They arranged a family trash cleanup day, to show the press—who just happened to be there—how peaceful,  responsible and family oriented they all are. How could we hate on these lovely folks with kids who just wanna carry their guns into Target?

Comment #33: means are the ends  on  03/04  at  02:56 PM

Hey, means are the ends, my husband is one of those peaceful people who wants to carry his gun to Target, and does so legally in the state we live in.  After I got a threatening phone call, and no help from the police at all, I started giving it a lot of thought myself.  I am not a big person, nor am I particularly athletic, and because of my prior association with a post-conviction law project, there are (now-paroled) murderers and rapists who know what I look like.

Comment #34: Ismone  on  03/04  at  02:58 PM

But the problem with that, of course, is that flashing a bunch of soccer moms at the Starbucks is definitely illegal, and anyway, showing your real penis can backfire, since they’re not all that impressive soft.

Pfui - if you’re a REAL man, they’re never soft! (why do you think these guys are so anxious?)

And, if you found a Starbucks that is actually making good-tasting coffee, can you share the location? all the ones I’ve tried taste like .... well, plastic

Comment #35: firefall  on  03/04  at  03:15 PM

The Dude: threatening alcohol-based gender norms, since 1998.

HA!  Awesome.

Comment #36: Ranylt  on  03/04  at  03:23 PM

So in CA, people are carrying unloaded guns to Starbucks and Peets (because in CA you cannot open carry a loaded weapon because of laws passed when the black panthers started doing it back in the day) in order to raise awareness.

Wait, they’re unloaded? What on earth is the point of carrying an unloaded weapon? Is it just a keen fashion accessory? If the protestors are assaulted are they going to use the guns as clubs?

Comment #37: rivki  on  03/04  at  03:25 PM

I’m sorry but this isn’t Somalia people.  If you are so afraid to go outside just sit your bum at home and order things from your computer.  Really, try living in a country where you *actually* need a weapon for protection and then come back here to the US and tell me how “scary” it is.  There are plenty of people in law, namely prosecutors, that convict all sorts of criminals, gang members, etc and they don’t feel the need to carry guns on them when they leave the house (and this is Chicago).  People need to get a grip and stop trying to imagine terror and fear everywhere.  Like I said, try living in a country where this is actually true.  Do these people really think that living in the old Wild West was safer when everyone had a loaded gun on them?  If so, maybe you need to read some actual history books rather than watch TV shows and movies that sanitize the actually living situation from back in the *good old days*.

Comment #38: AmberChi  on  03/04  at  03:26 PM

I don’t really get it, but it seems that a lot of people in New Orleans feel it’s some kind of tradition or something to drink totally crap beer during Mardi Gras, stuff they would never drink at any other time of year.  I live near the parade route so have a housefull the whole Mardi Gras season, and am then stuck with all this leftover garbage beer in my fridge that no one will be drinking.  What to do with all this PBR & Coors & Bud?  This year I’ve even got 3 bottles of something called “Select 55” a 55-calorie beer from Budweiser - Bud that’s even MORE watered down, I guess!  That might not even be fit for making bread….

Comment #39: CalliopeJane  on  03/04  at  03:27 PM

Brilliant.

(I think it’s Dana Stabenow who did a riff on Guy Trucks vs Girl Trucks vs Old Man Trucks. Many of these guys are making a terrible mistake by keeping their vehicles clean.)

I do wonder, though, how open carry interacts with duty-to-flee laws.

Comment #40: paul  on  03/04  at  03:27 PM

rivki,

I think it is because they eventually want to be allowed to concealed-carry loaded ones.  It is really hard to get a permit in CA. 

And pistol-whipping is no joke, it can do a lot more harm than fists can.

Again, I would like to emphasize that laws in CA permitting open-carry of loaded guns were not repealed until black panthers started exercising that right.

Comment #41: Ismone  on  03/04  at  03:28 PM

AmberChi,

A lot of prosecutors do concealed carry.  In fact, the shame of it is, it is very difficult for family law attorneys, even those who routinely work with domestic abuse survivors, to get concealed carry licenses even after they’ve received death threats.

The majority of states permit concealed carry, and are “shall-issue” states, which means that if someone registers, has no record, and completes the training course, they can carry.  So there are people carrying guns all over this country, legally, and it doesn’t cause some kind of shoot ‘em up wildness.  In fact, concealed carriers are overwhelmingly law-abiding—I don’t think there is a single homicide tied to a lawful concelaed carry permit. 

I am a small woman and am unathletic.  How am I supposed to defend myself against a larger, stronger, more athletic attacker without a weapon?

And I can’t just stay home and buy shit on the internet—I wouldn’t be able to afford belongings or the internet without leaving my house to do my job.  Most people can’t.

Comment #42: Ismone  on  03/04  at  03:33 PM

what initially seems like the stupidest “protest” of all time—-men parading around Starbucks showing off their guns to protest…..nothing

My understanding is that they are protesting something - people have been kicked out of other coffee shops because they happened to be carrying guns.

When Prop 8 passed, I was all in favor of kiss-ins in front of Mormon temples.  I cannot condemn people who want to make sure that they are not treated with fear and contempt, and denied services, just because somebody finds out they’re carrying a gun.  Even if they are idiots (and Amanda’s satire is spot-on).

I mean really - if someone with a gun stops off somewhere for a cup of coffee, would you all prefer that they leave it, unguarded, in the car?  I’d rather they brought it in with them.

Comment #43: BABH  on  03/04  at  03:33 PM

(the family law attorneys anecdote comes from CA—of course, in shall-issue states, they can get them.)

Comment #44: Ismone  on  03/04  at  03:33 PM

@CalliopeJane - Why would anyone drink any of the mass-market lagers in a city where Abita Amber is sold alongside them?

Comment #45: Jeff  on  03/04  at  03:34 PM

Nic, Budweiser and Coors are the manly beers among the frat boy populations and the ignerent-morons-who-don’t-know-shit-about-beer populations.

My brother and I used to go into liquor stores and laugh at the fratsters picking up cases of Bud Lite. If they’re gonna get that watery crap, they may as well go for appletinis and frozen daiquiris and at least get something that tastes nice…

Though they won’t admit it, they get budweiser and coors because it is perceived to be cheap and they can seem “tough” by drinking several cans/bottles before getting buzzed.  Basically a poorly constructed facade for others at frat parties….

I’ve always felt drinking budweiser or coors was the equivalent of drinking water.  Then again, this is the same crowd who on average, are so bad at holding their liquor that 1 tiny bottle of sake is considered a stiff drink as that’s enough to get them completely wasted….  rolleyes

Yes, the condition of anxious masculinity has a high fatality rate, because years of shoveling meat and shunning vegetables not covered in gravy to prove your manhood leads many men to the realm of clogged arteries and heart attacks.  Sad, really.

Another possibility for this anti-veggie/bring on the meat attitude among many is the possibility they became fed up with growing up being dourly lectured to about how they must eat healthy and how their mothers/parents obsessed about the health aspects of the food to the point they killed the fun and joy of mealtimes. 

Been around enough classmates with such parents, especially in high school and college that I can understand that frustration.

Comment #46: exholt  on  03/04  at  03:35 PM

I am totally up for a kiss-in in front of a Mormon temple.  As long as my kissing partner doesn’t mind that I’m straight.

Comment #47: Ismone  on  03/04  at  03:36 PM

My husband was raised in a scary swamp of anxious masculinity and alcoholism, but he really, really likes frozen cocktails like mudslides.  Also incredibly expensive Scotch.

Comment #48: lonespark  on  03/04  at  03:40 PM

I dated a guy who really liked Midori, in any form, and was kind of embarrassed by it.  It was this kind of turning point in our relationship when he revealed he liked it, and waited for me to mock him.  When I didn’t, I know I scored big points, which was kind of sad.

I also introduced more than one macho guy to amaretto sours, and then the next time we’d go out, they’d be like, what was that thing again, and order it.

Comment #49: Ismone  on  03/04  at  03:44 PM

Yes, have you heard about truck nutz?  If not, then Google if you dare.  I’ve always wondered if America’s obsession for SUVs among people that only drive them to the office and to pick up kids from school really says something about our cultural attitudes about masculinity.

The SUV is a minivan on steroids.  For a few years guys were faking people out with them but now everyone knows their function so essentially it’s just an overpriced minivan.

Comment #50: DonnaDiva  on  03/04  at  03:44 PM

I suspect what’s going on is a mixture of things:  some gun owners trying to make a sincere statement about the normality of carrying firearms, a cultural signal to other gun owners, and some folks thinking it’ll be fun to get a rise out of the so-called latte liberals who want to take away your guns, turn your sons gay, and force your daughters to have abortions.  While eating arugula.

If it’s legal, it’s legal, and if I saw someone carrying a gun into my local coffee shop who wasn’t pointing at someone else, I wouldn’t raise a fuss.  Gun ownership in of itself doesn’t trouble me; certain aspects of the gun enthusiast subculture and the tolerance of (and even approval of) violence in the wider American culture do trouble me.

If I were to do a cost-benefit analysis of owning a handgun for self-defense, I’d likely conclude that the benefits don’t justify the cost.  A handgun of sufficient power, quality, and with appropriate safety features would cost me several hundred dollars that I don’t have.  Then there’s the costs (in money and/or time) to get the training to use the gun properly.  Then there’s the risk that I will be harmed by my own weapon.  So to me, it’s just not worth it.  I could see myself possibly owning a gun for target shooting, but I’d own a very different weapon and it would be handled differently.  Even that’s not likely for quite some time.

Comment #51: Linnaeus  on  03/04  at  03:51 PM

I cannot condemn people who want to make sure that they are not treated with fear and contempt, and denied services, just because somebody finds out they’re carrying a gun.

The only reason to openly carry a gun is to incite fear, fear is a rational response to a gun. Acting all butt-hurt because people are afraid of (and despise) lethal weapons and those who conspiciously carry them is ridiculous. These protests are nothing like kiss-ins, where people are demonstrating that their legal actions are non-harmful. Guns are harmful and they don’t belong in public without a very good reason.

Comment #52: rivki  on  03/04  at  03:51 PM

This is nothing more than “Critical Mass” for gunowners. California is not very friendly to gunowners, who are standing up and being counted. Basically, “We’re here; we’re armed; get used to it.”

As far as penis substitutes go, more women are armed than ever before. What does this say about them?

http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2740

Comment #53: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  03:56 PM

Wait just a minute.  Starbucks has coffee that tastes good?  When did this happen?

Comment #54: Todd  on  03/04  at  04:00 PM

rivki,

The “very good reason” is visibily demonstrating for concealed-carry rights, which do exist in most states and don’t cause harm.  The reason for carrying the gun is to show that guns aren’t scary—that you can see them, see people carrying them, and nothing bad happens.

Comment #55: Ismone  on  03/04  at  04:03 PM

I’m sure Amanda’s heard this one:  “The bigger the buckle, the smaller the ranch.”

I’m sure I’ll get dinged for not being PC, but too funny not to share—-I’ve heard giant belt buckles called gravestones for dead dicks.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:03 PM

Agreeing with rivki—people who carry guns in public are deliberately trying to cause fear.

A friend of mine is in law enforcement, and basically has to have her gun with her at all times. Once she stayed over for a weekend, and was very conscientious about asking me if I was gun shy. People who are properly trained to use firearms typically are taught to understand that guns elicit different responses in people. Some people are cool as a cucumber when they see a gun, some people freak the fuck out when they see a gun (even if it “isn’t loaded,” or isn’t pointed at them).

Walking around in public with a gun is reckless. Some people get nervous seeing a holstered gun on a police officer. When you see Johnny McMullet walking around with his shoulder holsters chafing under his stained tank-top, you don’t even have the comforting knowledge that Johnny is a trained professional.

Comment #57: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/04  at  04:06 PM

I always hear that people buy guns for home defense, so I’m not sure why they would need to take the gun wherever they go. Also, a big loud barking dog is a much better method of home defense (according to my gun-nut friends).

Comment #58: Mark  on  03/04  at  04:07 PM

Mighty Ponygirl,

Most police officers are lousy shots, FWIW.  (It isn’t necessarily their fault—if you are carrying you should practice shooting once every week or every other week at least, and ammo is expensive, and most departments don’t have adequate funding for the ammo. necessary to practice that often—so it is either don’t practice or pay for your own ammo.  Most don’t practice.)  And they’re more likely to shoot someone for a bad reason and get away with it. 

Really nice classist stereotype there of a gun owner, too.  Why are these types of arguments okay when someone is exercising a right we don’t like, again?

Comment #59: Ismone  on  03/04  at  04:10 PM

It isn’t meant to be a threat at all, just to get people talking.

In the same way that antis don’t hate women, they just love babies, I’m sure. 

I’m sure your gun nut friends are very nice.  Decent people are attacked by anxious masculinity all the time.

Comment #60: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:12 PM

I want to be clear, I’m not defending Starbucks.  But it’s safe to say their coffee isn’t as bad on average as the crap that’s been sitting on the burner at the diner for 3 hours.

Comment #61: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:14 PM

Concealed carry—with a permit, by people with no criminal convictions—I have very little problem with. Open carry, which is what’s being suggested here, is an entirely different ball of wax.

By its very nature, open carry during a political protest carries more than a whiff of armed intimidation. Should we respond by putting together armed groups of liberals to protect any left-leaning Starbucks patrons who might want to exercise their first-amendment rights to disagree with these conservative protestors? Should they wear some sort of identifying uniforms, so those patrons know who is on their side? Or could we not possibly decide not to recreate post-Great-War-Europe in every goddam coffeeshop in the country?

Comment #62: Llelldorin  on  03/04  at  04:14 PM

The only reason to openly carry a gun is to incite fear

No - in many states open carry is the only practical way to carry a gun legally.

fear is a rational response to a gun.

I don’t know how to argue against that.  You’re using the word “rational” in a way I don’t understand.  I think of fear as an irrational (or pre-rational) response to something unfamiliar, whether that unfamiliar thing is a gay person, a gun, or whatever.

people are afraid of (and despise) lethal weapons and those who conspiciously carry them

Get over it.  There is nothing morally wrong with carrying a gun.  For most gun owners they are tools, not weapons.  And sometimes you need to carry your tools from point A to point B.  I don’t see that gun owners need anyone’s permission if they want a cup of coffee on the way.

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a gun owner.

Comment #63: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:14 PM

Amanda,

I don’t think carrying makes someone a gun-nut.  If so, I guess I have anxious masculinity issues too?  Carrying a gun means you’re actually admitting you aren’t butch enough to defend yourself barehanded.  Sure, there are survivalist types, but there are also people who just grew up in rough neighborhoods.

Llendorin,

If you’re trying to expand concealed carry laws, and get people talking, what other kind of protest do you recommend?

Comment #64: Ismone  on  03/04  at  04:19 PM

It isn’t meant to be a threat at all, just to get people talking.

As a liberal who isn’t scared of firearms and visits the range now and then, I can tell you the only thing responsible gun users will be talking about is what a dumbass the civilian is for open-carrying a weapon in innocuous settings. In short, it wouldn’t inspire outrage so much as it would contempt.

my husband is one of those peaceful people who wants to carry his gun to Target, and does so legally in the state we live in

While I certainly understand your own reason for wanting to carry a weapon in self defence, I’m curious: what’s your husband’s rationale for wanting to bring a pistol into Target? It’s not the target range, after all—it’s the name-brand big-box retailer not known for attracting rough types who are a-spoilin’ fer a fight. And management frowns on customers taking potshots at the (admittedly tempting) logo.

These NRA PR stunts would be more useful if they focused on using firearms as tools in appropriate settings (and there are plenty of them, both private and public). I know craftspeople who love their saws and drills, but they don’t drag them into Starbucks and build birdhouses because “hey, that guy over there is creating on his laptop, why can’t I create here using my hardware, amirite?”

Comment #65: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:20 PM

As far as penis substitutes go, more women are armed than ever before. What does this say about them?

Most women who carry guns justify it with lurid paranoid fantasies of being stranger raped. Carrying a substitute penis literally calms the fears that you’ll be targeted because you don’t have a penis.

Phallic is so lauded in our culture and is such a powerful fantasy that it’s silly to think women wouldn’t buy into it.  It’s the same reason so many more straight women than men are “bi-curious”.  When you’re bombarded with sexualized images of women day and night, it changes your fantasies and self-image.

Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:20 PM

since they’re not all that impressive soft

Or hard, for that matter.

BABH, fear can be a rational response to danger. If you want something that’s like fear but never rational, and which cannot lead to rational behavior, try panic.

Comment #67: Aaron  on  03/04  at  04:21 PM

know craftspeople who love their saws and drills, but they don’t drag them into Starbucks

I have no problem with people leaving a power saw in the backseat of a parked car.  I would prefer that guns be either locked away out of sight or, if that’s not practical, carried into the store.

Comment #68: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:23 PM

A gun is a weapon.  It is designed to inflict harm or cause damage.  I have no problem with gun ownership, and I can live with concealed-carry laws (which we do have in my state).  But I do think these conversations require that we be forthright about what guns do.

Comment #69: Linnaeus  on  03/04  at  04:24 PM

Ismone, you lost me with your freak out of being stranger raped.  Not that it never happens, but most rapists assault women they know, and having a gun around the house probably helps more rapists than victims.  The notion that a shoot out with a stranger rapist is your most effective defense doesn’t really tailor to certain realities of sexual assault.

Like all sexual fantasies, I have no problem with gun nuttery in the proper context.  I’ve been bombarded with a lifetime of images of phallic power.  I like fast cars and guns. I like them in their place.  You shouldn’t take a race car on the freeway or a gun out of a sports shooting context any more than it’s wise to play master and servant out on the street where children can see you.

Comment #70: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:25 PM

If you’re trying to expand concealed carry laws, and get people talking, what other kind of protest do you recommend?

The kind where you focus on the actual purpose and approriate uses of the tool might help. How am I or Amanda supposed to respond to these exurban Starbucks cowboys with anything other than ridicule?

Have these yahoos walk around truly rough neighbourhoods ... hang out on the drug corners and outside crack houses with their weapons to show how effective they are for self-defence against criminals. That’s a protest I can get on board with.

Comment #71: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:26 PM

their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser

I would worry that my balls would shrivel up and die if I did<> drink Budweiser.

<i>In fact, concealed carriers are overwhelmingly law-abiding—I don’t think there is a single homicide tied to a lawful concelaed carry permit.

Wrong, Ismone.  Concealed Carry Permit holders have killed <139 people since May 2007.  Nine of these were police officers.

To be sure, some of these permits were obtained illegally.  But many were not.

And it’s a relatively small number of offenders given the fairly large number of permit holders.  But it is not accurate to say that all concealed carry permit holders are law abiding citizens.  We are all in fact law abiding citizens—until we’re not.  With guns around when this happens, it gets dangerous for everyone.

Comment #72: R. Stanton Scott  on  03/04  at  04:28 PM

In fact, I don’t suspect, I know.  The reality of violence against women is that guns are often used by abusive men to rape and threaten their partners.  I saw a survey not long ago of women in abused relationships where a gun was in the house, and the majority reported that the gun was used to abuse them at least once, probably routinely.

Comment #73: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:29 PM

fear can be a rational response to danger

I would say that danger triggers the fear of death or harm, which is itself irrational (or pre-rational).

But regardless, some bozo carrying a gun into Starbucks in order to boost his own ego poses no danger to anyone.  Therefore a fear response is irrational.

Comment #74: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:29 PM

hilarious amanda. this rings true to the repent amarillo dudes, too. like they are SO UPSET that swingers have the AUDACITY to have sex with MORE WOMEN THAN JUST THEIR WIFE when these repent amarillo guys CAN’T EVEN HAVE SEX WITH ONE WOMAN and that is just NOT GOD’S PLAN, dammit. http://howtohavesexintexas.blogspot.com/2010/03/at-war-in-amarillo-straight-peoples.html

Comment #75: JulieSunday  on  03/04  at  04:33 PM

Gracchus,

I don’t know how well the protest will work. 

As for my husband, he carries pretty much everywhere.  It’s more what happens to-and-from a lot of places, in parking lots, that is a concern.  He recognizes, as do I, that the likelihood of anything happening, ever, that would require him to even display his gun, let alone point or shoot it, is pretty tiny.  But he also recognizes that there are some situations where that is about the only way you can defend yourself, and since he can handle firearms and is a good shot, he is happier carrying than not.

Amanda,

I’ve been yelled at and threatened before, including in person, including with death.  I’m still standing, so we can talk about how serious those threats were.  I used to carry pepper spray, and probably will again.  I am seriously considering carrying because there is no other way to adequately defend myself from a physical threat from a larger, more coordinated attacker.  I don’t have “lurid paranoid fantasies of being stranger raped”; I know enough about rape stats. to know that if anyone ever does attempt/succeed to rape me, it will probably be someone I know.  (Although usually when I’ve been groped, it has been strangers.)  That’s also a pretty offensive phrase to just casually throw out there. 

I hate the fact that I don’t go hiking when my husband isn’t around because I am afraid.  That I don’t go downtown alone.  I hate remembering those heart-stopping moments when I’ve been followed and/or threatened before.

That’s why I’m thinking of carrying.  (Legally, of course.)

Comment #76: Ismone  on  03/04  at  04:33 PM

My understanding is that they are protesting something - people have been kicked out of other coffee shops because they happened to be carrying guns.

I’m a big supporter of gun rights, but having the right to own a gun doesn’t mean you have the right to bring it onto private property.  Starbucks can make their own rules.  They can refuse to allow animals inside (except service animals), they can refuse shirtless customers, they can refuse to allow smoking and drinking in their store, and they can even kick out people who are just doing something that’s too annoying to everyone else, like playing a loud radio or arguing.  All of these are other legal things that Starbucks does not have to allow if they don’t want to.

Comment #77: bananacat  on  03/04  at  04:34 PM

I have no problem with people leaving a power saw in the backseat of a parked car.  I would prefer that guns be either locked away out of sight or, if that’s not practical, carried into the store.

Locked away out of sight at home makes more sense when you’re going to the suburban strip mall to get your latte (unless you’re in Witness Protection). There’s only one legitimate reason to carry a pistol in a non-rural area, concealed or not, and that’s self-defence from other human beings.

But regardless, some bozo carrying a gun into Starbucks in order to boost his own ego poses no danger to anyone.  Therefore a fear response is irrational.

No, a bozo carrying a weapon is always cause for legitimate fear, as is anyone else who doesn’t take their powerful tools seriously.

Comment #78: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:36 PM

For the gun apologists here: so, if a weapon is no big deal, a huge knife should be perfectly ok to carry around, right?  It’s even less likely to accidentally kill somebody.  Same with swords and machetes, right?  They couldn’t possibly be intimidating.  Compared to a gun, they’re positively harmless.

Comment #79: Eric_RoM  on  03/04  at  04:38 PM

Where did I mention stranger rape? 

I am really confused.

I am afraid of physical violence, which I have been threatened with before, by strangers.  People don’t just attack women to rape them.  Sometimes they attack women because they are vicious assholes, or in the process of mugging them.  I also used gender neutral language, because although most people who commit crimes of violence are men, not all of them are.

But way to “discredit” me by suggesting that I’m harboring some kind of paranoid, lurid, sexual fantasies? fears?  I don’t even know what to call them.

Even if it were true—considering how widespread sexual assault is (even stranger sexual assault, which is about 1/4 to 1/3 of the total, depending on what stats. you’re looking at)—that’s kind of an insensitive thing to say.

Comment #80: Ismone  on  03/04  at  04:39 PM

Phallic is so lauded in our culture and is such a powerful fantasy that it’s silly to think women wouldn’t buy into it.  It’s the same reason so many more straight women than men are “bi-curious”.  When you’re bombarded with sexualized images of women day and night, it changes your fantasies and self-image.

One reason that so many women pretend to be bisexual (which does a disservice to women who truly are) is because of porn.  Since most porn is marketed to men because women’s sexuality just doesn’t exist to the manufacturers, there’s lots of lesbian porn.  Then there are plenty of women who have been trained to believe that pleasing your man is your highest goal in life, and the imitate porn.  This turns out really crappy for pretty much everyone, especially women who truly are bi and aren’t doing it just as a sexual show, and women who really just are not bi but feel pressured to pretend.  I’ve had more than one man insist that all women are bi, in an attempt to convince me to do something that I did not want to do.  I’ve tried explaining to them that porn isn’t real, but since so many women mold themselves into the stereotype, the guy’s beliefs are confirmed.

Comment #81: bananacat  on  03/04  at  04:39 PM

Eric_RoM, I’m thinking nailboard, or a pillowcase filled with doorknobs.

Comment #82: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/04  at  04:42 PM

I refer to myself as a Stout Drinking Woman, read that however you like.

Stout doesn’t have a lot of calories ... Guiness rivals many light beers in the calorie per ounce department.

Comment #83: Ms Kate  on  03/04  at  04:42 PM

@77: Catgirl, that sounds exactly like right-wing arguments for allowing private organizations to discriminate against gays and lesbians.  Yes, Starbucks can discriminate against gun owners, just as Catholic Charities or the Boy Scouts can discriminate against LGBT folks.  That doesn’t mean they should.

@78: Self defense is not the only reason to carry a gun.  Even in urban and suburban areas, owners need to transport their guns to and from the range.

Comment #84: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:43 PM

I don’t know how well the protest will work.

That’s sort of my point—if anything my absurd idea of a protest would demonstrate the opposite of what it’s intended to prove.

It’s more what happens to-and-from a lot of places, in parking lots, that is a concern.

Ok, so you live in a rough area. I can understand that to a point. But the better solution might be to shame Target into providing better lighting and security for its customers in its parking lot. Or, at the very least, providing a checkroom before an armed customer enters the store proper.

Comment #85: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:44 PM

Ismone, every time guns are mentioned on this blog, someone has to defend carrying a weapon by implying that I just don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to guns and the cultural context of them.  Every single time.

I fail to see how anyone thinks they’re going to pull the wool over my eyes on this one.  This is where I went to high school.  Here are some places where I have family.  The first time I shot a gun, I was 9 years old.  I know something about guns and who owns them and why they do. 

In my experience, there are two kinds of gun people: those who keep it in the bedroom, and those who don’t, as it were.  Keep it in the bedroom types basically see guns as toys and tools.  They go hunting, they go to the shooting range, they drink too much and shoot cans off fences.  These people I have no problem with.

Then there’s the people that carry their guns into Starbucks or get a concealed carry permit. They always have lurid tales of harassment and assault that people accept with a nod, because after all, they have a gun.  But since we’re their neighbors, we tend to wonder how it is that they live in a war zone while we live in a regular environment that yes, has some crime, but is hardly Deadwood. 

We all have psychosexual issues.  I feel that it’s fine and healthy to work them out, but in a safe environment where you know that it’s not for reals.

Comment #86: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  04:44 PM

But regardless, some bozo carrying a gun into Starbucks in order to boost his own ego poses no danger to anyone.  Therefore a fear response is irrational.

I disagree.  People who have something to prove are more likely to react to badly to a perceived insult to their manliness.  Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll go home and sulk, or maybe he’ll take it on someone, but we won’t know until it’s too late.

Comment #87: bananacat  on  03/04  at  04:46 PM

@79: Yes, carrying around knives or swords is perfectly fine, if you have some workaday reason for doing so.  Doing it in order to intimidate people is illegal - that’s assault.

Comment #88: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:50 PM

Self defense is not the only reason to carry a gun.  Even in urban and suburban areas, owners need to transport their guns to and from the range.

Responsible owners carry their target pieces in portable safes or boxes. When I say “carry a handgun,” I mean it in the exact sense being discussed here: open or concealed carry in the street for purposes of, shall we say, practical use.

Comment #89: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:50 PM

Personally, my drink of choice is cheap vodka mixed with Sunny Delight.  Shit’ll get you fucked up.  raspberry

Comment #90: leedevious  on  03/04  at  04:51 PM

Amanda at 86: Bingo.

Comment #91: Ms Kate  on  03/04  at  04:51 PM

leedevious, in high school I went for tequilla, vodka, or rum with gatorade.

Comment #92: Ms Kate  on  03/04  at  04:52 PM

Yes, carrying around knives or swords is perfectly fine, if you have some workaday reason for doing so.  Doing it in order to intimidate people is illegal - that’s assault.

What “workaday reason” is there for carrying around a pistol when you’re walking the streets of Pleasantville, unless you’re a cop?

Comment #93: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  04:53 PM

Catgirl, that sounds exactly like right-wing arguments for allowing private organizations to discriminate against gays and lesbians.  Yes, Starbucks can discriminate against gun owners, just as Catholic Charities or the Boy Scouts can discriminate against LGBT folks.  That doesn’t mean they should.

Oh, give me a break.  Are they discriminating against poor people who can’t afford clothes when they require shirts and shoes?  Are they discriminating against pet owners when they don’t allow me to bring my cat inside?  Are they discriminating against radio owners when they don’t allow people to play loud music inside?  Are museums discriminating against camera owners if they don’t allow people to bring cameras to exhibits?  Someone who is gay or lesbian always is.  Your gun is not a part of body so you don’t need to bring it inside a store if someone doesn’t want to allow them.  If you want to go into a place that doesn’t allow guns, then don’t bring your gun.  And gay people could get fired for having actual gay sex at work, just like a straight person could, so don’t try to pretend it’s anything similar to the conservative argument that gay people wouldn’t be discriminated against if they just stopped acting gay.

Starbucks is a private property and they’re not discriminating against you just because they won’t allow you to do whatever you want there.  The right to own a gun doesn’t mean that you have the right to take it onto private property.  You’re the one who is sounding like a conservative now.  It’s like when they whine about free speech violations because a blog owner bans them.  You can carry your gun and say what you want on your own property.  Store owners and blog owners have a right to make their own rules.

Comment #94: bananacat  on  03/04  at  04:53 PM

It is a PR move—this movement has actually been going on for years, and the purpose of it is to convince people that (1) carrying guns is legal and (2) normal and (3) not scary.

(1) Um, while it is under some circumstances legal, that doesn’t make it a good idea. I have every right to read Ayn Rand, but it’s only going to make me into a jerk. You carrying a gun into Starbucks or anywhere else that isn’t some kind of shooting range or designated hunting zone just makes you look like an obnoxious jackass. Its very purpose is to cause fear: to denote yourself as a potential killer. Explain what reason you have to do this that is so compelling that you need to make me and my kid dramatically less safe because you’ve brought a killing tool into a bloody coffee shop.

(2) It’s normal if you’re, say, in a Walmart on your way to the national forest during hunting season, and your car window is broken and you don’t want anyone stealing your gun. But you’d be a moron if you were hunting deer with a handgun anyway. It’s not normal to carry killing tools around and display them openly. Or, it’s only normal in the way baboons showing off their shiny asses is in baboon culture: you’re carrying that gun because you want to provoke others. Most people do not bring long, sharp knives into Starbucks, and on the rare instances when they do, they put them in locked tool boxes because that’s the safest thing to do.

(3) It’s totally scary. Why in the name of “god” are you bringing killing tools into Starbucks? There are kids here, and old ladies, for crying out loud! Store the gun in a locker at the shooting range and go enjoy your target shooting in a safe environment.

Comment #95: felagund  on  03/04  at  04:56 PM

@86: Exactly right - there are two kinds of gun owners, and Amanda’s skewering of the ego-trippers is spot on. 

There are also two kinds of non-gun-owners.  There are those who don’t really give a damn whether someone has a gun or not, so long as they’re not bothering anyone.  And then there are those who have an irrational fear of guns, and a corresponding irrational hatred of those who carry them.

Comment #96: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:56 PM

What “workaday reason” is there for carrying around a pistol when you’re walking the streets of Pleasantville, unless you’re a cop?

Oh, I don’t know.  Stopping for a cup of coffee on your way back from the shooting range?

Comment #97: BABH  on  03/04  at  04:58 PM

But since we’re their neighbors, we tend to wonder how it is that they live in a war zone while we live in a regular environment that yes, has some crime, but is hardly Deadwood. 

Now that Amanda’s moved from a place where handgun ownership is practically mandatory, like owning a pickup, to a place where you have to jump through any number of hoops to own a handgun, I wonder if she picks up any difference between the two populations she could ascribe to gun ownership and the lack thereof.

Comment #98: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  05:00 PM

I get why people think carrying even unloaded weapons in public is scary to some people—I just wanted to point out that the people who are doing it actually have a point that I think hadn’t been recognized.  Whether it is a good or bad idea, or will actually cause people to outlaw unloaded guns being carried in public, I don’t know.  (I also don’t know if it is legal to carry machetes in public, so can’t help you there, Eric.  Look it up.)

But the fact that this discussion led me to think about all the times I have been threatened in public places, physically and verbally harassed, and even assaulted, is pretty damn triggering.  I have never been seriously injured, and most of the threats were just that—threats, and probably empty ones, but thinking back on them all at once was probably a bad idea.

I do think there are good reasons to carry weapons in self-defense, and I think I am possessed of them, both because I have been threatened in the past.  And recently.

Comment #99: Ismone  on  03/04  at  05:01 PM

Pondering Amanda’s point I have a different question:

Are people fearful enough to want to carry a gun for protection too out of touch with reality to be granted that privilege?

The reason to carry your handgun into Starbucks is that you are going to the range on public transportation because you are environmentally conscious. Leaving it in the trunk of your car would mean you were irresponsibly adding to global warming.

Comment #100: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  05:05 PM

Oh, I don’t know.  Stopping for a cup of coffee on your way back from the shooting range?

Oh, I don’t know, locking your target piece in the trunk or a portable safe before you leave the shooting range would make more sense. While a showboating gun carrier in Starbucks is cause for legitimate fear, a lazy and thoughtless one isn’t much better.

I can see plenty more workaday (as opposed to leisure or hobby) reasons for carrying knives on the job or in the street, but those professionals (chefs, construction workers, etc.) usually have a healthy level of respect for their tools.

Comment #101: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  05:05 PM

Amanda,

And if you know gunowners so well, I’m just surprised that you didn’t mention that it is a PR campaign.

As for this:  “We all have psychosexual issues.  I feel that it’s fine and healthy to work them out, but in a safe environment where you know that it’s not for reals.”

Wow, really.  I think I’m kind of done here.  I appreciate that comment and the spirit in which it was made.

Comment #102: Ismone  on  03/04  at  05:07 PM

I do know a couple of guys who go about their daily business with quite large knives in sheaths on their belts. Carrying edged weapons in sheaths seems fine to me.

Comment #103: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  05:07 PM

Are they discriminating against poor people who can’t afford clothes when they require shirts and shoes?  Are they discriminating against pet owners when they don’t allow me to bring my cat inside?  Are they discriminating against radio owners when they don’t allow people to play loud music inside?  Are museums discriminating against camera owners if they don’t allow people to bring cameras to exhibits?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.  But those forms of discrimination aren’t necessarily Bad Things.  And maybe discriminating against gun carrying is not a Bad Thing either - most people here seem to be fine with it.

But saying that store owners have a right to regulate behavior on their premises doesn’t mean that every exercise of that right is a Good Thing.  I have a right to do lots of obnoxious things.  It seems to me that banning all guns from Starbucks would be a pretty obnoxious thing to do.

Of course, I have no problem with throwing out obnoxious gun owners who are actively intimidating other customers.  But I would not discriminate against gun owners merely because other customers are uncomfortable at the idea of guns (you know, the “ick factor”).

Comment #104: BABH  on  03/04  at  05:08 PM

My take on open carry or concealed carry, for that matter:

The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. The First Amendment says I have the right to point at you and laugh. Don’t like it, well, you’re the one with the gun.

Comment #105: Matt T.  on  03/04  at  05:10 PM

Are people fearful enough to want to carry a gun for protection too out of touch with reality to be granted that privilege?

It depends: does the person in question really have something to fear? Ismone does, but the Starbucks cowboys really don’t.

The reason to carry your handgun into Starbucks is that you are going to the range on public transportation because you are environmentally conscious.

Or because you can’t afford a car, which is fine. But the solution there is to carry the handgun in a locked valise or other container, not in an open or concealed holster.

Comment #106: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  05:12 PM

I appreciate that comment and the spirit in which it was made.

I guess a cigar is never just a cigar.

Comment #107: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  05:12 PM

I had to physically stop reading before my eyes bled from the contempt I get from my fellow liberals for *LE GASP!* still liking firearms.  I’m a neolithic freak who apparently equates my firearm as an extension of my own phallic shortcomings.  Too bad the reason the barrel is straight and long is for physics and not anatomy.  I see no reason to flaunt carrying a sidearm to anybody.  It’s a choice like any other and conscious decision to defend yourself with more lethal means.  If anybody would like to take the issue of rights, choice, and general outlawing up I would like to point out you can change the word “gun” to “abortion” and have principally the same argument. 

ANYTHING - they want. E.g. the national park thing. Cop-killer bullets. Plastic guns. Etc.

Carrying in a national park isn’t really a big issue, it just became a legal one.  There is no such thing as “cop-killer” bullets, black talons were just really well designed hollow points that in the 90s became a cause of choice for most anti-gun folks. It didn’t make them better at anything really, it just made me more profitable when the maker took them off the market and drove the price up before bringing them back under a new name.  There is no such thing as plastic gun either.  No firearm ever made has been plastic.  There have been nylon stocked rifles & shotguns and polymer framed firearms.  The internal workings are all still ferrous metal and thus will set off any metal detector able to be set off by more than an ounce of metal.  There has yet to be a gun made that can fool the metal detector when properly calibrated. 

I’m sure I am ranting and will get the hate replies but while I concur parading around starbucks to create some machismo response to frappe lovers is stupid I am not going to attack gun ownership as a whole since I support it and believe in the right to carry.  There is no reason anybody who abides the laws of the land should be forbidden a high velocity projectile projector.

Comment #108: Xeranar  on  03/04  at  05:15 PM

But the fact that this discussion led me to think about all the times I have been threatened in public places, physically and verbally harassed, and even assaulted, is pretty damn triggering.  I have never been seriously injured, and most of the threats were just that—threats, and probably empty ones, but thinking back on them all at once was probably a bad idea.

And shooting someone to death would make you feel better about those incidents?

You can’t just wave a gun around and the people harassing you will automatically turn around and flee.  Most will, but some of them will keep coming at you.  Some of them will try to wrestle the gun away from you and use it against you.  Are you completely, fully prepared to kill someone who you feel is menacing you?  Are you ready to go to court and defend yourself against murder or manslaughter charges?  If not, then carrying a gun is worse than useless.

I grew up around guns, and I know they’re not a magical protection against anything.  I know they can easily be used against me, especially if the person assaulting me is larger and stronger than I am.  I know that I would not be capable of killing another human being and would falter at the final moment, leaving myself open to an even worse assault.  Those are some of the reasons I don’t have one.

Comment #109: Mnemosyne  on  03/04  at  05:15 PM

Of course, I have no problem with throwing out obnoxious gun owners who are actively intimidating other customers.  But I would not discriminate against gun owners merely because other customers are uncomfortable at the idea of guns (you know, the “ick factor”).

Well, good for you!  When you open your own coffee shop, then you’re perfectly free to let any people bring guns inside, if you choose.  Until then, just follow the very simple rules that Starbucks has, or buy your coffee somewhere else.  While I personally would probably not have a no guns rule, I completely respect Starbucks’s right to do so.  If it makes their other customers uncomfortable, then they also have to worry about losing business in addition to any danger there might be.

Comment #110: bananacat  on  03/04  at  05:16 PM

Of course, I have no problem with throwing out obnoxious gun owners who are actively intimidating other customers.  But I would not discriminate against gun owners merely because other customers are uncomfortable at the idea of guns (you know, the “ick factor”).

So when you’re the barrista at Starbucks and you see a guy walk through the door holding a gun, how do you know in a split second if he’s a customer or a robber?  Starbucks stores get robbed all the time.  Heck, one time the robbers even worked the drive-thru window to get a little more money.

So what’s your plan for being able to tell in the blink of an eye if the person coming through the door with a gun is planning to rob you or is just coming in for a latte?

Really, am I the only one here who remembers that retail locations like Starbucks are robbed pretty routinely?

Comment #111: Mnemosyne  on  03/04  at  05:19 PM

I had to physically stop reading before my eyes bled from the contempt I get from my fellow liberals for *LE GASP!* still liking firearms.

Do you show off your gun in public for the sake of showing it off?  Do you go to fun little protests that are about nothing?  Do you try to intimidate people with your gun?  If not, then none of this applies to you.  There’s a difference between liking guns and using one as a penis substitute.

Comment #112: bananacat  on  03/04  at  05:20 PM

I do think there are good reasons to carry weapons in self-defense, and I think I am possessed of them, both because I have been threatened in the past.  And recently.

And it would have been awesomer if the people doing the threatening had been legally and socially allowed to be carrying a gun? At least if your harraser is unarmed you can run - guns are range weapons, running isn’t going to help.

Comment #113: rivki  on  03/04  at  05:23 PM

I had to physically stop reading before my eyes bled from the contempt I get from my fellow liberals for *LE GASP!* still liking firearms.

Tell me, after you’ve got that first hand nailed to the crossbeam, how hard is it to get that second one tapped down good and tight?

Comment #114: Matt T.  on  03/04  at  05:24 PM

If anybody would like to take the issue of rights, choice, and general outlawing up I would like to point out you can change the word “gun” to “abortion” and have principally the same argument.

Indeed. I’m all pro-choice, but I’d look askance at a “protest” that involved women making a spectacle of deliberately getting knocked up and then heading over to the clinic (one not surrounded by anti-choice wingnuts) to make their point.

I suppose these Starbucks yahoos would see it as effective, though.

Comment #115: Gracchus.  on  03/04  at  05:28 PM

I don’t like guns and I’m not going to ever own one.  And I think it’s pretty self-evidently clear that wanting to be able to open-carry isn’t really about the 2nd Amendment, it’s about intimidating people.  There’s no other reason to open-carry than to make the statement “don’t mess with me, I’m strapped.”  None.  It’s not about transporting your gun to and from the range, that’s just a convenient, bullshit excuse; there are other ways to transport your gun.  No, you want to wear it out in the open for all to see because by gum the law allows you to and you’re going to show all those other people that you’re powerful.  You want to intimidate them.

Comment #116: liberalrob  on  03/04  at  05:31 PM

Also, “a gun is just a tool” is another bullshit evasion.  A gun is a WEAPON.  You can’t dig a hole in the ground or build a bridge or hang a picture or paint your fence with your 9mm automatic.  All you can do is project a slug of metal at high velocity towards something with the intent to damage it, and if it’s a living thing that means wounding/maiming/killing.  That’s why even an unloaded gun is intimidating and threatening; it has the power to wound or kill, so it makes the silent threat that you better not upset the possessor.

Comment #117: liberalrob  on  03/04  at  05:38 PM

What’s interesting about the Starbucks commandos is that they’re basically making Starbucks into a dogwhistle to identify each other with. Sort of like the gay community had to do. So instead of going to that particular bar over in the west village, or having your ear pierced a certain way, or dropping your love of Judy Garland into casual conversation as a way of identifying yourself as a member of a subculture, we have guys who are going to that particular Starbucks next to the mall, and having their gun holster a certain way, and dropping their love of Glenn Beck in a casual conversation as a way of identifying themselves as a member of a different subculture.

Perhaps what needs to be done is to start up some sort of rumor - or ads on the right groups - that men carrying these handguns into Starbucks are bears cruising for effeminate gays…

Comment #118: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/04  at  05:56 PM

PiaToR—as I mentioned after that paragraph, all that’s going to do is lead to gay bashing. When you accuse a man like that of being queer, he’s going to go beat someone up to prove he isn’t. So .... let’s not go there, even if the idea of freaking them out makes us giggle.

Comment #119: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/04  at  06:01 PM

And then there are those who have an irrational fear of guns, and a corresponding irrational hatred of those who carry them.

It’s not hatred, it’s fear of the irresponsible gun owner/carrier.  How am I, peaceably sipping my overpriced latte, supposed to tell the difference?  Open carry is by definition showing that you’re daring someone to “do something”.  If you were conceal-carrying, then you could argue that you have it for your personal safety.  But displaying it moves the motive from safety to intimidation.

Haven’t there been studies done showing that someone who is armed is more likely to get into a fight - and often a deadly one - than someone who is not, if for no other reason than he already has an I’m-looking-for-a-fight attitude?  Not to mention, as Mnemosyne did, that a woman with a weapon often has it taken away from her and used against her.

None of this is an argument against responsible gun ownership.  It’s the “responsible” part I’m worried about.

Comment #120: NobleExperiments  on  03/04  at  06:01 PM

Also, “a gun is just a tool” is another bullshit evasion.  A gun is a WEAPON.

Weapons are tools. In fact our very first tools were weapons; clubs, stone axes, obsidian knives, pointy sticks. And I can brain a motherfucker with a shovel if I have to.

But I’m totally with you on the bullshit excuses for cowards to carry handguns in public. “I’m too stupid to have a secure location to store my mankiller” is hardly comforting.

Comment #121: Sarcastro  on  03/04  at  06:08 PM

I’m recalling the Burger King incident where the robber was shot by a patron.  My immediate response was not, “Thank goodness the customer was armed”, but “Now robbing a BK of a couple of bucks is a death-penalty offense?” and “It’s a damned good thing the other patrons weren’t armed - there’d be a circular firing squad by a bunch of (probably) ill-trained cowboys and a lot of dead teenagers.”  The first time an actual thief showed up at a Starbucks that these yahoos are trying to “protect”, they’ll probably all shoot each other.

If there was a robbery attempt, how would the police be able to tell the different between the thief and all the other folks with handguns?  And how many of these cowboys would voluntarily lay their guns down and hit the dirt when ordered to do so by the cops…. AND how thrilled would they be to be taken downtown in handcuffs while the cops sorted it out?

Comment #122: NobleExperiments  on  03/04  at  06:10 PM

I always wonder if gun nuts are as paranoid about getting hurt in other, much more likely, scenarios as they are about getting attacked and having to use their gun to defend themselves. Seriously, more than a hundred thousand people a year die in household accidents. Do you have this same you-can-never-be-too-sure attitude about wearing socks on the kitchen floor? Because it can be very slick. But being careful around the house isn’t as sweet as frightening everyone everywhere you go with the silent implication that you could blow their brains out just a-danglin’ from your hip.

Comment #123: Jenny Dreadful  on  03/04  at  06:17 PM

Now that Amanda’s moved from a place where handgun ownership is practically mandatory, like owning a pickup, to a place where you have to jump through any number of hoops to own a handgun, I wonder if she picks up any difference between the two populations she could ascribe to gun ownership and the lack thereof.

Yes, there is a difference, interestingly in risk perception. 

1) People from gun intensive cultures are far more likely to have completely overblown ideas about how much crime they’re likely to encounter.  Even in cities I know well—-mainly Austin and El Paso—-where you have the same right to own and carry guns as elsewhere, there was a lot fewer people doing that than in the rural or suburban areas, because actually living in an urban hellhole really educates you on what street crime looks like…..and how introducing more firepower won’t help.  Of course, there are a bunch of rednecks in these cities, who get off on carrying guns around, but they tend to live closer to their homes and cars and more in fear and less in knowledge.  And even then, when they’re going into a situation where crime is more likely—-a bar, an empty street—-they are less, not more likely to pack.  The danger of having gunplay is too great for them.

It was the people from the rural and suburban areas who were soaking in guns, who carried them in their cars and on their person, and were afraid of getting mugged.  They also would do stupid shit, like when we’d go to El Paso and go to the mall in high school, like put their money in their bra.  I would explain that on the off chance that you are mugged, the best idea is to minimize contact by handing your money over as quickly as possible, but they didn’t understand crime.  Real crime, that is.

2) People in NYC that have very little experience with guns find them more frightening than they probably are.  The gun nuts aren’t wrong on this, though it’s a minor overblown perception compared to the overblown fear of crime that many gun nuts have.  I think that a lot of my friends here would be unnerved and possibly titillated a bit if they saw the casual way some of my friends back home and I would handle guns.  Which I get, though.  Like I said, guns are titillating.  That’s the point, though it pains some people to admit it.

Comment #124: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  06:19 PM

Really, am I the only one here who remembers that retail locations like Starbucks are robbed pretty routinely?

I want to single out Mnem’s point as an example of urban thinking—-when you’re living where crime actually happens, most people’s tendency is to see the problem of putting more firepower into the situation.

Mnem, most gun nuts I’ve known think it’s preposterous that anyone would think they’re there to rob the place.  They think this because they’re white, and they have racist ideas about what criminals look like.

Comment #125: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  06:22 PM

Weapons are tools. In fact our very first tools were weapons; clubs, stone axes, obsidian knives, pointy sticks. And I can brain a motherfucker with a shovel if I have to.

True enough.  The categories aren’t mutually exclusive, but referring to guns as tools sometimes strikes me as a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand intended to make the “weaponness” of guns more abstract.  And I don’t think that’s particularly useful in discussions about guns and gun rights.  Again, I’m not bothered by someone owning a gun.  Just don’t tell me it’s not a weapon.

Comment #126: Linnaeus  on  03/04  at  06:25 PM

What’s interesting about the Starbucks commandos is that they’re basically making Starbucks into a dogwhistle to identify each other with. Sort of like the gay community had to do.

HA. So these protests are the new Minneapolis Airport Men’s Bathroom Third Stall from the Right? Sweet.

Comment #127: shakahi  on  03/04  at  06:25 PM

The Houston Chronicle article on this a couple of days ago went into it a little more.  The writer went deeper, speaking to people doing the weapons-carrying who said they were doing it on purpose BECAUSE of Starbucks’ image as a liberal oasis.  This isn’t about safety or any sort of rights’ issue, it’s about conservatives trying to piss off liberals and intimidate them.

And I really wish the trolls would get the message that, just because Amanda is a woman and a feminist, that doesn’t mean she doesn’t know what she’s talking about in concern to guns.  She and I share a similar upbringing (at a similar time) in Texas.  She knows what the hell she’s talking about in respect to guns.

Comment #128: bouj  on  03/04  at  06:32 PM

People in NYC that have very little experience with guns find them more frightening than they probably are.

This is due, at least in part, to the fact that openly carrying a gun is so rare in NYC. To do so (outside of legitimate law enforcement) thus violates social norms. Guns are deadly weapons, so caution is sensible when dealing with people carrying them. Put those guns into the hands of people who are already visibly violating social norms and you’re left wondering what else the gun-toter is going to do.

NYC residents just aren’t (on the whole) exposed to legal gun ownership the way Texans are, so all our associations with guns are criminal. If you associate guns with grandpa who taught you to shoot as a kid you’re likely to assume that gun-toters are benign. We generally associate guns with gang violence and so we assume that gun-toters are criminals. Add to that the ideological/partisan divide between the pro-gun and the anti-gun and most New Yorkers assume that anyone openly carrying is not going to like our liberal/minority/feminist/not-real-American selves.

Comment #129: rivki  on  03/04  at  06:42 PM

Yes, I also love the people who say that a gun is a tool. It’s true, but it’s a tool used for killing and maiming people and animals. A guillotine is also a tool, but the purpose it serves is pretty grim. I picture all these guns-are-tools people building doghouses using a gun instead of a hammer, or using a gun to stir their spaghetti sauce. Wasn’t there some eighties TV show where a guy shoots a hole in a piece of toast to make eggs in a frame?

Comment #130: Jenny Dreadful  on  03/04  at  06:44 PM

I haven’t read the comment thread, but i have what I think is a good idea. Each Starbucks store should have an umbrella stand near the front door full of ludicrously oversized, pink plastic handguns. It should have a big sign on it saying “For your personal protection inside this Starbucks.” Maybe the guns should also be adorned with flowers and feathers. But they should definitely be pink.

Comment #131: FearItself  on  03/04  at  06:45 PM

PiaToR—as I mentioned after that paragraph, all that’s going to do is lead to gay bashing.

Spoilsport.

How about arranging a big mass event where they get together and pack their gun-weilding paranoid selves into a Starbucks - and then sneakily set off some firecrackers in their midst.  Might be a bit hard on the servers, but it would be entertaining.

Comment #132: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/04  at  06:47 PM

How about arranging a big mass event where they get together and pack their gun-weilding paranoid selves into a Starbucks - and then sneakily set off some firecrackers in their midst.  Might be a bit hard on the servers, but it would be entertaining.

Better yet, how about volunteering them for combat service in a real war zone? Most of the suburban gun owning types here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the worst crime-ridden parts of NYC back when stereotypes of crime-ridden NYC still had some truth to them in the 1970’s and 80’s…...much less in a confrontation with Imperial Japanese army soldiers during WWII…even considering they are actually better armed than many Chinese army soldiers during the war…...

Comment #133: exholt  on  03/04  at  07:00 PM

Each Starbucks store should have an umbrella stand near the front door full of ludicrously oversized, pink plastic handguns.

“Pink Pistols” is in fact the name of a group of shooters who are “gay, armed, and fabulous.”

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Comment #134: Hector B.  on  03/04  at  07:27 PM

The Houston Chronicle article on this a couple of days ago went into it a little more.  The writer went deeper, speaking to people doing the weapons-carrying who said they were doing it on purpose BECAUSE of Starbucks’ image as a liberal oasis.  This isn’t about safety or any sort of rights’ issue, it’s about conservatives trying to piss off liberals and intimidate them.

Yep.  It’s yet another douchebag move on the part of conservatives where they play the “Nyah-nyah you can’t stop me ‘cause it’s LEGAL!” game.  I can’t really blame Starbucks for being unwilling to play their little game.

Again, I think that a retail establishment THAT HAS CASH ON THE PREMISES has an interest in preventing random armed people from casually walking around their place of business, but when you’re a douchebag, practical issues like that just don’t register when it comes up against the prospect of pissing off liberals.

I think Amanda’s right—it never occurs to these guys that anyone would think they’re criminals when they walk around with a gun in public because they’re white and everyone knows white people never commit crimes.
/eyeroll

Comment #135: Mnemosyne  on  03/04  at  07:51 PM

I’m ambivalent about guns. I don’t want to use them but I feel that at least part of the (militant) Left should be armed as a deterrent to the paramilitary-minded thugs who daily let out more and more their drive to eliminate anyone to the Left of Pat Buchanan. Even though I’m a left-anarchist I’m mostly worried about our political opposition rather than the state itself (guns VS tanks doesn’t look like it would help much).

The nutjob fundies have their own mercenary army (Blackwater is owned by a Christian theocrat). Think about that for a tad, then think about Chile or El Salvador.

Comment #136: BlackBloc  on  03/04  at  08:01 PM

Mnem,

Just as carrying mace for years hasn’t made me mace anyone, even when threatened, nor would carrying a gun make me shoot anyone.  Somehow or other, I manage to conform my conduct to the law, and don’t go around threatening or assaulting people.  That would not change were I to carry a gun, and it is because I am concerned and think deeply about all the downsides of carrying that I don’t, yet. 

I know we don’t know eachother, really, but this thread has been illuminating, since I’ve posted here on and off for something like five years.  It seems impossible for people to conceive that thoughtful, rational, cautious people could look at the same issue (whether to carry a gun or other weapon) from different perspectives, perhaps with different information and different priorities, and reach different conclusions.  Without having mental health issues or being a bad person. 

For expressing a different opinion than the prevailing majority, I’m either a lurid rape fantasist or a killer.

As it so happens, I at least as well-trained as most police officers when it comes to firearms—both use and safety.  Most of the people I know who carry concealed are ex- or current military, so yes, to the doubters on the thread, at least the ones I know are aware of what it is like to be in harm’s way.  (And no, I don’t think it is a good idea for someone with PTSD to carry, if someone is about to jump in with that.)

I just thought it was odd to jump all over this (probably really stupid) PR strategy without explaining that it was one.  Which is why I brought it up.  Not because I think this is the awesomest protest ever (I’m obviously not participating), but because it puts a different spin on things.

Comment #137: Ismone  on  03/04  at  08:19 PM

“Catgirl, that sounds exactly like right-wing arguments for allowing private organizations to discriminate against gays and lesbians”

As far as I know, Starbucks dosent forbid people who own a gun from going there, just from bringing a gun into the place

now, if the right wing was just defending the right of private organizations to forbid gays and lesbians from having sex on thier tables, you would have a point

Comment #138: jefft452  on  03/04  at  08:32 PM

Just as carrying mace for years hasn’t made me mace anyone, even when threatened, nor would carrying a gun make me shoot anyone.  Somehow or other, I manage to conform my conduct to the law, and don’t go around threatening or assaulting people.

No, having a gun doesn’t force you to shoot anyone.  However, if you’re carrying a gun without knowing in your mind at all times that you may have to use it someday to kill someone, then carrying it is pointless, because you’ll freeze up at the last minute.  It’s a tool, and if you can’t bring yourself to use the tool for its purpose when you need to, it’s worse than useless.  It’s not a toy or a magical talisman that will protect you.  It’s a deadly weapon that’s designed to kill.

Honestly, it sounds like you might have good reasons for wanting to carry a gun because you have specific people who might want to try to come after you.  That doesn’t mean that all reasons to carry a gun are equally good, like the douchebags in question who want to open carry in Starbucks to try and scare the liberals.  There’s a difference between a judge who wants to carry a gun because he’s been getting death threats and a guy who wants to carry a gun because he’s convinced that he’s going to get mugged in the middle of his small town where there hasn’t been a mugging in 10 years.

Comment #139: Mnemosyne  on  03/04  at  08:36 PM

So when you’re the barrista at Starbucks and you see a guy walk through the door holding a gun, how do you know in a split second if he’s a customer or a robber?

Well, if they’re holding the gun in their hand and, like, pointing it at people, then robber.  If they are carrying a gun in a holster in plain sight, probably customer.

Either way I guess I wouldn’t really care.  Outside of warfare, I’ve never met anyone who wanted to kill me.  Even including warfare, I’ve never met anyone who wanted to kill me for no reason.  The times I’ve been mugged, the muggers have been content to take my money and leave me unharmed. 

Maybe it’s a failure of imagination, but I can’t imagine being scared by someone just because they’re carrying a gun.  I don’t much like having guns pointed at me, but that’s a different matter.

Comment #140: BABH  on  03/04  at  08:43 PM

As far as I know, Starbucks doesn’t forbid people who own a gun from going there, just from bringing a gun into the place

This is the second or third person to be under the wrong impression.  In fact, Starbucks does allow patrons to carry guns in their stores, if they are in compliance with State law.  Some other coffee shops have kicked gun-carriers out, but not Starbucks.  This is not civil disobedience, just douchebaggery.  And as Amanda points out, it is counterproductive douchebaggery, as it is more likely than not to provoke a backlash that will lead Starbucks to change its policy.

Comment #141: BABH  on  03/04  at  08:47 PM

Well, if they’re holding the gun in their hand and, like, pointing it at people, then robber.  If they are carrying a gun in a holster in plain sight, probably customer.

Uh, you think that people who come in to rob your store have the gun out the instant they walk in so you know exactly what they’re planning to do?  I guess you’ve never worked retail.

Either way I guess I wouldn’t really care.

Really.  You wouldn’t really care if a guy walked into your store, stuck a gun in your face, and demanded that you open the register and give him all the money.  Because, yawn, people point deadly weapons in your face and demand your money all of the time, so no biggie.

Unfortunately, these three Starbucks employees found out the hard way that people with guns are kinda dangerous, especially when they walk in and demand all of your money.  But, hey, three people dead, no skin off your nose, right?  They shouldn’t have been stupid enough to let themselves get robbed in the first place.

Comment #142: Mnemosyne  on  03/04  at  08:51 PM

It seems impossible for people to conceive that thoughtful, rational, cautious people could look at the same issue (whether to carry a gun or other weapon) from different perspectives

That’s not true.  I pointed out that everyone has psychosexual issues.  I’m not interested in breaking people into “rational” and “irrational” groups.  I think a lot of people who are otherwise very rational have things they’re irrational about.  Guns is a biggie.  It just turns rational people into people displaying some odd beliefs.  It’s fascinating, honestly.

Comment #143: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  08:57 PM

“Some other coffee shops have kicked gun-carriers out, but not Starbucks”

immaterial, the claim was that Starbucks was discriminating against gun owners like the wing nuts discriminate against gays

even those “some other coffee shops” dont know or care if you “own” a gun, not even dont ask dont tell, just that you dont bring it inside

Comment #144: jefft452  on  03/04  at  08:57 PM

Or, to put my point into statistical form: there are over 400,000 armed robberies in the U.S. every year.  There are about 10,000 gun-related homicides, and 50,000 gun-related injuries per year.  There’s not much reason to be scared of armed robbers - they don’t want to kill you, they just want the money.

Common sense dictates that you not carry more money on your person than you can afford to lose.  And if you are a business, carry insurance.

Comment #145: BABH  on  03/04  at  08:58 PM

For expressing a different opinion than the prevailing majority, I’m either a lurid rape fantasist or a killer.

See, this is a strawman argument.  You’re getting bent out of shape, and saying stuff that’s just not true, because your emotional button about guns was pushed.  You’re attached.  I get it.  I’ve known epic numbers of people who are irrationally attached to their guns and their fantasies about the world being dangerous and they being able to control it with the totem gun.  People who are otherwise very rational!

Comment #146: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/04  at  08:58 PM

As odd as the gendering of a lot of other food and drink is, alcohol’s gendering is severely fucked up. I wonder how many men secretly want to drink a well-made margarita but are worried that their balls will shrivel up and die if they drink anything but Budweiser…

I’ve been on a few dates with guys who mixed beer and liquor (a very bad thing in my opinion) apparently because, since they got to the bar first, they couldn’t order a “girly” drink; they had to order beer.  It seemed like it was only after I showed up and ordered a cocktail, that they had enough cover to order a cocktail for themselves.  Ironically, their cocktails would often be more “girly” than mine.

Comment #147: keshmeshi  on  03/04  at  09:33 PM

Ismone @137-

Uh, guns are a wee bit more final than mace. That’s why mace and pepper spray are better “self-defense” tools and neither is a good substitute for just taking a self-defense class or developing confidence.

I’m in a subgroup that’s by percentage more likely to be attacked by strangers in public than most any other (trans females). I have also been robbed at gunpoint and I’ve publicly shamed a neo-nazi on a public bus.

Let’s say I’m a wee bit more likely than you to ever have to defend myself and I don’t carry so much as a knife.

Because carrying a weapon is an implicit threat and an immediate raising of the stakes. With nothing, you can can deescalate confrontations if they can be. There’s room for negotiations or escapes. But a weapon raises the stakes considerably and unless they unilaterally let you off the hook, you’re pretty much in a position to either use it to end someone’s life or have it used against you.

As any old weaponmaster will say: “Don’t draw your sword lest you’re prepared to use it”. The same is true of guns.

On your earlier point about “normalizing” guns:

Call me a dirty filthy gun-hating hippie if you must, but I’d rather they weren’t “normalized”. We tried that for a good number of years in the “Old West” and it was pretty shitty to live in for anyone not openly psychotic. I rather like the system where the majority of people aren’t armed and where people who want to pretend their living in the Old West have to do what everyone who likes swords does and join a historical re-enactment society.

And speaking as a member of the LGBT community, a part that is brutally murdered at rates obscene to our relative size, your comparison offends. LGBTs face real discrimination. Gun nuts get made fun of for their anxious masculinity and unfounded paranoia. If anything, they are like the religious right, who think it’s discrimination if people laugh at their paranoid notions about the gays and they are otherwise treated like nutjobs.

Basically call me the next time someone is beaten to death on the street for owning a gun, otherwise, you’re probably better off not pretending this is some principled protest against discrimination.

Comment #148: Cerberus  on  03/04  at  09:40 PM

I had to physically stop reading before my eyes bled from the contempt I get from my fellow liberals for *LE GASP!* still liking firearms.

You’re getting a lot of contempt, but it’s not for liking firearms. As a fellow Second-Amerndment-loving gunfondler, my brother, let me say to you in earnest: Stop being such a fucking moron.

This isn’t about the right to bear arms. It’s about a bunch of bozos who, as Amanda says, have issues trying to do a pasty, paranoid white-guy version of what as snotty teenage nerds we referred to as Freaking The Mundanes.

Starbucks is doing the exact right thing, which is to shrug and say “Okay, you’re not doing anything illegal. Do you want whole milk or skim in that latte?” It completely deprives the Look At My Steel Penis crew of the angry attention they want.

I can think of one group of people who have been practicing “open carry” for a long time, and that’s the police. They do so in part because they work in a job where it is very likely they will have instant access to their guns, and in part because they want the gun to be visible as a reminder. Not of the Second Amendment, by the way.

Comment #149: mythago  on  03/04  at  10:42 PM

2 sad real-world examples of anxious masculinity:

1) Wingnut friend Chris (male) who hated being named Chris: thought it was prissy to ask to be called Christopher, but being a Chris meant people wouldn’t automatically know his gender by just his name.

2) Former boss (exec at movie studio), whose friends harangued him into changing his diet.  The convincer: a longtime bachelor friend who’d finally gotten married and had a kid gently suggested that he needed to change his ways in order to stay alive to watch his kids grow up.  Wife relieved someone had finally gotten through to him.  Went to fancy blood doctor, who said he metabolized sugar quickly so allowed lots of fruits in his new diet.  (No red meat!?  What?!)  Boss told following joke widely to those who asked how the diet doc thing had gone: that eating fruits would “turn him gay.”  Bonus: would send back any plate of food that had anything green on it - even a sprig of parsley - and his 3 young sons would emulate him by refusing to eat any vegetables besides potatoes or corn.

Comment #150: vernonlee  on  03/04  at  11:08 PM

Cerberus,

“And speaking as a member of the LGBT community, a part that is brutally murdered at rates obscene to our relative size, your comparison offends. LGBTs face real discrimination. Gun nuts get made fun of for their anxious masculinity and unfounded paranoia. If anything, they are like the religious right, who think it’s discrimination if people laugh at their paranoid notions about the gays and they are otherwise treated like nutjobs.”

I’m not sure what comparison you’re referring to—I didn’t compare gunowners to people who are stigmatized and in danger as a result of that stigma, whether gay or lesbian or not. 

Amanda,

I’m not really that emotional about the issue—but I got accused of bringing up stranger rape as a justification for carrying, by you.  Even though I didn’t.  For anyone following along, those comments would be Amanda’s 70 and my 80.  Then Mnemosyne asked me if I would have felt better had I been carrying when threatened in the past had the people who threatened me been shot dead, which implies I would have shot them.  That is her comment at 109, although her comment at 139 definitely takes a more measured response.

It isn’t a straw man when it is actually happening.

Comment #151: Ismone  on  03/04  at  11:10 PM

Ismone, I call bullshit. Right now in CA you can’t carry a loaded weapon, as you said yoursel. How is carrying an unloaded weapon would have helped in any of those threatening situations you mention? I went to high school in Brooklyn. We had metal detectors because of gang shootings in other schools in our area. I knew that there were kids carrying guns to my school before the detectors were installed. I liived in NYC back when it wasn’t all that safe and I’ve worked with homeless youth with extensive criminal histories, including sexual offences.

To make a long story short, I have first-hand experience with urban violence and folks who perpetuate it and somehow I’ve never felt threatened to the point that carrying seemed like a good safety measure! That’s because, as Amanda and others pointed out, people who have real experience with, and understanding of how urban violence works (e.g. New Yorkers) never, ever feel that adding civilians with guns to the mix is a good idea. What if the parents of kids in my Brooklyn neighborhood decided to pick up their kids from school and bring some guns with them? You know, “for safety”? How do you think that would’ve ended up?

Amanda is spot-on. Psychosexual issues and myths around carrying guns have nothing to do with reality of how violence really works.

Comment #152: elena  on  03/04  at  11:17 PM

I was also raised around guns and have shot guns many times myself, but I think that people who carry guns around with them are either intentionally or subconsciously trying to intimidate people around them. The intention doesn’t matter, really, because the result is that people feel uncomfortable around you, because every little interaction has now been made more serious, more consequential, because you have a gun, and can shoot me dead if you don’t like what I say. I’m not uncomfortable around guns at the shooting range, but I am uncomfortable when the guy in front of me in Blockbuster is carrying a gun. The fact that this guy envisions a scenario where he’s gonna have to defend his life doing such a routine thing and has come prepared to do so makes me feel uncomfortable. The stakes of everything, no matter how mundane, are artificially inflated when you bring a gun into the situation. I don’t see why people can’t just have their guns and shoot them at the shooting range or on hunting trips—they ALSO need them at Home Depot and the fucking McDonalds.

Comment #153: Jenny Dreadful  on  03/05  at  12:48 AM

Our environments really shape how we see guns.  In Memphis, it seems that guns just make bad situations worse. Some time ago[maybe a year or two ago], two suburbanites got into a dispute over parking. Now, one of the men was armed, and shot the other.  Now, parking disputes happen- but with a gun involved, it’s easy for things to get out of hand. That’s what I see in a lot of violence here- things that would have been just a scuffle end up being murder because people use their weapons inappropriately.

Comment #154: shannon  on  03/05  at  01:06 AM

elena,

I don’t know what you’re calling bullshit on.  My understanding was that the CA protesters were doing this to protest how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit.  I also understood it was part of a long-standing nationwide movement to open carry to raise awareness about guns not being bad (in the minds of the awareness-raisers).  This was missing from the OP, which is why I brought it up.  I also conceded that it might be a really dumb way to “raise awareness.”

I’m not participating in this protest, nor did I say I was in California, so it doesn’t matter that people in CA open-carrying an unloaded weapon can’t defend themselves.  If I carried, I would do so concealed, in my own state, pursuant to a lawfully issued concealed-carry permit.

I’ve also been exposed to violence in urban areas.  My reaction to that, and my husband’s reaction to that, has clearly been different than yours.  I’m actually not really that afraid of gang members, because I haven’t been threatened by anyone who either was (to my knowledge) or appeared to be in a gang.  There were some white supremacists, once, who made me feel a little tense for a while, but that’s the closest I’ve gotten to being afraid of gangs.  (They had the tats, so if they didn’t belong to a gang, they were certainly trying to make people think they did.)

That’s been the entire thrust of everything I’ve posted on this thread.

Comment #155: Ismone  on  03/05  at  01:36 AM

That’s what I see in a lot of violence here- things that would have been just a scuffle end up being murder because people use their weapons inappropriately.

Firearms homicides have been declining for quite a while now. As many alcoholics die from liver disease.

Comment #156: Hector B.  on  03/05  at  01:37 AM

In my area, they seem to be holding steady. Yes, in other areas, they might be declining, but here people are using weapons in a stupid stupid manner every single day.

Comment #157: shannon  on  03/05  at  01:45 AM

I’ll have a venti Carmel Macchiato and a box of hollow points….

Jeebus, what kind of dickless redneck do you have to be to think that packing heat in a Starbucks is a political statement??

Comment #158: Jack Cluth  on  03/05  at  02:00 AM

I’m trying to think of *any* day-to-day situation that could be improved by adding a gun… and I sure can’t think of any. If you’re carrying a gun you are going into a situation saying “I expect for this to turn into a situation where I will want/need to kill someone”—and don’t even try to bullshit like you’d just waggle the handle meaningfully at the ebil robber and give him a Sundance Kid scowl and he’d take off in a little cartoon cloud of dust. Like many people have said upthread, guns are designed to kill people and if you aren’t intending to kill someone (or at least keep your killing-someone options very flexible) then don’t carry a freaking gun.

And if you *do* leave the house everyday in the mindset where you wouldn’t mind killing someone, and think the chances are pretty good that you will want to kill someone sometime that day, I don’t want you in my fucking Starbucks. Buy a fucking coffeemaker you independent, wild rebel you.

Comment #159: Bagelsan  on  03/05  at  02:48 AM

Bagelsan,

Not one person in my concealed carry class, except for one of the instructors, had ever fired their weapon.  Several had displayed their weapons, and had attackers retreat.  (One of them was a woman, out with her children, who had three teenagers pull knives on her.)  She didn’t even have to point it at them.

If someone ever tries to attack and harm me, then yes, the situation would be improved by me having a gun, particularly if they are also armed.  No, people probably shouldn’t go around carrying guns lightly, but it is an individual right, and most people who exercise it don’t go around committing murder.

Comment #160: Ismone  on  03/05  at  03:30 AM

Ismone, apparently you’re not from the same neck of the woods as I (Oregon). If you have a gun, you’d best be prepared to kill somebody. “Displaying” your weapon is likely to get you dead.

But, look, I don’t feel good about the way everybody piled on you about this. It’s a shitty world, and it’s not fair that you even have to think about this stuff. Try buying a tazer, and take some martial arts classes. You don’t have to kill somebody to make them stop, regardless of your weight. Even so, some people are too stupid to know when to call it quits, and I dearly hope you never have to make that decision.

Comment #161: banisteriopsis  on  03/05  at  04:55 AM

No one but the gun owner knows if they are carrying an unloaded piece to make a statement, if they are coming to kill one of the workers for personal reasons, or if they just want to stick the place up.

With the economy the way it is, robberies in my area have gone up. Oh, and gangs have been expanding territories, and those boys aren’t too bright about choosing quiet places without witnesses to murder each other.

Of COURSE, the cashiers and barristas should call the police when they see someone come in with a gun. They have a duty to protect themselves and their customers.

I’ll back Ismone on the idea that Concealed Carry Permit owners aren’t going to cause problems (usually). But this is not the same thing.

In fact, the blustering machismo of carrying an unloaded gun into a Starbucks seems likely to attract the type of ignoramous who didn’t double check to make sure there wasn’t a round still inside. Who would end up with an accidental discharge.
There’s a world of difference between properly trained people who need extra protection and yahoos swaggering it up.

By the way, my husband loves his fedora, wears it often. A fedora is not a gun. It is a hat. When we enter a bank, he takes his hat off. Because—duh, robbers try to avoid the cameras with hats, so banks don’t want you to wear hats.
So why should asshats show off their guns?

Comment #162: Samantha Vimes  on  03/05  at  05:37 AM

Several had displayed their weapons, and had attackers retreat.  (One of them was a woman, out with her children, who had three teenagers pull knives on her.) She didn’t even have to point it at them.

Good for her.  Now, if I find a story where a woman out with her children and who was armed was wounded or killed before she pulled, or despite having pulled out her weapon, that would prove that carrying was absolutely worthless, right?

Just as a reference point, between 1994 and 2003, over fifty law enforcement officers in the United States, who regardless of their shooting ability have had at least some training on controlling their weapon, were shot by their own guns.

Concealed carry, fine, if you feel there’s a legitimate need.  But open carry?  If you actually got into a situation where you might need a weapon…you’ve just made it easier for someone to take your weapon.  The only real reason, and although I’m Canadian I do love shooting and think some of our gun laws are nuts, to open carry in such situations as the coffee shop one, or the shopping mall, or wherever, however legal it might be, is pure intimidation and general douchebaggery.

I live in a location where people go armed (albeit with rifles and shotguns) all the time, either for hunting or as protection when heading out on the land: grizzlies and polar bears are real threats.  I see people zipping by on snowmobiles and ATVs all the time with rifles slung over their shoulders, and the RCMP drive by them without a second glance.

I can count the number of times, on one hand, I’ve seen someone enter a store or other such public location carrying their weapon.  And in many cases they would have legit reasons why they would: they’re picking up a last-minute bit of supplies before heading out on the land, or have to pay for gas, after filling up.  If they are in a group, as is common, then one person goes in, without a weapon.  If alone, they’ll ask someone to do their transaction for them.  Or they’ll go home, drop of the gun, come back, and then go retrieve their gun.

It’s not because they’re worried they’ll panic people (since the vast majority of people in town either own a firearm themselves, or members of their famiily do).  It’s not because they’re concerned about being mistaken for a crook (I don’t think there’s been an armed robbery in decades).  And even though we have had several suicides and one triple homicide a while back, it’s not because people are excessively concerned about gun violence.  It’s because it’s simply common politeness not to carry a weapon into that kind of public venue.

How would you feel if someone walked up to you in a store and the first thing they did was announce how many black belts they had and did you know that they could kill you by opening up your carotid artery with the plastic forks available in the small bin on the counter?  Or some big, athletic looking guy surveyed you and continually referenced how many pounds of force it would take to break your elbows or your neck?  Or that a few seconds with the chemicals on the shelf and they’d have you asphyxiating and vomiting as your lungs burned?  That would get both pretty fucking annoying and make you wonder what the hell their problem was.  That is exactly the equivalent of civilian open carry in that social setting, only allowing the iron on your hip proclaim how you can fuck someone up instead of needing to explain it to them verbally.

Comment #163: KeithM  on  03/05  at  05:39 AM

@25: I have a penchant for huge, tacky steel buckles more often seen above the crotches of Kiss fans, but since I do not, biologically speaking, have a ranch, this is totes okay.

Budweiser tastes like piss. Those who drink it need to be introduced to a good German ale or Irish stout. Though that’d probably be gay ‘cause they’re European, or something.

Comment #164: Princess Rot  on  03/05  at  09:47 AM

Keep your fashion the hell away from my facial hair, thank you very much. smile

Comment #165: Dunc  on  03/05  at  10:52 AM

I am always intrigued by these sorts of posts, because I am australian and do not get american gun culture at all, I think I know one person not in the police who owns a gun, and that is for hunting. Its just so weird to me.

Comment #166: Leah Jaclyn  on  03/05  at  11:07 AM

There’s not much reason to be scared of armed robbers - they don’t want to kill you, they just want the money.

Oh yeah, there’s nothing to worry about here.  I’ll just lose all the money I’ve made today and won’t be able to pay the rent on the building.  But at least they had the courtesy to not kill me so no worries!

Comment #167: bananacat  on  03/05  at  11:45 AM

If there are specific people threatening you, I can understand why you might want to carry a gun with you—that’s understandable. But barring extreme circumstances like that, you’re doing it to frighten people. I like how someone upthread was saying that just having the gun with them would make people less likely to attack them, that displaying the weapon without discharging it would help them somehow, as if it were a magical amulet or something. My dad told me when I was a little kid to not ever point a gun at anyone I didn’t intend to kill. He also told me that every gun is a loaded gun. The seriousness of owning a gun isn’t something that’s lost on me. It’s an immense responsibility, and one that I don’t want, frankly. Guns don’t bother me, but the type of people who insist on carrying them everywhere they go even though they’re no more threatened than anyone else really do scare me, though. It’s this attitude like, “What? It’s just a gun. It’s just a tool. Big deal, I want a coffee, and I want to bring my gun, what of it?” that really scares me. It’s a fucking tool used to kill people. Even if someone broke into my house and was robbing me blind, I don’t think I’d shoot and kill them. I don’t want anyone to take my stuff but I’m not going to go around killing people to protect my fucking Wii.

Comment #168: Jenny Dreadful  on  03/05  at  01:49 PM

I’m sorry Ismone, but the idea that you became a gun apologist because you’ve been harassed and verbally assaulted and physically assaulted is unfortunate. You seem on the brink of agoraphobia if you don’t have your gun and boyfriend in tow. Please do talk to someone about that before your fear consumes you completely.

I can’t think of a single woman I know who hasn’t been verbally assaulted or threatened. I have even been physically assaulted. I still think the idea that guns protect anything but one’s ego is silly, at best. And, dangerous, at worst.

You keep drilling down about how you feel threatened and this is why you think guns are OK…But, you’re missing the point. These people don’t feel threatened. They are the ones doing the threatening.

I don’t like guns. I was raised in an urban area where guns do nothing but kill. I now live in TX and see law-abiding citizens use them responsibly. I also see plenty of asshats who think I need to justify my position but they’re completed justified in theirs…One of these said asshats once lost a loaded pistol in his home…luckily his child did not find said pistol…i’m reminded daily why gun ownership is largely horseshit in this neck of the woods…

My point is that it is WHOLLY justified for people to bristle at the idea of open carry in completely innocuous, safe places…It’s just dick swinging then…

Comment #169: TexasKaren  on  03/05  at  02:06 PM

that displaying the weapon without discharging it would help them somehow, as if it were a magical amulet or something. My dad told me when I was a little kid to not ever point a gun at anyone I didn’t intend to kill. He also told me that every gun is a loaded gun.

Well, the only example I know of where that took place was when Professor Avenger was walking with Mother Avenger late at night from a BART station to their car, when a guy started running towards them, and there’s nobody else around.

Dad opened his coat to show he was carrying, and the guy abruptly ran the other way.

I have to say it’s a one-off incident, and certainly not worth citing as a reason to carry a gun.  Dad was carrying originally because he was the guy who picked up and kept the receipts from the local community theaters’ box office before they were deposited on Monday, and he extended carrying to when he traveled out-of-town, because you never know, etc., etc.

Of course, it’s questionable whether he’d have shot the guy if push came to shove, because we once discussed the subject, and he said because he had been taught safety measures to take around guns to such an extend that he doubted that he could shoot someone even if it became necessary.

TexasKaren, right on!

Let me add that it would probably be more useful to learn the technique and skills of knife fighting, it can even be deadly if done with a box cutter if you know the right places on an opponents body to slash….....

Comment #170: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  03/05  at  02:25 PM

Ismone, so you’ve taken a concealed carry class, but have you taken a class about setting boundaries and self-defense?  I have (shoutout for IMPACT), and learned that a small woman can take down a large man by, quite frankly, fighting dirty (one of the slogans is that he can’t protect all his vulnerable areas and still attack you).  Similarly, I have learned to take down multiple attackers and attackers with weapons, all with my rather unimpressive physical strength.

Now maybe you have done this, but you keep implying that a gun is the *only* way a woman can defend herself against a large man.  It honestly isn’t.  Going to an IMPACT graduation can really show both men and women that we’ve been fed a bill of goods about women’s vulnerability.

Comment #171: RP  on  03/05  at  02:34 PM

Yep, nobody legally carrying a gun around has ever harmed anyone. Nothin to see here, folk. Move along.

http://www.csgv.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150:mass-shootings-by-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-in-2009&catid=47

Comment #172: vitaminC  on  03/05  at  03:16 PM

Jenny Dreadful, right on! It’s not the guns or gun owners in general that are scary, it’s the people who insist on carrying them everywhere they go and claim that somehow they are more threatened and have more need to protect themselves than the rest of us! I just think that someone so paranoid and hyper-vigilant that their perception of level of danger becomes so divorced from reality is a dangerous person and the last thing we need is for them to have a gun! There are two choices here: either they are engaged in a dick-swinging intimidation performance or they seriously think they live in a war zone. Either way, these people aren’t engaged in a “peaceful protest” and they are definitely not safe or responsible gun owners.

Comment #173: elena  on  03/05  at  03:41 PM

I am australian and do not get american gun culture at all, I think I know one person not in the police who owns a gun, and that is for hunting. Its just so weird to me.

Gun ownership was more widespread in Australia before they were confiscated (“bought back”) in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Rather than keep guns away from disturbed individuals, the Aussie Parliament decided the path of least resistance was to take guns away from everyone.

nobody legally carrying a gun around has ever harmed anyone

Everyone listed at that link had a history of mental illness and/or violence, except Major Hasan, whose CCW permit apparently lapsed a decade ago, when he was still sane.

Comment #174: Hector B.  on  03/05  at  04:03 PM

Either way, these people aren’t engaged in a “peaceful protest” and they are definitely not safe or responsible gun owners.

Again, like Critical Mass, the gun owners show up en masse, emphasizing how numerous they are. They don’t care if other patrons are intimidated any more than the Critical Mass riders care if, by practicing unsafe and irresponsible behavior such as riding through red lights, they inconvenience motorists or pedestrians.

The whole point is to be in people’s faces.

Comment #175: Hector B.  on  03/05  at  04:13 PM

Hector, I’m not sure that I’d equate the motivation here. Sure, both groups want attention, but bringing gun to starbucks does not = riding your bike a bit recklessly. It’s a different sort of attention they crave.

Comment #176: elena  on  03/05  at  05:17 PM

Agree with Elena. AND, if they were confronted and told to stop, they’d squawk about how they WERE peacefully protesting…

Comment #177: TexasKaren  on  03/05  at  05:26 PM

I’m ambivalent about guns. I don’t want to use them but I feel that at least part of the (militant) Left should be armed as a deterrent to the paramilitary-minded thugs who daily let out more and more their drive to eliminate anyone to the Left of Pat Buchanan. Even though I’m a left-anarchist I’m mostly worried about our political opposition rather than the state itself (guns VS tanks doesn’t look like it would help much).

Not an anarchist, but I share your reasoning here. At the moment I’d say that no individual among us has the duty to be armed against their own preference, but I would recommend that you get trained in firearms use and safety now, though, just in case you need that experience later. You don’t need your own firearm to take classes; most instructors will provide one.

Comment #178: asdf  on  03/06  at  01:33 PM

Being afraid and complaining isn’t really the way to go about it.  Remember, these men are in constant need of reassurance that they aren’t women (because they were raised to believe that was the worst thing you could possibly be), and so by sending signals that you find them alarming or scary is rewarding the behavior.  The behavior needs to be linked to undesirable outcomes for them.  Laughing and pointing at gun wielders could work—-because it makes them feel the gun is the source of their emasculation—-but is dangerous for those who do it, because the targets do have guns.  Making fun of them on the internet or on “The Colbert Report” helps, but it’s limited because of the anxious masculinity ban on reading anything but right wing tirades online or watching anything that’s not sports or Glenn Beck.  Perhaps a sign in Starbucks that says “The Bigger The Gun, The Smaller The Cock”?  Sure, some parents might complain about the wording, but it’s better than having a bunch of men who clearly feel they have something to prove running around with guns, isn’t it?

I think you’re quite right, Amanda. It can make sense to display a gun when you’re in a potentially dangerous situation, but like mythago said, these assholes are doing it for “Freaking The Mundanes.” As much as I would like our liberal allies to take our right to bear arms more seriously, this is not a serious instance of political advocacy, and there’s no obligation to respect people who show off their guns (or cars, or jewelry) for attention.

Honestly I think pointing and mocking is a good response. You can just as easily get your ass kicked for mocking a street racer, but in both cases the incidence of violence is rare, and the return on investment high.

Comment #179: asdf  on  03/06  at  01:48 PM

RP & others,

I appreciate the helpful self-defense tips, yes, I’ve taken self-defense and martial arts classes, and I’ve read Gavin de Becker too, who is great about boundary setting.  I disagree with you about the feasibility of anyone taking out multiple armed attackers in real life, but the whole fighting dirty thing is crucial.  One of my (unfavorite) self-defense stories is about a friend of mine who was in women-only military self-defense training.  At the close of the class, they ran a scenario and were told to go all out—no holds barred.  So my friend, the victim, was cussing and screaming and being very aggressive all the while defending herself and her instructor told her afterwards that she should back it off a little.  And my friend told me and we both thought, is she effing kidding?  The scenario is that the attacker is trying to kill you—and you should defend yourself in a *ladylike* fashion?  WTF?  Fortunately, my friend realized the “advice” was bullshit, but holy jeez.  I would not suggest that *all* women are incapable of defending themselves without weapons (and I never made it about “men” either—just people who are larger and faster and stronger than me—which is a lot of people).  But with my crap reflexes, small size, and the fact that I’ve gotten specific threats against me (and that is likely to continue once I start doing pro bono DV TRO stuff again), it is something I am considering. 

TexasKaren,

The armchair psychology is interesting, but no, I’m not remotely agoraphobic.  The whole thing about going out with men is that I’ve notice that if I’m out with either a large group of men, or one sufficiently large dude, I don’t tend to get hassled, at all.  (FTR, I am guessing going out with my college buddy who powerlifts and is six even and also a woman would have the same affect.)  The reason I brought up threatening behavior against me is not because I’m obsessed with it or anything, but to explain why a fellow liberal might want to carry.  I also don’t know whether I get threatened more than other women, or just wrong place wrong time, or I talk about it more.  I may get coded by some people as nonwhite, and maybe that is part of it.  (I’ve pretty much exclusively been threatened/hassled by white people.)

But I see your point about (even unloaded) open carry and how intimidating it can be to everyone in the surroundings.  This may be a PR strategy that gets open carry outlawed.  And I don’t know that I mind that.

Comment #180: Ismone  on  03/06  at  01:53 PM

Yes, the movement is trying to normalize carrying weapons here in the Sf area. They arranged a family trash cleanup day, to show the press—who just happened to be there—how peaceful, responsible and family oriented they all are. How could we hate on these lovely folks with kids who just wanna carry their guns into Target?

See, that makes a lot more sense. Picking up trash doesn’t mean getting up in anybody’s face. If they want to say “look, we are gun owners and responsible citizens,” that’s a fine way of doing it. Hanging out at Starbucks isn’t contributing to the community; it’s just annoying.

Comment #181: asdf  on  03/06  at  01:55 PM

Perhaps Starbucks should also set up a firing range.  Becoming a decent marksman with a handgun takes time and money for ammo.  Then post the results of their weekly marksmanship contest up for all to see. 

Let these yahoos embarass themselves a few times at the firing range and the next time they’ll leave the pistol at home.

Comment #182: triviadude  on  03/06  at  03:27 PM

Oh, give me a break.  Are they discriminating against poor people who can’t afford clothes when they require shirts and shoes?

Yes.

Comment #183: asdf  on  03/06  at  04:11 PM

I always wonder if gun nuts are as paranoid about getting hurt in other, much more likely, scenarios as they are about getting attacked and having to use their gun to defend themselves. Seriously, more than a hundred thousand people a year die in household accidents. Do you have this same you-can-never-be-too-sure attitude about wearing socks on the kitchen floor? Because it can be very slick. But being careful around the house isn’t as sweet as frightening everyone everywhere you go with the silent implication that you could blow their brains out just a-danglin’ from your hip.

That’s a good point. Humans are very poor at evaluating risk, in general. Are anti-gun nuts as paranoid about getting hurt in car accidents as they are about getting shot? Because tens of thousands of US Americans are killed each year by automobiles, far more than by firearms.

Comment #184: asdf  on  03/06  at  04:26 PM

I have to admit this post is funny in some ways and flat out disturbing in others. And in between very few people have a grasp on what is actually happening.

The only reason people are open carrying in Starbucks (or any place in California) is because under California’s current laws concealed carry permits are only given at the local sheriff’s discretion.  As a result, only the white, wealthy, and well connected have permits. If you’re a person of a dusky complexion, no permit for you. You didn’t make a nice big donation to the sheriff’s campaign to get reelected? No permit for you either. So open-carry is essentially the only legal way most people can carry a gun for self-defense.

These open carry sit-ins aren’t designed to scare the liberals so much as they are designed to show that carrying a gun doesn’t magically transform one into a criminal, no more than wearing a badge magically makes on into an “Only One” trusted/skilled enough to carry a gun.  Like someone else said, it’s essentially normalization campaign. It’s not like the people carrying guns into Starbucks are wearing camo and rifles over their shoulders. They’re just regular people. People who if they weren’t carrying a gun, you’d never notice them.

And with this country’s rich history of police brutality and police shooting not only innocent people, but themselves, it’s pretty laughable that anyone would think that the only people who should be allowed to openly carry guns are police. If you’re going to criticize those who openly carry a gun, at least criticize the most blatant and dangerous offenders: The Police.

Starbucks has done the pragmatic thing and decided to not take a side in the battle by acquiescing to local law. Like any good corporation, their goal is to make money, not political statements.

As for the talk of anxious masculinity and penises, it’s neither new nor novel. I think it’s only logical that if the open carrying of a gun is an expression anxious masculinity then the criticism of an openly carried gun is anxious femininity, fear of penises, and maybe even a bit of penis envy. Hence all those feelings of intimidation.

Comment #185: Gerald  on  03/06  at  04:28 PM

There’s not much reason to be scared of armed robbers - they don’t want to kill you, they just want the money.

If they just wanted the money, they could take it without being armed.

No one but the gun owner knows if they are carrying an unloaded piece to make a statement, if they are coming to kill one of the workers for personal reasons, or if they just want to stick the place up.

You could say that about everyone who walks through the door. The reality is that we live in a country where you don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t. Anyone who walks through the door of a Starbucks could be potential murderer or robber.

Either way, these people aren’t engaged in a “peaceful protest” and they are definitely not safe or responsible gun owners.

If they weren’t peacefully protesting, the police would detain them for disturbing the peace. As for being safe, they’re being as safe as someone carrying a gun can be. They are no more dangerous than the thousands of police officers who walk among us with loaded guns. As for being responsible, that’s a matter of opinion. They aren’t waving the guns around, pointing them at anyone, are behaving in any way that would pose a danger to those around them. That’s responsible to me.

Because carrying a weapon is an implicit threat and an immediate raising of the stakes. With nothing, you can can deescalate confrontations if they can be. There’s room for negotiations or escapes.

Incorrect. Having a weapon does not preclude deescalating a situation.

If you’re carrying a gun you are going into a situation saying “I expect for this to turn into a situation where I will want/need to kill someone”

Same as above. Carrying a gun doesn’t mean you’re forced to use it.

Maybe it’s a failure of imagination, but I can’t imagine being scared by someone just because they’re carrying a gun.

Once you get outside of places like California and the Northeast, most people aren’t afraid of someone who is just carrying a holstered firearm. Not only are most people not afraid, most people don’t care.

How would you feel if someone walked up to you in a store and the first thing they did was announce how many black belts they had and did you know that they could kill you by opening up your carotid artery with the plastic forks available in the small bin on the counter?
...
That is exactly the equivalent of civilian open carry in that social setting, only allowing the iron on your hip proclaim how you can fuck someone up instead of needing to explain it to them verbally.

Not even close. Believe it or not, guns can’t talk. Any perceived message you get from them is purely your own creation. Now if the person with the gun was talking about how they could pop your head from 50 yards, then i’d agree with your analogy.

Comment #186: Gerald  on  03/06  at  04:29 PM

Not even close. Believe it or not, guns can’t talk. Any perceived message you get from them is purely your own creation.

That’s a bullshit argument. Burning a cross in someone’s lawn also isn’t talking, but the message is loud and clear. That’s not to say that there’s a moral equivalence between the two, but it does demonstrate that a message can be relayed without talking. Don’t use obviously bullshit arguments. If you weren’t being deliberately dishonest, then you were being a fuckwit.

When I lift my shirt to display my gun, there’s a message, and no one yet has failed to understand it.

These open carry sit-ins aren’t designed to scare the liberals so much as they are designed to show that carrying a gun doesn’t magically transform one into a criminal,

Then it’s piss-poor activism, with a complete lack of understanding the target audience. Average people do not think “oh, look, those people carrying guns are just like me.” They think “why the fuck are these assholes bringing guns to my favorite coffee shop?”

If they want to portray gun owners in a positive light, the show of picking up trash might actually work. Or carrying guns while rescuing puppies. Or carrying guns while building houses for poor people. Or carrying guns while walking to raise money for breast cancer. You know, things that actually portray other people in a positive light. Hanging out at the coffee shop is just conspicuous consumption, displaying one’s gun there even more so. It’s stupid and obnoxious.

Comment #187: asdf  on  03/06  at  05:09 PM

Yes, Gerald…It’s penis envy. We’re clear now. Good.

And, as for the police…I’d be happy if the bullshit gun culture had never formed and we had English-bobby style peace keepers. But, we don’t. And, if the idea is to keep the bad guys at bay with the big guns we show to everyone, then the cops still needs em…Gun wielding is a power trip…Some cops get off on that…Like some of the assholes at Starbucks…

And the idea that the folks walking into Starbucks are people of color making a protest because they can’t get permits? PuhLEEZE. You’ve got to be kidding. That’s a joke of a joke…Silly to even mention and you KNOW disingenuous.

True. Carrying a gun doesn’t automatically transform you into a criminal. It doesn’t make you a man, either. Few of the people who will participate in this inane “movement” will be women…THIS IS DICK SWINGING. You go right ahead and call it what you want…

Insome…Appreciate the level-headed response. And, less armchair quarterbacking than recognition of the fear you stated of going downtown or hiking without a firearm or a man. I completely understand the fear and reticence and maybe you have had more negative experiences but it’s still disconcerting to hear…And you do seem to mention it more than some would, so perhaps you are coming from a place of better-than-even odds of something happening when you go out alone…If that’s the case, I sincerely apologize…

Comment #188: TexasKaren  on  03/06  at  06:05 PM

ASDF - “That’s a good point. Humans are very poor at evaluating risk, in general. Are anti-gun nuts as paranoid about getting hurt in car accidents as they are about getting shot? Because tens of thousands of US Americans are killed each year by automobiles, far more than by firearms.”

I’m anti-gun. Guns kills things. Don’t need a gun to do ANYTHING else…Need my car to get to work, run errands, get the kid from school, go to the airport, bring shit home from IKEA…You get the idea.

I always hated the “X kills more people than guns” argument…Um, well, OK. But nothing else designed with the express purpose of killing kills more people than guns…At least, not that can be owned by the individual…

Comment #189: TexasKaren  on  03/06  at  06:38 PM

But nothing else designed with the express purpose of killing kills more people than guns.

The genetic fallacy is of little comfort to those people who have lost friends and loved ones in automobile crashes.

Comment #190: asdf  on  03/07  at  12:08 AM

#147- yes, am aware of my own countries history, but thanks for that little recap. Let’s see after that incident how many shooting rampages have there been? None? Oh yeah thats right none*.

Australia never really had a gun culture, even before the buy back, well not in western australia anyway, I can’t talk from experience for the eastern states previous to the buy back, but they certainly don’t now.

*which isn’t to say there’s no violence, as the fatal stabbing of one student by another in bunderburg, but it tends to be the violent passion kind, rather than the cold blooded kind

Comment #191: Leah Jaclyn  on  03/07  at  02:09 AM

Oh please, ASDF. I never said it was…Cars do more than kill. That’s my point. Where I live, getting anywhere is next to impossible without a car. I can live everyday for the rest of my life without a gun.

You’re being disingenuous and you know it…

Comment #192: TexasKaren  on  03/07  at  02:13 AM

TexasKaren,

Honestly, I think it is hard to tell whether fear (mine or anyone’s) is reasonable or not—most people don’t die untimely deaths, either in accidents or by murder, most people aren’t seriously injured in fistfights.  That’s why I think these conversations are so difficult—we want to be safe, but we don’t want to be scared out of fun activities, but we don’t want to feel like idiots if something bad happens and we weren’t taking precautions that we could have taken. 

By carrying or getting a dog or taking martial arts or reading Gavin deBecker—are people being wise or giving into a culture of fear, perhaps even the same culture of fear that causes others to fear “terrorists” and therefore people of certain colors or ethnicities.  (I don’t, and I’m really against profiling, but should I really pat myself on the back if my fear is equal-opportunity-or, like I said, mostly directed at whites because they’re the ones that behave in a threatening manner?) 

In the gun conversation—there’s also an interesting intersection between what usually happens when I talk about bad shit that has happened to me in public in a progressive space.  (As to the first, way less sympathy and way more claims that I’m paranoid than I’m used to getting when this convo. comes up in the framework of violence against women/women being excluded from public spaces by harassment.)  I don’t mean to put this all on you—I really appreciate our dialog, even if I was initially a little snippy.

I can understand the progressive negativity towards guns, which are often symbolic of aggression, because we don’t want people starting fights and abusing their greater strength or power—whether that power comes from class or gender or gender identification or physical abilities or a position in some hierarchy (police, pols, diplomats, execs., whoever).  A lot of times people who are attracted towards aggression don’t have the best motives for it.  But that also gets into the meta-inquiry, whether with guns or with foreign policy or nationalism—of how bad do we have to be?  And when we get to a certain level of “badness” or aggression, when have we crossed the line from doing what we have to do to survive in a world with some bad people, to being bad ourselves?

Sigh.  (And yes, I know the pacifist answer to this one.  But I don’t think I’m a pacifist.)

Comment #193: Ismone  on  03/07  at  07:10 PM

Ismone—Sorry you found my initial comment snippy…Wasn’t meant to be so I do apologize…For the record, however. I did not say you were paranoid. You stated some very specific limitations to your activity and things you enjoy doing because of your concerns about your safety. The reality is that all women are prey. It’s a disgusting reality we deal with every day…We are at risk for harassment and worse each time we leave our house and sometimes even when we think we’re in our own personal safe havens (homes, dorm rooms, wherever).

I’ve lived in urban areas and dealt with plenty of shit. At no point did I think a gun would/should protect me. I just never found it logical. We’ll agree to disagree on that. I’m not sure I buy the “good people need guns because the bad guys have them” argument.

The responses to your discussion around your personal experience in more progressive settings may be that you’re dealing with more women who live more often in bigger cities who choose to live independent lives that put them in more precarious situations (as far as being alone at night etc.) much like yourself.

They have dealt with so many of the same things but haven’t let it dictate their actions. Again, your mileage varied and I get that but there’s just no way to know what anyone has been through so let’s not assume your experiences have been so much worse. You don’t know whether or not that’s true.

Especially when you bristle at people making assumptions about you…

I’m not a pacifist either but this has exactly zero to do with pacifism. I do believe there are times when it’s necessary to take up arms in defense of groups/nations/people who can not defend themselves.

But, let’s get real about the “statement” here. I don’t really give a rat’s butt if someone packs heat or not. I don’t need to see it when I’m at Starbucks sipping my damn latte.

Comment #194: TexasKaren  on  03/07  at  11:49 PM

I meant my initial response was snippy, when I wrote “even if I was initially a little snippy,” with the comment about armchair psych.

As for why I’ve bristled, you can probably guess if you review some of what happened upthread—I have appreciated your openness.

And my point about personal experience, which was badly edited, is that when I discuss these kinds of experiences in a thread discussing violence against women, or how women are excluded from public spaces, usually I get a lot of support.  Here, I’ve gotten some accusations of agoraphobia, being afraid of stranger rape, and hints that I’m paranoid (not saying the last one came from you.)

Yes, other women react differently even to the same threats—but I don’t know where the rightness or wrongness is.  Am I realistic and are they in denial because its easier not to acknowledge that some really scary things have happened?  Or am I paranoid?  Or are we both weighing the risk vs. the costs of action, and coming to different results because of different priorities.  Or is my risk higher?  Who knows.

Comment #195: Ismone  on  03/08  at  12:17 AM

Let’s see after that incident how many shooting rampages have there been? None? Oh yeah thats right none*.

If Australia wants to treat its citizens as though they all were potential mass murderers, who am I to contradict them? You’ll have to pardon me if I weigh your comments as coming from someone who’s probably dangerously disturbed—I mean you can’t be too careful.

Treating a pump shotgun as though it were some weapon of mass destruction I disagree with: at most it can hold five shells—three when plugged for bird hunting.

The big lesson from Australia (and from the UK after the frustrated pedophile created the Dunblane massacre) is that gun registration is the prelude to confiscation, once some nutcase acts out.

Comment #196: Hector B.  on  03/08  at  03:38 AM

And, as for the police…I’d be happy if the bullshit gun culture had never formed and we had English-bobby style peace keepers. But, we don’t. And, if the idea is to keep the bad guys at bay with the big guns we show to everyone, then the cops still needs em…Gun wielding is a power trip…Some cops get off on that…Like some of the assholes at Starbucks…

I’d love to live in that Utopian world as well, but it simply doesn’t exist. Even the English police are starting re-arm certain officers to combat an increase in gun related crimes.

And the idea that the folks walking into Starbucks are people of color making a protest because they can’t get permits? PuhLEEZE. You’ve got to be kidding. That’s a joke of a joke…Silly to even mention and you KNOW disingenuous.

People of color aren’t the only people denied concealed carry permits. Like I previously said, it’s white, wealthy, and well connected people who get permits. That means that not every person denied a permit is a person of color. There are also a lot of white people who can’t get permits because they either haven’t generously donated to their local sheriff’s election campaign or their local sheriff is just an asshat who doesn’t give anyone permits.

True. Carrying a gun doesn’t automatically transform you into a criminal. It doesn’t make you a man, either. Few of the people who will participate in this inane “movement” will be women…THIS IS DICK SWINGING. You go right ahead and call it what you want…

The only people perpetuating the myth that a gun makes someone into a man is those who are against carrying guns. As much as they like to think that people carry guns to compensate for something, their obsession with equating guns to penises is their way of assuaging their own insecurities and shortcomings.

Comment #197: Gerald  on  03/08  at  05:02 AM

That’s a bullshit argument. Burning a cross in someone’s lawn also isn’t talking, but the message is loud and clear. That’s not to say that there’s a moral equivalence between the two,

Not only is there no moral equivalence, there is no logical equivalence either. Historically, cross burning has been used exclusively  to send a message, while holstered handguns have not. That’s not to say that a holstered handgun can’t send a message, but it’s not always the purpose of carrying a holstered handgun. And even if a holstered handgun is being used to send a message, again, the message is ultimately up to the person interpreting it. While the person carrying the gun may have the intention of putting forth a message about increasing awareness for the right to carry, someone else might think it’s a threat. On the other hand, the message put forth by burning a cross has never really been misinterpreted by any party on either side of the issue.

Then it’s piss-poor activism, with a complete lack of understanding the target audience. Average people do not think “oh, look, those people carrying guns are just like me.” They think “why the fuck are these assholes bringing guns to my favorite coffee shop?”

Then it’s just as piss poor as the civil rights sit-ins of the 60s. Those scared/pissed off a lot of people too.

If they want to portray gun owners in a positive light, the show of picking up trash might actually work.
...
Hanging out at the coffee shop is just conspicuous consumption, displaying one’s gun there even more so. It’s stupid and obnoxious.

Which they’ve also done. And while you think it’s stupid and obnoxious to carry a gun into Starbucks, it’s still legal along with a host of other activities that other people find stupid and obnoxious.

Comment #198: Gerald  on  03/08  at  05:05 AM

This whole issue is really quite simple.  Starbucks has repeatedly stated that they have a policy regarding the carrying of firearms.

That policy is that the Company welcomes paying customers so long as they are abiding by applicable laws.  What’s wrong with that?

What did you anti-gunners expect?  Did anyone really expect a national chain to change their policy from one of tolerance to one that says “those people” aren’t welcome in our stores?  Did you really expect Starbucks to alter their policy to actively discriminate against customers?

It’s not like the folks Open Carrying are going into Starbucks, being disruptive, screaming, yelling, threatening people or otherwise making a scene.  They’re simply going in and enjoying a cup of coffee.  They are not even protesting, merely patronizing Starbucks as a means of saying “thank you for sticking to a policy of tolerance and non-discrimination.”

It’s the anti-gun folks who are being unreasonable, disruptive, and holding protests outside of starbucks stores.  Even going so far as to lie on the ground outside of Starbucks stores in protest.  The Brady Campaign won’t stop bugging Starbucks in an attempt to get them to ban guns, despite repeated statements by the company that it will not change it’s policy.

A policy that says “if you’re abiding by state & local laws we welcome your business” is by no means unreasonable.  The people hysterically protesting such a common-sense policy are the crazy ones.

http://www.facebook.com/ProtestEasyGuns

http://www.facebook.com/ProtestEasyGuns

Comment #199: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  04:05 PM

Few of the people who will participate in this inane “movement” will be women…THIS IS DICK SWINGING. You go right ahead and call it what you want.

So I guess the many women I spent a long weekend with in Phoenix last year were engaging in “dick swinging” because they open carried?  Funny, because they lack the required equipment.

BTW - is it also “dick swinging” when a cop walks around with a gun?  What about a plainclothes cop?  Is it “dick swinging” if we carry concealed instead?

Comment #200: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  04:12 PM

TexasKaren says,

“I still think the idea that guns protect anything but one’s ego is silly, at best. And, dangerous, at worst.”

And you’re basing this statement on what exactly?  Facts?  Rational, objective reality?  I think not.

Americans use their personal firearms every day to protect themselves, their families, others, their homes and their property.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

If a serial rapist broke into your house and you had a gun would you refrain from using it because “guns don’t protect anything?”  Since guns don’t protect anything I suppose you wouldn’t call the police to come save you either, since you’d be calling for a man with a gun to come save you.  Since “guns don’t save anything” logically calling the police won’t do any good.  Better make sure you have an unarmed neighbor on speed-dial to come save you instead right?

Comment #201: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  04:25 PM

I don’t really give a rat’s butt if someone packs heat or not. I don’t need to see it when I’m at Starbucks sipping my damn latte.

So you don’t car if people carry or not, but you don’t want them to carry at Starbucks because “you don’t need to see it?”

That sounds an awful lot like “I’m not racist, I just don’t want black folks at my movie theatre, in my supermarket, or attending my kids school.”

Comment #202: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  04:31 PM

Oh please, ASDF. I never said it was…Cars do more than kill. That’s my point. Where I live, getting anywhere is next to impossible without a car. I can live everyday for the rest of my life without a gun.

You’re being disingenuous and you know it…

It is you who’s being disingenuous, TexasKaren. It doesn’t matter that cars do more than kill. If the fact that guns kill renders them unacceptable, then it also renders cars unacceptable. If the fact that you find cars useful renders them acceptable, then the fact that I find guns useful (in protecting myself from gay-bashing) renders them acceptable.

You want cars, so you defend them. You don’t want guns, so you denounce them. Fine, but don’t pretend you’re doing anything more than articulating your preference, and don’t pretend that it isn’t a double standard.

Comment #203: asdf  on  03/08  at  04:51 PM

Gerald, you’re a moron.

Listen. I am pro-gun. I want to expand the right to concealed carry, throughout the entire United States and the whole world. My advice is offered toward that goal. If you don’t want to listen, that’s your problem.

Fuck you sincerely for trying to make an equivalence between carrying a gun in Starbucks and the civil rights sit-ins. Those were done with the intent of making people uncomfortable, because racist bigots should be uncomfortable, and the attention was being drawn to the fact that people of color were being denied service in those establishments. The assholes hanging out at Starbucks are not being denied service there, rather they are being accommodated. And they are taking advantage of that hospitality to freak out the other customers, performing a lazy inactivist demonstration where they are in no danger of being arrested. It isn’t civil disobedience, and it isn’t a matter of Starbucks denying them rights. There is no comparison, and you do a disservice to the cause when you draw such blatantly false parallels.

Comment #204: asdf  on  03/08  at  05:07 PM

And Mike W.,

Did anyone really expect a national chain to change their policy from one of tolerance to one that says “those people” aren’t welcome in our stores? ... That sounds an awful lot like “I’m not racist, I just don’t want black folks at my movie theatre, in my supermarket, or attending my kids school.”

Your comments constitute an apologia for white supremacy, by minimizing the damage of racist discrimination. Just like comparing abortion to the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial. If white supremacy is only as bad as preventing gun owners from bringing their guns into a store, then white supremacy isn’t very bad at all.

Your absurd rhetoric and desire to be a martyr does no one any good. Shut the fuck up.

Comment #205: asdf  on  03/08  at  05:13 PM

Gotta love how tolerant and civil liberals are….

The anti-gunners protesting this are trying to get a private company who is currently advocating a policy of tolerance to change that policy to one of outright discrimination.

Do you folks get that?  Anti-gunners are telling Starbucks they should discriminate against paying customers who are exercising their rights in a lawful manner.  They’re trying to get a private company to discriminate against people simply because they don’t like that group of people.  That’s outright bigotry.

That is functionally no different than a group telling Starbucks “We know it’s perfectly legal for blacks to patronize your business, but we want you to discriminate and refuse them service.”  In that case, Starbucks should tell them exactly what they’ve told them in this case.  “If it’s legal we welcome their business.”

I drew a logical comparison.  That does not in anyway minimize the discrimination blacks have suffered.  If you don’t agree with the comparison then by all means, provide a logical refutation of it.

Comment #206: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  05:31 PM

Just like comparing abortion to the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial.

Someone has a problem with logic.  Someone could compare abortion and the Holocaust while still believing that the Holocaust occurred.  Making a comparison would in no way consitute a denial of the event being used in the comparison.

My comment did not (explicitely or by inference) minimize the wrongs done by white supremacists or the discrimination suffered by blacks, nor did it apologize for those egregious injustices or deny that they occurred.

I’m amazed at the level of irrationality needed to read ANY of that into my comment.

Comment #207: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  05:56 PM

The anxiously male are on red alert, which is where you have to fight off the impending femininity by whipping out your cock and waving it off directly with phallic power. 

Funny, only anti-gunners like Maricotte anthromophize guns into phallic symbols, which they are not.  A gun is a tool, an inanimate object, it has nothing to do with my anatomy.  Of course Maricotte’s ignorant, bigoted characterization falls flat on its face since plenty of women carry guns as well.

Comment #208: Mike W.  on  03/08  at  06:04 PM

Gotta love how tolerant and civil liberals are….

Fuck you, you racist piece of shit. You deserve no civility, and there is no obligation to tolerate the intolerant.

Do you folks get that?  Anti-gunners are telling Starbucks they should discriminate against paying customers who are exercising their rights in a lawful manner.  They’re trying to get a private company to discriminate against people simply because they don’t like that group of people.  That’s outright bigotry.

No, it isn’t. No one has said that Starbucks should not accommodate gun owners. What they have said is that Starbucks should not let gun owners bring their guns into the store. I disagree, but that argument is in no way equivalent to saying that Starbucks should not serve black people. Hint: black people cannot lock up their blackness in the trunk of the car.

I drew a logical comparison.  That does not in anyway minimize the discrimination blacks have suffered.  If you don’t agree with the comparison then by all means, provide a logical refutation of it.

It wasn’t a logical comparison, and such comparisons were already addressed in the thread before you posted here. Let me explain it again for you, you subliterate fuckstick. Black people cannot lock up their blackness in the trunk of the car.

The difference is between discriminating against people based on what they are (black) and discriminating against people based on what they do. It is no different from saying that you cannot bring your pet dog (as opposed to a disabled person’s service dog) into the store.

Someone has a problem with logic.  Someone could compare abortion and the Holocaust while still believing that the Holocaust occurred.  Making a comparison would in no way consitute a denial of the event being used in the comparison.

That is false. Holocaust denial includes minimizing the horror and suffering of the Holocaust. If the Holocaust is similar to abortion, which involves no horror or suffering, then the Holocaust wasn’t bad at all.

You are now excusing Holocaust denial, as well as white supremacy. You are a terrible person.

My comment did not (explicitely or by inference) minimize the wrongs done by white supremacists or the discrimination suffered by blacks, nor did it apologize for those egregious injustices or deny that they occurred.

Yes it did. If white supremacy is only as bad as preventing gun owners from bringing their guns into a store, then white supremacy isn’t very bad at all. You are the one offering the comparison, and the comparison minimizes the damage of white supremacy. Now shut the fuck up, you racist fuck.

And Marcotte is not anti-gun, you idiot. Get a fucking clue.

Comment #209: asdf  on  03/08  at  07:37 PM

When I lift my shirt to display my gun, there’s a message, and no one yet has failed to understand it.

Talk about false equivalencies.  Lifting my shirt to display my gun to you is called “Brandishing.”  It’s a crime.  We’re discussing Open Carry here, which is 100% legal and is not “brandishing.”

Comment #210: Mike W.  on  03/09  at  12:27 PM

Fuck you sincerely for trying to make an equivalence between carrying a gun in Starbucks and the civil rights sit-ins.

How about fuck the person who originally made an equivalence between cross burning and open carrying? Or will you conveniently ignore that? Oh wait. That was you. So please don’t call me a moron without first taking a hard long look in the mirror.

Those were done with the intent of making people uncomfortable, because racist bigots should be uncomfortable, and the attention was being drawn to the fact that people of color were being denied service in those establishments. The assholes hanging out at Starbucks are not being denied service there, rather they are being accommodated. And they are taking advantage of that hospitality to freak out the other customers, performing a lazy inactivist demonstration where they are in no danger of being arrested. It isn’t civil disobedience, and it isn’t a matter of Starbucks denying them rights. There is no comparison, and you do a disservice to the cause when you draw such blatantly false parallels.

So basically you’re saying i’m drawing a false parallel while you’re drawing the parallels for me. The only difference between the two is the legality. For the civil rights sit-ins, they were breaking the law. For the open carry sit-ins (if that’s even the purpose of carrying into Starbucks), they were complying with the law. However, in both cases, you have people making bigots uncomfortable and freaking out the other customers. 

As for there not being any danger of being arrested, that’s debatable. Especially when you have law enforcement officers “proning out” people who open carry and openly joking that they should shoot them in the back.

Comment #211: Gerald  on  03/09  at  07:41 PM

You are the one offering the comparison, and the comparison minimizes the damage of white supremacy. Now shut the fuck up, you racist fuck.

Let me guess. When you compared cross burning to open carrying, that didn’t minimize the damage of white supremacy?

And Marcotte is not anti-gun, you idiot. Get a fucking clue.

A lot of people claim to not be anti-gun, yet support every anti-gun scheme ever put forth.

Comment #212: Gerald  on  03/09  at  07:58 PM

I’m a big fan of the Third Amendment. I have not written the Pentagon to demand that they not quarter soldiers in my house.

Comment #213: Hershele Ostropoler  on  03/10  at  01:35 AM

And Marcotte is not anti-gun, you idiot. Get a fucking clue.

Apparently you didn’t read her post….  You also seem to have a problem engaging in civil, rational discussion.

Comment #214: Mike W.  on  03/10  at  02:25 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.