# "Doonesbury" mocks Starbucks open-carry policy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689 "2010-03-25T00:17:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/141 "2010-04-01T15:43:58Z")
I would say that part of basic civility would include not brandishing guns at little kids. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/142 "2010-04-01T15:44:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I also get the strong impression from many conversations with them that it’s very important to them to feel like they are intimidating people. > > I think it’s pathetic, man-child machismo that makes people want to swagger around with guns on their hips, but they can’t admit that, of course, so they scream about it being their right as though that’s an explanation. That’s not to say they _don’t_ have a right, or even that they owe anybody an explanation, but I still have a right to think they’re lame, and to opine that it makes them look more childish than manly. You do have that right, and further, SDMB rules are written so that generalizations about groups are considered acceptable as long as you’re not going out of your way to insult other posters. That said, _this kind of argument is unhelpful and it usually kills off any kind of good debate. Try a different tactic._ ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/143 "2010-04-01T15:46:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I would say that part of basic civility would include not brandishing guns at little kids. Brandishing a weapon has a very precise definition, which does not include yours. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/144 "2010-04-01T15:55:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You do have that right, and further, SDMB rules are written so that generalizations about groups are considered acceptable as long as you’re not going out of your way to insult other posters. That said, _this kind of argument is unhelpful and it usually kills off any kind of good debate. Try a different tactic._ Yes, well, be sure you say the same thing to the gun toters who constantly deride anyone who doesn’t think they’re wonderful as being “scared.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/145 "2010-04-01T15:56:43Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Brandishing a weapon has a very precise definition, which does not include yours. My kids don’t know the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/146 "2010-04-01T15:57:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes, well, be sure you say the same thing to the gun toters who constantly deride anyone who doesn’t think they’re wonderful as being “scared.” I will. It’s just as pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/147 "2010-04-01T16:31:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My kids don’t know the difference. Children only know what they are taught. It’s your business if you want to teach them that, but your mischaracterization of what brandishing is (a crime) and your equating it to legal carry is simply false. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/148 "2010-04-01T16:49:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Because I CAN!” is the only reason they will ever give or are capable of giving. > [@D\_Odds](#): > > Actually, it is “_Because I live in a democratic republic whose constitution (somewhat arguably) grants me the right to bear arms and I believe that a right not exercised is a right lost, plus my local jurisdiction has no restrictions on doing so._” That’s what he just _said_ - only with three words instead of forty. Okay, this isn’t entirely fair - you also included the incorrect sentiment that if you don’t scream curses at children you’ve lost the right to free speech. But either way you kind of forgot to actually include _reasons_ to carry in a coffee shop. Fortunately, others have filled in for you. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Ok, to spell it out: the possible reasons to take your sidearm into a coffee shop include the following: > [ul] > [li]On the small chance some crisis will occur that you would need to draw your gun.[/li][li]If openly carried, to possibly deter someone else from drawing and misusing a gun.[/li][li]To assert that being armed is not a privilege reserved to officers and agents of the State.[/li][li]To be part of the movement for gun owners to “come out the closet”, and demonstrate that otherwise ordinary and unremarkable people believe in and exercise gun ownership.[/li][li]To hopefully desensitize people to the presence of guns, so that the sight of a law-abiding citizen bearing a holstered firearm is not a threat or cause for fear.[/li][/ul]Are there yahoos out there who are trying to intimidate people? Unfortunately yes. But that does not mean that only a yahoo would want to openly carry, any more than anyone who owns a gun and practices with it are would-be militiamen or vigilantes. The last three are “Because I CAN”, writ verbose, with a dash of “becuase I want to _remind_ people I can” and “because I want people to _stop noticing_ that I can”. (At the same time, oddly enough. Was this thought through?) The first two are, to put it indelicately, cowboyish - they make the assumption that it falls to you to be the law in this town. There are of course three kinds of cowboys - white hats, black hats, and that idiot who’s comic relief because in movies the idiot never blows away an innocent bystander. In modern societal parlence, of course, people don’t wear white hats - they wear _uniforms_. You’re not wearing a uniform? I guess you _might_ be a white hat. But there no reason to think you’re not one of the other two instead. And I’m not particularly keen on finding out which you are the hard way. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Seriously, is being peaceful and law-abiding supposed to be based on _squeamishness_- being afraid of and repulsed by weapons? To be afraid of the threat represented by a weapon is the _rational_ position. Remember? Deadly weapon? That’s why you’re carrying it, cowboy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/149 "2010-04-01T17:04:36Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Children only know what they are taught. > > It’s your business if you want to teach them that, but your mischaracterization of what brandishing is (a crime) and your equating it to legal carry is simply false. I don’t “teach” them that. This piddling semantic nitpick is beside the point. It’s not like my kids would literally use the word "brandish. They see a guy with a gun on their hip and it makes them nervous. I’m not going to teach them anything I don’t know to be true, so I can’t honestly tell them they guy’s not a psycho, or give them some sensible, logical reason why the guy has a gun unless he’s a cop or something. Maybe he WILL start basting away. I don’t know. I can’t promise he won’t. It’s better not to let my kids have their good time ruined by worrying about something like that, so I just won’t take them into a place that has a lot of civilians prancing around with heaters in their waistbands. Not that it’s much of a problem up here in MSP. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/150 "2010-04-01T17:27:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Maybe he WILL start basting away. I know it’s just a typo and I’m _hardly_ in a position to criticize but the mental image I got from this is _awesome_. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/151 "2010-04-01T19:03:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > To be afraid of the threat represented by a weapon is the _rational_ position. Remember? Deadly weapon? That’s why you’re carrying it, cowboy. A cowboy would punch you in the nose for offering personal insult, and then draw his gun if you decided to escalate further. You are reported. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/152 "2010-04-01T19:13:57Z")
The cowboy wouldn’t be much without the gun then, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/153 "2010-04-01T19:25:16Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > To be afraid of the threat represented by a weapon is the _rational_ position. Remember? Deadly weapon? That’s why you’re carrying it, cowboy. > [@Lumpy](#): > > A cowboy would punch you in the nose for offering personal insult, and then draw his gun if you decided to escalate further. You are reported. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The cowboy wouldn’t be much without the gun then, I guess. All three of you **BACK OFF**. The personal digs aren’t welcome in this forum and neither are any implied personal threads. Warnings will be handed out if this continues. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/154 "2010-04-01T20:25:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > All three of you **BACK OFF**. The personal digs aren’t welcome in this forum and neither are any implied personal threads. Warnings will be handed out if this continues. In the part of my post not quoted I made an argument substantiating the appelation of “cowboy”, based on presented opinions, and explicity stated that it was inclusive of a non-negative connotation : “White hats”. The subsequent use of the term was merely a reference to the previously justified descriptor. I would like it if people responded _substantively_ to the post, though. Pretending it’s a mere insult-throw is extremely cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/155 "2010-04-01T21:01:09Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > In the part of my post not quoted I made an argument substantiating the appelation of “cowboy”, based on presented opinions, and explicity stated that it was inclusive of a non-negative connotation : “White hats”. The subsequent use of the term was merely a reference to the previously justified descriptor. > > I would like it if people responded _substantively_ to the post, though. Pretending it’s a mere insult-throw is extremely cheap. Very well. Your post divided gun carriers into three categories: good people, criminals and self-deluded fools. You strongly implied that anyone who is not an agent of the government is vastly more likely to be in categories two or three than in category one. I for one am heartily sick of the two presumptions that (1.) The police are a elite group of paladins, vastly more trustworthy and competent than the average citizen, as a consequence of (2.) The average [del]peasant[/del] citizen is frighteningly ignorant, foolish, hot tempered and selfish. The sheer contempt with which the anti-gun faction seems to hold the intelligence and maturity of the hoi polli is appalling. Why do I not consider the public carrying of guns a personal threat? Because I already have to accept when I go out in public that my safety is based on the likelihood that the vast majority of people I’ll meet will not try to assault, sodomize or kill me. Someone being armed is almost superfluous if they’re physically strong enough to overpower me. I accept that most people I’ll meet either have good intentions or at least will not sacrifice their status as a law-abiding citizen by committing a felony against me. Yet the people who oppose public carry seem to presume that the very act of carrying a gun is proof of antisocial intent. The pro-carry posters on this board have tried to present every testimony and argument to the contrary, yet it falls on deaf ears. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/156 "2010-04-01T21:17:38Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Very well. Your post divided gun carriers into three categories: good people, criminals and self-deluded fools. You strongly implied that anyone who is not an agent of the government is vastly more likely to be in categories two or three than in category one. > > I for one am heartily sick of the two presumptions that (1.) The police are a elite group of paladins, vastly more trustworthy and competent than the average citizen, as a consequence of (2.) The average [del]peasant[/del] citizen is frighteningly ignorant, foolish, hot tempered and selfish. The sheer contempt with which the anti-gun faction seems to hold the intelligence and maturity of the hoi polli is appalling. I was actually speaking to the assumptions people are likely to make; which you laid out quite clearly: Cops are an elite group of paladins, vastly more trustworthy and competent than the average citizen. Of course when it comes to guns, that’s not an entirely uninformed opinion; cops _will_ have gun training, and _have_ sworn an oath to serve and protect. Some Joe with a gun? He might have training… or not. He _might_ be a good responsible man…or not. And sadly, the presence of those known to have training _does_ underscore the fact that we don’t know squat about _you_. Well, we don’t know squat about you except that you’re packing a hand cannon and presumably a willingess to use it, that is. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Why do I not consider the public carrying of guns a personal threat? Because I already have to accept when I go out in public that my safety is based on the likelihood that the vast majority of people I’ll meet will not try to assault, sodomize or kill me. Someone being armed is almost superfluous if they’re physically strong enough to overpower me. I accept that most people I’ll meet either have good intentions or at least will not sacrifice their status as a law-abiding citizen by committing a felony against me. Yet the people who oppose public carry seem to presume that the very act of carrying a gun is proof of antisocial intent. The pro-carry posters on this board have tried to present every testimony and argument to the contrary, yet it falls on deaf ears. But you don’t _really_ accept when I go out in public that my safety is based on the likelihood that the vast majority of people I’ll meet will not try to assault, sodomize or kill me, now do you? Because if you did accept that, you wouldn’t need to carry a gun. There’s this strange dichotomy of perspectives here. Gun-carriers are saying that you can trust strangers with weapons not to do you ill. But, gun-carriers are carrying guns; doesn’t this mean that they half-expect to run into a stranger that intends to do them or others ill? How can I believe their claims about the harmlessness of strangers when they _demonstrably_ don’t believe these claims themselves? When I see somebody carrying a gun, I can only assume that they’re at least a _little_ paranoid; they’re expecting trouble and to some degree looking for it. I think that such people are a little more likely than the average person to _make_ trouble, just due to that attitude. And of course, with that gun at their hip, if they _do_ get jumpy…I’m dead meat. Which would seriously ruin my whole day. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/157 "2010-04-02T00:32:03Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > There’s this strange dichotomy of perspectives here. Gun-carriers are saying that you can trust strangers with weapons not to do you ill. But, gun-carriers are carrying guns; doesn’t this mean that they half-expect to run into a stranger that intends to do them or others ill? How can I believe their claims about the harmlessness of strangers when they _demonstrably_ don’t believe these claims themselves? Do you have auto insurance or homeowner’s insurance? How paranoid of you! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/158 "2010-04-02T02:22:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > There’s this strange dichotomy of perspectives here. Gun-carriers are saying that you can trust strangers with weapons not to do you ill. But, gun-carriers are carrying guns; doesn’t this mean that they half-expect to run into a stranger that intends to do them or others ill? How can I believe their claims about the harmlessness of strangers when they _demonstrably_ don’t believe these claims themselves?. In most states, dudes with weapon permits have had an extensive background check- at the very least a check for priors, etc. Thus, a dude with a weapon permit is safer to be around than some random guy. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/159 "2010-04-02T02:28:19Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Do you have auto insurance or homeowner’s insurance? No, it’s a form of gambling. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689/160 "2010-04-02T03:25:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In most states, dudes with weapon permits have had an extensive background check- at the very least a check for priors, etc. Thus, a dude with a weapon permit is safer to be around than some random guy. I was going to take **begbert** to task for that myself, but I believe he’s talking about _open carry_ folks, who typically have no background checks or certification, in effect being average citizens. If he was talking about concealed carry licensees, well, he would be incorrect in his insinuations about the high risk of gun owners who carry (and this has been discussed at length on this message board.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doonesbury-mocks-starbucks-open-carry-policy/533689.md?page=9)