Why would that be? Because the person with the gun might start shooting? That would be an argument against allowing open carry.
Given that syndicated comic strips have a considerable lead time between their composition and their publishing date, I would presume Trudeau started the arc soon after the Starbucks policy became public news.
I don’t get over constitutional rights so easily.
You can make up for me. Sucks, cause I’ll really miss my vanilla lattes.
I’m not uncomfortable either way, but my kids would be.
Minnesota has CCW, but it doesn’t matter much because virtually all business and public buildings, parks, etc. prohibit guns so people don’t carry them much becuase they can’t bring them inside anywere (at least in the MSP metro area).
I’m not afraid of a goddamned thing, but I have three little girls who are.
Would your kids be uncomfortable at a police convention, with everyone armed?
Yes,and why would they be armed at a convention?
Been reading all of those “gun threads”, and excuse my European lack of understanding, but why in the hell are pro-gun people so obsessed with carrying a weapon everywhere, even in some absolutely harmless coffee house ?
They still live in the fucking Far West age or what ?
Because I can.
Just a tip: if you ask your question nicely you might get an answer that will increase your knowledge, pique your interest, or perhaps even enlighten you. But since you didn’t and chose to be confrontational about it, good luck getting anybody to take you seriously.
Why don’t you try asking again, maybe this time with some of that European dignity and cultured good manners I often hear about but rarely see?
I like the last post at the opposingvisions site:
Gives new meaning to the SDMB banner.
Cops are armed everywhere, Dio. Provided they’re New York Cops. Now, I know a guy, he’s the chief of police upstate, doesn’t even carry a gun. Great guy. (Went to school with the Orange County Choppers guys. Collects assault rifles.) But he won’t carry on duty if he can possibly avoid it. Been avoiding it for thirty years.
But NY Cops? Carry everywhere. Matter of policy.
I write as one biased towards what (I consider) reasonable gun control laws along with much more serious enforcement of the laws we’ve got, who thinks someone feeling that they, and those around them, are significantly safer with a gun at all times is very likely mistaken (although neither do I believe that the contrapositive is likely true either), and still I react to this statement as follows:
Why in the hell are some gun control people so obsessed with gun-fear that they pick these stupid fights?
Are they stupid jerks or what?
The justifiable reason to be in favor of rational regulations (and enforcement of them) is to reduce the amount of human deaths caused by guns. There is absolutely no argument even being attempted that preventing open carry into Starbuck’s will have any impact on those numbers. Few of us “moderates”, even those with pro gun control leanings, (yes, I am Left of center, but still a moderate) will be swayed that one population should be impeded from behaving in a manner that the local law allows them merely because it makes a very few others “uncomfortable” to see them do it, or because we think they are goofy or odd for wanting to.
Behaving in manner allowable by local laws does not need special justification; preventing them from doing so does. And the belief that allowing freedoms even if we disagree with what they result in is the default position is more ingrained in the American psyche than in the European one, I think.
I heard the answer that the Brady folks need to find a way to stay “relevant” but this does not do it; this merely makes them more mockable including by some of us who agree with some of their other positions.
And Starbucks harmeless? Do you know how much saturated fat and sugar is in just one of those Frappacinos?
I see this as the real basis of the issue. I’m a liberal who knows how to shoot, but have never felt the need to own a gun. I don’t have a lot of problem with people having guns, but I think Khaki Campbell asked exactly the right question.
The vibe I get is that people open carrying guns into places like coffee shops are doing so for a number of reasons. But I think a lot of it is because they can, and because they want to flaunt their doing so. And I do believe that they want to intimidate people. I see that as rather rude.
I can stand on the public boardwalk and preach to passersby about crackpot religious beliefs. But I don’t.
Gun rights are important to you - fine. Free speech is important to me, but I don’t make an exhibitionist of myself simply because I have that right.
Do you want it to be illegal to do so?
Lots of things are legal but doing them makes you an asshole. Like walking in back of cars that are backing up. 
In my brief stint as a security guard, in which I wore a holstered sidearm along with my clearly labeled guard uniform, I was astonished at how many people absolutely freaked at the sight of even someone who had a need to be armed. My sidearm is too large to conceal well, and along with the no-carry postings Diogenes mentioned, it’s too inconvenient for me to carry.
Just how did Starbucks get on the radar on this issue? Did they go out of their way to say that gun carriers were welcome in their stores? Did they circulate an internal memo to Starbucks employees on company policy and it went viral? Did someone complain to Starbucks upon seeing someone open carry there, and when Starbucks explained their policy the complaintant took their grievance to the 'Net?
CA Police are supposed to be armed at all times.
It was something like that. Other coffee shops in the area made a big deal about their no gun policies and lo and behold Starbucks comes out in support of local laws instead. The gun community, which has a huge presence on the 'net got hold of it and it went viral. Very similar to the Jim Zumbo incident in 2007.
Because the former requires people to do nothing other than MYOB, while the latter requires regulation of people’s behavior (given that, no, people are not going to voluntarily and unanimously decide to change their minds). While there are some situations that do require regulation, the initial presumption in a free society should be against it.
To illustrate the concept with an example:
By your reasoning, the two viewpoints are equally valid, which is absurd on its face.
Wheneevr you ask them this question, they just scream at you that it’s “because they CAN.”