> TEOTWAWKI Blog: On Starbucks



On Starbucks

"We are not pro- or anti- gun, but recently activist groups on both sides of the gun debate have politicized our company and brand for their own benefit while putting our partners in a position of conflict." -- Starbucks Q&A

"Starbucks isn't anti-gun, they're anti-dumbass. Stop using guns to make a political statement - that's not what they're for!" -- James Yeager

"Too few of us have fought the fight the right way and have now started to lose because our enemy led us to our own trap." -- Travis Haley

"Don’t blame Starbucks, and don’t blame liberals. Blame stupid gun owners." -- PracticalTactical Podcast

I'm not sure how/why Starbucks became the rallying point for folks wanting to open carry firearms to make a political statement, but come on, it's a coffee shop, not a gun show.

Neutrality on the issue makes sense - you don't want to upset any customers - but patience and neutrality can only go so far. Once it starts hitting the bottom line and things like brand and shareholder value getting negatively impacted, most any business is going to react this way.

Heck, Starbucks actually handled it fairly diplomatically--they've politely requested people not bring weapons into their shops, versus attempting some sort of outright ban.

Folks, even if it is your 2nd Amendment right to run your Saturday errands around the suburbs with an AR-15 on your back, it doesn't mean you should. It's not responsible and it's not the kind of image and representation that's going to help us further the cause.


  1. I guess im the weird one then jezze get grociers one time in you plate carrier with your AK and starbucks gets all neutral on you you .

    why either side chooses to wage a pro or anti gun rally at starbucks is beyond me . (we all know dunkin donuts is were it should be at )

  2. How many pro or anti anyone can you cram in a 30x30 room and 8 seats outside?

    I open carry in a lot of places, I don't understand why people on either side get so worked up. There is enough being told what you should and shouldn't do but in the end you should do whatever the hell you want to do and don't be influenced by what others might think or perceive.

    1. Sorry, you're an arrogant idiot. Living in a society means your right to act stupid ends when it offends somebody else. Grow up and go all mall ninja in Pakistan or some other shithole.

    2. Actually his right to exercise open carry (providing he is obeying the law) supersedes you being a sophomoric, name calling, idiot.

      While I agree with you that open carry generally only causes problems, it's kinda like attempting to demean someone and expecting them to see your side of the argument..... IT NEVER WORKS.


    3. There's a significant difference from open carry because it's your best legal option for the given circumstances, versus open carrying to make a statement, turn heads and otherwise get attention.

  3. Anytime there is a designated "disarmed victim zone", that area becomes a hotbed of crime. Never a good idea.

  4. I back up open carry before the concealed carry people, any day of the week. Generally, people who carry firearms in public carry them to protect themselves and others. Carrying a sidearm is, for me, a crime deterrent. I'm willing to bet that the hoods scoping out their next mugging victim will see me, with a Glock on my leg, and consider a different target. Probably they won't consider harassing anyone while I'm in sight. In the event that I end up in a shootout situation, my visible sidearm may deter the potential attacker. If nothing else, it makes me a priority target, so to speak. This draws the attention away from my family or anyone else I happen to be with. I'm willing to take that chance.

    This isn't meant to start hate or anything. If you concealed carry, power to you. But open carry, in my opinion, is a much more effective criminal deterrent, and that's my goal. If you aren't putting me and/or my family in danger, I don't need to use my sidearm. And that's my overall goal.