I am going to miss my caramel frap.

[tsst]

Who is more likely to kill you:

A person wielding a spoon at you.

A person wielding a gun at you.



The answer is, of course, the person with the GUN. Because the gun has more lethal capability than a spoon. I'd be willing to grapple with the spoon-person.

my answer: the person.

 

[HVani]

I can understand a fear of guns. I use to be the same way.

Now I realize that even if guns were banned outright, people would still find a way to harm/kill each other.

 

[Shiari]

my answer: the person.

Uhmm... no. You are avoiding the point, because it doesn't fit with what you want.

Both individuals want to kill you. All else being equal who will be more successful? Person with spoon, or person with gun?

Guns ADD danger. You cannot deny this without being dishonest.

 

[Nanci]

It is legal in Ohio, though I just almost never see it. What is nice about open carry being legal is that if by some chance your conceal is exposed you are still not breaking the law.


edit: By the way I loaded iOS7 last night. I like it so far.

I'm trying to find the law regarding accidental printing here. And found this:

Do "No Gun" signs have the force of law?

"NO”

“Handgunlaw.us highly recommends that you not enter a place that is posted "No Firearms" no matter what the state laws read/mean on signage. We recommend you print out the No Guns = No Money Cards
and give one to the owner of the establishment that has the signage." As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.”


“No Firearm” signs in Florida have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not
specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked
to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

 

[beautifullywild77]

I do not care if a person has a spoon, a knife, a gun or a baseball bat, if they have the want to kill you, they are going try. Read about the mass killings in China with knives and other weapons.

If someone is trying to kill me, regardless of their choice of weapon, I want the right to defend myself with a right to bare arms. I am a law abiding citizen of the United States of America, it is my constitutional right to own guns. My guns have never once killed a person.

Telling me that I can not own guns is like me telling you that you can't have an abortion.

~edit~
Let me elaborate on that last statement, so that others wont take it the wrong way...

Restricting gun ownership is like restricting abortions. Restricting what gun someone can own, what to own, why to own them is like restricting what kind of abortions someone can get, the reasons why they are getting one.

(Just for the record, I am pro choice. I believe it is a woman's right to choose)

 

[kathylove]

We normally only have guns with us when camping or target shooting. Since we don't take them into stores or restaurants, I usually don't think about it one way or another. BUT - if a store / restaurant specifically advertised or posted NO GUNS, I would be hesitant about spending time there. Seems like most shooters choose "gun free zones" to do their dirty work in. The cowards want the most assurance possible that there will be no likely armed resistance. So I would choose to avoid those kind of places whenever possible.

OTOH, if I see some police cars in the parking lot of a business I am about to enter, I always feel a little twinge of relief, thinking that a bad guy would probably pick an easier target. And I think the same would be true, but to a lesser degree, in businesses known to "harbor" citizens who may well be armed. So no Starbucks for me!

 

[Nanci]

It is legal in Ohio, though I just almost never see it. What is nice about open carry being legal is that if by some chance your conceal is exposed you are still not breaking the law.

Got it! Florida, 2011

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

 

[kathylove]

Instead of a sign that says "NO GUNS", I would like to enter a business with a sign that says "ARMED CITIZENS: PLEASE KEEP YOUR WEAPONS HOLSTERED AT ALL TIMES EXCEPT WHEN CONFRONTED BY A CRIMINAL" or something along that line. The bad guys MIGHT be deterred, and look for an easier target.

Unfortunately, there will always be an easier target as long as we have crazy people around. Seems like it wasn't that difficult for dangerous, deranged, people to use ordinary ingredients to make explosives, if that is what they had to do to create mayhem. That is even scarier than a gun in the wrong hands.

 

[tsst]

Uhmm... no. You are avoiding the point, because it doesn't fit with what you want.

Both individuals want to kill you. All else being equal who will be more successful? Person with spoon, or person with gun?

Guns ADD danger. You cannot deny this without being dishonest.

I am not avoiding the point. I simply don't agree because I don't share your phobia. As you stated both 'individuals' want to kill you. The person is doing the killing.

If you are simply referring to efficiency than I can agree a firearm is more efficient. But the person is doing the killing and a person is creating the danger. A more appropriate analogy would be laying a gun on a table next to a spoon for million years. Neither kill anyone. Without a 'person' using the tool both are harmless.

 

[tsst]

We normally only have guns with us when camping or target shooting. Since we don't take them into stores or restaurants, I usually don't think about it one way or another. BUT - if a store / restaurant specifically advertised or posted NO GUNS, I would be hesitant about spending time there. Seems like most shooters choose "gun free zones" to do their dirty work in. The cowards want the most assurance possible that there will be no likely armed resistance. So I would choose to avoid those kind of places whenever possible.

OTOH, if I see some police cars in the parking lot of a business I am about to enter, I always feel a little twinge of relief, thinking that a bad guy would probably pick an easier target. And I think the same would be true, but to a lesser degree, in businesses known to "harbor" citizens who may well be armed. So no Starbucks for me!

With the exception of ONE, all US mass shootings in the last 50 years have taken place in "gun free zones".

I'm trying to find the law regarding accidental printing here. And found this:

Do "No Gun" signs have the force of law?

"NO”

“Handgunlaw.us highly recommends that you not enter a place that is posted "No Firearms" no matter what the state laws read/mean on signage. We recommend you print out the No Guns = No Money Cards
and give one to the owner of the establishment that has the signage." As responsible gun owners and upholders of the 2nd Amendment we should also honor the rights of property owners to control their own property even if we disagree with them.”


“No Firearm” signs in Florida have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not
specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked
to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

No gun signs in Ohio do have law backing but it is only a third degree misdemeanor (basically the same as a speeding ticket).

 

[Nanci]

I do NOT want guns banned from everyone. I DO want extra assurances that they are going to responsible people

I'd be willing to bet the gun owners here want the same thing. To be able to carry a concealed weapon in my state:

The eligibility requirements to get a CCW (CWP) or concealed weapons permit are as follows:

• You must be 21 years of age or older.
• You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm.
• Unless you are serving overseas in the United States Armed Forces, you must currently reside in the United States (US) AND be a US citizen or deemed a lawful permanent resident alien by Department of Homeland Security, US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

Here’s a test you can take to see if you are able to get a CCW permit.

​

Possible reasons you would be denied a CWP (concealed weapons permit:

• The physical inability to handle a firearm safely
• A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority).
• Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled.
• A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence in the last three years.
• A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses.
• A record of drug or alcohol abuse.
• Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years.
• Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective.
• Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm.
• Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force.
• Renouncement of U.S. citizenship.
• A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.
• Being a fugitive from justice.

Okay, so when a person applies, they are fingerprinted and undergo a background check.

If a person meets all those requirements, would you feel like that person was reasonably likely to be a responsible, not dangerous, gun-carrier?

 

[Christen]

OK morbid thought I know but if two men are going to kill me I would rather the guy with the gun do it. Sorry when I think about being killed with a spoon or pencil that just seems agonizing and slow. Lol

 

[Chip]

As one of the biggest gun enthusiasts on this message board, I will not be boycotting Starbucks. Gun activists, demonstrators, and open carriers used it as their personal protesting place and forced their hand. I saw people with AR's slung over their shoulders demonstrating in front of Starbucks. What do you expect? They are a retail business, not a PAC. I support the right to open carry, but I would never do it. Just because you are allowed a freedom doesn't mean you should flaunt it. You *can*, but just like with free speech, there will be consequences. Well OCers, guess what? Your gun tolerant coffee shop isn't so gun tolerant any longer.

On the other hand, I think those who are offended by guns should find another place to get coffee when an establishment does allow it. I've been unsettled by some of the piercings, bad haircuts, and sweat stained yoga pants on fat posteriors I have seen in Starbucks but I don't write the CEO to threaten boycott. It's a diverse world out there, and that's (mostly) a good thing. I think Starbucks is trying to placate both sides, and will wind up losing customers wherever it goes from here. I do not envy them as a business.

 

[Nanci]

Chip, why does Starbucks have to take a stand on it at all? I don't know how Publix, Trader Joe's, Petsmart, Home Depot or Target stand on legal carrying of firearms. Why does it have to be a thing??

 

[Chip]

Because there were anti-gun protests at Starbucks in Seattle. Since they had no policy against guns, pro-gun guys counter then protested. From there, it became a political battleground.

I keep an eye for the "No gun" signs at businesses, and have never noticed one at Home Depot or Target. We don't have Publix or Trader Joe's here.

 

[Christen]

You know that is my biggest disappointment with Starbucks. Why do they even need to take a stance? Why do they need to run full page ads in large magazines to make this point? They are a business and don't need to take sides or make a political statement. They want to put signs in their window? Fine but taking out ads to say guns aren't welcomed in their stores is just going overboard.

Just like their points on gay marriages. That is great that they were pro gay marriage but why did they even have to make a stance on that. At the end of the day does it make someone proud that Starbuck's has the same political views as them. It sure doesn't me.

 

[kathylove]

I can totally understand wanting to avoid dealing with protests and gatherings of any kind that impact their ability to do business. Not sure how they can avoid that sort of thing, but I understand they want to.

I don't drink coffee, so am not a regular customer anyway. My staying away from a business that posts "no guns" is not a protest - it is just a practical move, because I think that a no gun business is more dangerous than one with no policy, or a reasonable gun policy.