The Associated Press ran a story called Buzz and bullets: Gun fans cheer Starbucks’ policy that gives a good indication of a hot topic in the US:
Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun.
Sounds like the start of a bad joke, right?
They make a banana flavored “Frappuccino” now? People drink this? A cinnamon bun on the same order and a case can easily be made that some Americans have lost their senses.
Perhaps he needed the gun to help convince the staff to put the two items on the same order. “Give me as much corn-sweetener as possible, to go, now!”
You think that is funny? There is more, like this sentence:
…about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren’t welcome they went to another restaurant.
Walnut Creek? A wealthy white suburban conservative neighborhood was the target of a pro-gun rally? Hardly risky territory for a pro-gun groups, but even with stats in their favor they backed down. Why? Perhaps they realized they didn’t like pizza anyway.
This reminds me of how basic rights are lost on private property. You lose your First Amendment freedom of expression if you step into a Starbucks. Do gun activists feel they should get special treatment for a later Amendment? Start with the first. I have seen some say they believe this is about individual rights, but I doubt they really want to share a stage at Starbucks with speech activists.
Moreover, a security perspective sets aside individual rights and brings it all back to a question of how to manage risk. When those allowed to carry guns are clearly known to have a service role (federal, state, etc.) you have a very different situation. A police officer with a weapon has a uniform, a badge with a number, etc. to make them easily identified as someone trained and trusted with a weapon. This is common around the world because service personnel are essentially trusted. The idea of a random individual carrying a gun onto private property (the individual rights argument) opens a whole different can of worms related to authentication and authorization. How do you, as a customer, let alone a shop owner, make a risk judgment in a world of individuals carrying firearms? In other words if free speech already has been deemed too risky and not allowed on private property for random individuals, one would presume carrying a firearm would be treated the same or even more caution.
Seriously, though, when you think about chain pizza, syrupy coffee and cinnamon rolls this is hardly a story about fundamental rights or even security. Those are just a cover. It tastes more like a marketing campaign with some free press to promote expensive designer fashion food to a group most likely to pay for it — customer relationship management.