(Article changed on September 25, 2013 at 15:14)
Since Starbucks' decision last week to disinvite guns from its stores, gun lovers have become furious. Some say they will boycott the coffee shops, some say they will sneak their guns in anyway and at least one spokesman compared Starbucks' request to discrimination against gays.
If Starbucks, "said, "We're not pro- or anti-gay but please all gay people -- we respectfully ask that you not bring your "gayness' into the store. I mean, we'll still serve you, but, if you can leave the gayness at the door, we would much appreciate it,'" it would not be acceptable charges Colion Noir in a video. But commentator Steve Williams swiftly replied "my gayness has never killed 20 school children."
It is "inconvenient" to store our guns in our cars if we can't bring them into Starbucks, gun lovers are crying! It also threatens unarmed people, say the George Zimmerman-style cop wannabes because without our "protection" in Starbucks, criminals will kill people!
Since 2005, gun lovers have tried to expand their carry zone to work, national parks, Amtrak, business and social settings and zones prohibited by home rule ordinances. Afraid to go places that children, old people, and 100-pound women go unarmed every day --they concoct a scenario in which businesses put their customers in danger by barring cop wannabes like them . Talk about flattering yourself.
The invention of a dangerous "gun-free zone" because the self-deputized are not present is not dignified by the insurance industry. The ultimate "gun-free zones" are corporate headquarters including the NRA's which are obviously not sites of shootouts by criminals who "target gun-free zones." Secondly, in too many cases, carriers are the shooters either because they got through background checks like Jared Lee Loughner, Michael McLendon and Richard Poplawski (and 1,400 carriers in Florida with felonies) or because they get mad, drunk and have an accidents.
The "criminals target gun-free zones" buzz is so absurd, gun lovers are now referring to the Washington Navy Yard as a soft target. While it is true that firearms use on bases is limited to military police and other law enforcement officers since 1993 because of an Executive Order, would anyone consider a military installation a gun-free zone? With its security and armed guards? If being armed, ready and waiting stopped "bad guys" would the US's best shot, Chris Kyle, have been killed on a gun range earlier this year?
With their "gun-free zone" buzz and "protection" ruse, carriers hide their fear of going where normal people go unarmed. And by yelling More Guns, they hide the fact that the Navy Yard shooter bought a legal gun days before his murders despite prior mental illness and gun violations.