We certainly have strong concerns about allowing individuals who are not always required to have a permit, go through testing or training or show any knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun responsibilities carrying their weapons into places frequented by families. Too many "innocent bystanders" are killed or injured each year because our weak gun laws make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns, and because too many others don't realize the risks and responsibilities of legal gun ownership.
Starbucks owns more than 8,800 coffee houses worldwide; including licensees, there are more than 16,000 locations. If the company were to have a policy that, say, resulted in tainted food and drinks that sickened its customers, we would all agree that such a threat should be communicated to the American public.
Well, there is a policy that is just as dangerous.
The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004 (see below). "Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying."
After hearing complaints from individuals concerned about "real-life Yosemite Sams," as The Times describes them, the Brady Campaign kicked off its petition drive. Starbucks says it wants to be left alone. But imagine the outrage -- possibly even on The Times' editorial page -- were the company to offer the same response after being cited for serving food tainted by E. coli .
The Times says Starbucks is only trying to comply with state law. But state law doesn't compel Starbucks to allow guns in its stores and endanger its customers and employees. Businesses can and do establish their own policies on customer conduct, such as turning away patrons who are barefoot or loud and disruptive. Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen also comply with state law, but they have chosen to prioritize public and employee safety. Instead of defending Starbucks, The Times should praise Peet's and California Pizza Kitchen for taking a reasonable step to protect customers.
The Times accepts the reasoning by management that employees should not be put in the "potentially unsafe" position of ejecting people the editorial describes as "armed wingnuts." But isn't this an admission that the current policy is to allow potentially dangerous people with guns into its stores? Is Starbucks suggesting that the other businesses, such as California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's, are putting their employees at risk by having a no-guns policy?
The Brady Campaign is asking Starbucks management to change its policy, not employees to put themselves at risk by "tossing out" armed individuals themselves. A customer who refuses to follow the rules should be handled by police. We are not asking Starbucks to take a position on America's gun debate. We are asking it to establish a policy to protect its customers -- including gun owners and employees -- against the possibility that misused firearms carried into the stores by those The Times describes as "postmodern cowboy wannabes" could cause great harm. We are not pressuring Starbucks to take a position against anyone's beliefs.
Starbucks can stay "above the fray" of the gun debate. It cannot do so when its policies endanger its own customers and employees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 LA Times, March 5, 2010, EDITORIAL, "At the Starbucks saloon"
| Editorial
At the Starbucks saloon
Is it a barrista's job to bar customers who are packing? The Brady organization thinks so. March 4, 2010
Today's quiz: Who are the greater fools, gun-rights enthusiasts strolling into Starbucks outlets with firearms strapped to their waists in order to assert their right to openly carry weapons, or gun-control advocates protesting against Starbucks for not going all Gary Cooper on these postmodern cowboy wannabes and tossing them out of its coffee-saloon doors?
For us, it's a close call. The recent commotion over "open carry," one of the more obscure issues in the gun-control debate, shows that common sense is uncommon on either side.
Apparently, it's legal in 29 states to openly carry a loaded gun, while in another 13 you need a special permit to pretend you're Wyatt Earp in public. That outrages open-carry enthusiasts, a loosely organized group that has been mounting protests in states considered overly restrictive. Among them is California, which, according to the website opencarry.org, is a "rural open-carry state" -- meaning you can walk around armed without a permit only in some unincorporated county areas. Groups of gun-toting men are showing their disdain for such laws by gathering at stores and restaurants in California and elsewhere, with Starbucks being a particularly popular spot (because nothing goes together like caffeine and high-caliber weaponry).
Starbucks, which can be forgiven for not wanting to alienate customers on either side of the gun divide, has been trying to stay above the fray. "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in our legislatures and courts, not in our stores," the company said in a release Wednesday. But its failure to eject armed patrons has goaded the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence to launch a petition drive demanding that it do so. Which makes us wonder: If you were a barrista, would you want to have to tell an armed wingnut he has to leave his shooting iron at the door?
We're not going to delve into the mind-sets of those who feel the need to terrorize the public by flashing firearms, because they don't appear susceptible to rational argument. We'd expect better from the Brady Campaign, though, given its history of promoting sensible gun laws. Although it's true that Starbucks, like any business, has the right to refuse service to anyone and thus would be perfectly justified in tossing out the real-life Yosemite Sams, the chain is only trying to comply with state laws and protect its employees. Instead of taking aim at its true foe, the open-carry crowd, the Brady Campaign is spraying ammo at an innocent bystander.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-guns5-2010mar05,0,750921.story |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Review of book by Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, "Private Guns, Public Health"
“Private Guns, Public Health”
by Paul Helmke
Permalink
January 9th, 2007
Over the holidays I had the opportunity to read David Hemenway's excellent book "Private Guns, Public Health," published by the University of Michigan Press in 2004. After I started as President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence six months ago, this book was recommended highly as one of the best summaries of the issue of gun violence in the United States. After meeting with Dr. Hemenway at his office at the Harvard School of Public Health last October, I was even more interested in reading this book.
Hemenway starts by making it clear that taking a “public health” approach to the issue of gun violence is no more “anti-gun” than efforts to deal with other areas of injury are “anti-stairs, anti-swimming pools, [or] anti-cars.” He also makes it clear that “[p]ublic health is not anti-gun owner.” The goal of Hemenway's book is “injury prevention” by focusing on the “public health effects of firearms.”
He “summarizes the scientific literature on the public health effects of firearm availability and firearm policies” and “emphasizes the need for better data.” An Appendix outlines the methodology needed in analyzing this issue, and raises serious questions about the fairness and accuracy of “one widely cited gun proponent, John Lott, Jr.”
A “public health” approach is important to the gun violence debate because it “emphasizes prevention rather than fault-finding, blame, or revenge.” It also focuses on all firearm injuries, including accidents and self-inflicted injuries.
The statistics are sobering: every day in this country, two or three people die from accidental firearms shootings and some thirty are injured; about fifty die each day by suicide with a gun; and, between 1991 and 2000, about forty Americans were murdered with guns on an average day. Hemenway points out that “more guns in a community lead to more homicide” and that a gun in homes “increases the risk of murder for family members” as well as “the risk of suicide and unintentional firearm injury.”
Hemenway goes on the discuss self-defense (”No credible evidence exists for a general deterrent effect of firearms”); location (”Based on all available evidence, arming citizens to reduce crime – in the home, in schools, or on the streets – seems likely to increase rather than reduce the level of lethal violence”); demography (”Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying… [and] women are more likely to die violent deaths…”); supply (”the safety of guns is less regulated than virtually any other commodity…New laws are needed to reduce the flow of guns to criminals through the secondary market”); and policy background, policy lessons, and policy actions (”We should no longer accept our high levels of lethal violence as an inevitable by-product of a free American society.”)
The “public health” approach advanced by Hemenway recognizes that efforts to prevent gun violence should be based on good facts with a focus on the manufacturers, distribution, and environment of product use as well as the individual product users. As Hemenway states in his “Conclusion” chapter:
The public health approach is not about banning guns. It is about creating policies that will prevent violence and injuries.
Hemenway calls for action at the federal level: licensing of gun owners and registration of hand guns; one-gun-per-month laws to reduce gunrunning; all gun transfers to go through licensed dealers with background checks; greater scrutiny of licensed dealers; and a federal agency (similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) with the power to regulate firearms as a consumer product.
If more of the debate and discussion about guns and gun violence were handled with the clear, studious, and fact-based approach of David Hemenway, we'd be a lot more likely to reach agreement on common-sense steps to make all our communities safer. If you haven't done so already, read “Private Guns, Public Health” and use it as a starting point in considering the issue of gun violence prevention.
(Note to readers: this blog entry, as well as past blog entrees, are co-posted on www.huffingtonpost.com)
http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=15 |
|
