Why Starbucks Has to Step In on Guns

Starbucks’ firearms decision is the first step to setting boundaries for America’s gun-loving culture. Who will be next?

In this July 11, 2013 photo, a man drinks a Starbucks coffee in New York.
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Sept. 19, 2013, 11:46 a.m.

The only way to re­duce gun vi­ol­ence in a coun­try that won’t give up its guns is to set cul­tur­al bound­ar­ies on what’s ac­cept­able and what’s not. And some mem­bers of cor­por­ate Amer­ica have real­ized it’s partly up to them to do that.

Star­bucks CEO Howard Shultz this week “re­spect­fully” asked cus­tom­ers not to bring guns in­to his es­tab­lish­ments. The re­quest is the latest, and per­haps highest-pro­file, ex­ample of fire­arm re­stric­tions put in place by cor­por­ate en­tit­ies for their cus­tom­ers. Star­bucks didn’t out­right ban weapons on its premises, but oth­er com­pan­ies like Whole Foods and Peet’s Cof­fee and Tea have banned them.

Even in open-carry states, such as Ari­zona, re­tail­ers routinely ask that weapons re­main off their premises. In Phoenix, for ex­ample, it is not un­com­mon to see signs on res­taur­ants stat­ing that fire­arms are not per­mit­ted in­side.

Gun-con­trol ad­voc­ates agree that chan­ging the coun­try’s cul­tur­al view of guns is an im­port­ant, and of­ten over­looked, factor in curb­ing gun vi­ol­ence. Leg­al changes alone, like ex­pan­ded back­ground checks, won’t stop gun-re­lated sui­cides or ac­ci­dents.

“You have to change so­cial norms,” said Dan Gross, pres­id­ent of the Brady Cam­paign to Pre­vent Gun Vi­ol­ence. “There’s not enough fo­cus on this big pic­ture. It doesn’t tend to drive enough of the con­ver­sa­tion his­tor­ic­ally.”

Cor­por­ate Amer­ica, par­tic­u­larly the re­tail sec­tor, has a lot of sway in terms of so­cial norms. And their ac­tions have the dis­tinct ad­vant­age of be­ing re­moved, at least a little bit, from the po­lar­ized polit­ic­al de­bate on gun con­trol.

Think about des­ig­nated smoking areas or dress codes at res­taur­ants. It’s a lot easi­er for a man­ager of a Star­bucks to tell a latte drink­er that it’s not cool to bring his gun in with him than it is for Con­gress or state Le­gis­latures to out­law them at all cof­fee shops.

The ad­vant­age of cor­por­ate policies on fire­arms is that they don’t get in the way of gun own­ers’ leg­al rights to pos­sess their weapons, and that’s im­port­ant for keep­ing the gun con­ver­sa­tion more or less open. Gun own­ers are on guard for any hint that their rights might be cur­tailed by the gov­ern­ment, and “gun own­ers drive this de­bate,” said Richard Feld­man, pres­id­ent of the In­de­pend­ent Fire­arm Own­ers As­so­ci­ation.

Gun-con­trol ad­voc­ates are try­ing to tone down the con­front­a­tion­al talk about the is­sue, says Gross. “We’re ac­know­ledging the guns that are already out there, re­af­firm­ing our re­spect for the reas­on why those people own guns.”

Gross says cul­tur­al change comes from edu­ca­tion about gun safety, un­der­stand­ing the risks and the be­ne­fits. Some 20,000 gun deaths a year are sui­cides with leg­ally pur­chased guns. Oth­ers are ac­ci­dents or crimes of pas­sion. “There, the solu­tion is not policy. There the solu­tion is pub­lic health and safety cam­paigns. There are risks as­so­ci­ated with bring­ing a gun in­to your home and al­low­ing un­safe ac­cess to it…. It’s like ‘Friends don’t let friends drive drunk,’ ” he said.

As Con­gress is stalled on gun le­gis­la­tion, ac­tions like Star­bucks’ open let­ter to its cus­tom­ers will be­come crit­ic­al in the de­bate over gun policy. Oth­er­wise, the na­tion­al con­ver­sa­tion about guns will sur­face only when something dra­mat­ic hap­pens, such as the mass shoot­ing at Wash­ing­ton’s Navy Yard.

Then, as the news cycle dwindles down, the top­ic will sink back in­to ob­scur­ity. But Star­bucks will still re­spect­fully ask you to leave your gun out­side.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
14 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×