Gun Control Photo of the Day

From Fox News, a customer in a Starbucks star watches some morons:

Starbucks Corp. and some other chain stores in the U.S. are finding themselves caught in the middle of a firearms debate, as gun-control advocates go up against a burgeoning campaign by gun owners to carry holstered pistols in public places.

The "open carry" movement, in which gun owners carry unconcealed handguns as they go about their everyday business, is loosely organized around the country but has been gaining traction in recent months. Gun-control advocates have been pushing to quash the movement, including by petitioning the Starbucks coffee chain to ban guns on its premises.

Businesses have the final say on their property. But the ones that don't opt to ban guns—such as Starbucks—have become parade grounds of sorts for open-carry advocates.

Starbucks on Wednesday, while bemoaning being thrust into the debate, defended its long-standing policy of complying with state open-carry weapons laws, in part by stating that its baristas, or "partners," could be harmed if the stores were to ban guns. The chain said that in the 43 states where open carry is legal, it has about 4,970 company-operated stores.

The company added: "The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

Unlike the idiots with the signs in the photo above, Starbucks gets it. They understand that banning guns only removes guns from the good guys and doesn't stop the bad guys at all. Allowing open or concealed carry in their stores is in many ways a part of their corporate security plan. Rather than paying for security guards or alarm systems they have good citizens enjoying their products and providing visual proof that robbing this store or trying to assault patrons will be met with deadly force.

I wrote a piece quite a while ago about the Mission Viejo Mall and their "no weapons" policy. It didn't stop a robber from coming in, hitting a jewelry store and then engaging responding deputies in a shoot-out (which the robber lost). It did stop anyone else in the mall from being able to respond to the threat.

We'll never know how many violent acts are prevented because of the presence of armed good citizens, and that's too bad, because the only thing the media will ever report are those situations where bad people use guns to harm innocents, and therefore paint all guns as evil.

And for those who continue to promote gun bans in the face of evidence that they don't work, here's an excerpt from an article about the failure of the Chicago gun ban:

In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent—at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.

Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared to an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.

Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it.

It's really not that hard to understand.