Starbucks issued a “request” that gun owners not bring their guns into Starbucks stores. While groups that have been waiting for this are celebrating a victory (depending on how you look at it) for this battle….it’s the war they are clearly losing. This week, a look at Starbucks, some of the last echoes of the gun control movement’s attempts to exploit the Navy Yard shooting, and a look at the next attempt at changing the language.

1.) Starbucks. The major news in the gun world this week is, of course, Starbucks’ open letter to gun owners. The letter from the company’s CEO basically “requested” that guns not be brought into the stores. This has generated at-best mixed reaction from gun owners. I have seen more than a few posts blaming people who open carry around the Internet. NRANews’ anchor Cam Edwards, in a piece for, seems to believe that a ban may be in the works if the company feels the “request” is not being honored. Colion Noir believes Starbucks has “come out of the anti-gun closet”, but that blaming those who Open Carry is essentially dividing the pro-gun movement “over a couple of java beans.” Personally, I tend to align more with Mr. Noir’s views, but that’s just me. I don’t Open Carry, I find it to be ASKING for trouble (especially in a major city) but I don’t hold anything against those who decide to openly carry their firearms.

For whatever reason, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have felt the need to release statements on their own policies for firearms.

2.) Navy Yard Shooting. At this point, even those who support it know that gun control has almost no chance of returning to the forefront after the DC shooting. Aside from the irony of a shooting in a gun-free-zone in gun-free DC, and with the budget theater reloading, there simply isn’t enough time or enough momentum to bring up the topic. And it’s not just in Congress where the idea has been barely recieved. As reported by MarketWatch, the two major publicly-traded gun manufacturers, Smith and Wesson and Ruger, barely moved in the days following the Yard shooting. The two companies’ stock basically crashed following the Newtown shooting, but their performance recently has led many to believe that the market isn’t too concerned about the post-Navy Yard performance of these two companies and perhaps the gun market at large. As far as the public is concerned, a Rasmussen poll suggests that opposition to gun control is at its highest point in over a year. 58% of respondents told pollsters that the shooting was unlikely to lead to new gun legislation, and 59% of respondents think tougher gun laws wouldn’t have stopped the shooting anyway.

3.) Looking ahead. My friend The Armed Novelist found what is likely the next move by gun control proponents. Since “high-capacity assault rifle” “weapons of war” and so forth aren’t being anywhere near as effective as they used to be, a new term has come up in gun control vernacular: the “Law Enforcement-Style Shotgun” (which may or may not have Biden’s approval anyway). This is largely similar to how “global warming” alarmists then changed to talking about “climate change”, then when that failed it became “global climate disruption.”

Outside of that is the media’s odd lack of interest in the mass shootings in Chicago. The irony that we had two rather large shootings in two gun control havens is not lost on most people. (The narrative, by the way, seems to be that it’s about guns coming in from other States, not because Chicago and Illinois gun laws are so tight.)

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it’s almost as if even the gun control movement sees its own momentum slipping. “Weapons of war” has become robotic, “military-style” has become easily and frequently debunked, and the movement’s steadfast unwillingness to discuss crime in Chicago and DC (among others) is starting to grow tiresome even to those outside of the gun rights movement.

Just before this brief “went to print” if you will, Armed Novelist sent me what may be another potential angle for the gun control movement that is both a little unnerving and a show of desperation. There is an op-ed in The Guardian in the UK asking “shouldn’t the world intervene” to “lower” gun violence in our country. A movement predicated on increasing government power and trampling on people’s rights would have nothing against bringing in the U.N. It is a small note, and I only have that op-ed, but it is certainly something to consider as the domestic gun control movement becomes increasingly desperate and irrelevant.


I am starting to become exhausted of the almost regular notifications of active shooters in areas where guns are prohibited and the ignorance that floods social media thereafter.

Put bluntly: Shit’s getting old.

The idea that military bases are gun-free-zones is apparently insane even to gun control advocates. We saw this madness at Fort Hood too. Worst part is that this is DC. It’s a shooting at a gun-free-zone WITHIN a gun-free-zone.

Over on Twitter, the requisite screeches of “what will it take” and “we must do something” flood my Twitter feed as if a sewage pipe burst. Key parts of the story are left out and replaced with emotion. It doesn’t matter that he stole the weapon, nor that he carried a gun into a place where he REALLY wasn’t allowed to. What matters is we need to do “something.”

And what stopped the shooter? What horrible force brought it to an end?
Another gun. Proportionate force.

The response, apparently, is that there weren’t ENOUGH laws for this lunatic to break. What laws, for example, would have prevented him from stealing the AR from the base? (In addition, note that this guy passed all military background checks and even had a Secret security clearance.)

It wouldn’t hurt everyone to start noticing patterns like this. And how the “next” mass shooting is flat-out impossible to predict, and therefore impossible to stop. The “only option” right now (as many college handbooks note) is essentially to keep a low profile and pray he doesn’t off you. I would suggest another option; having even the CHANCE to fight back.

Anti-gun vs. pro-gun comes down to submission vs. empowerment. Do you want to pray police get there in time, or have a defense while the police are on the way? Would you place bets on an LEO who is on the other side of the campus when the Wolf is LITERALLY at the door, or would you prefer to be prepared for him?

In short, do you want to hope you don’t get killed or have a 165 decibel say in whether you get killed?

The idea that there are people who would force you to rely on others who simply cannot get to you in time (no matter how much they want to) is repulsive at best, and flat-out evil at worst.