Guns and Caffein

Post Reply New Topic

In the State of Virginia, customers who carry side-arms openly are welcome in Starbuck's Coffee Shops. Think of it: the second amendment and latte in one place. What a country!

ruveyn

Are they not welcome in other coffee shops? Do you forsee this being a problem?

Now that is a real American coffee shop!

Doonesbury has picked up on it over the last few days, pretty funny if it wasn't so far from the truth.

What a country, indeed.

Try as I might, I fail to see how this contributes to the peace, order and good government of a modern country. But then again, as peace, order and good government has always been the Canadian way, rather than the American way, perhaps that is as it should be.

I must say I applaud Starbuck's stance. Private businesses have the right to ban handguns on their property of course, but the support of such a large chain (and from the west coast, too) is a victory.

Well, since Americans now have the privilege of dying of cancer while waiting on a government health care list just like Canadians, we'll be needing our guns to end our misery.

Starbuck's policy is to abide by federal, state and local laws concerning firearms. If you have a CCW in a state where that is legal then Starbucks won't say anything about it to you.

Oh, that old piece of ill-informed propaganda.

Last time I checked, there was nothing in US health care reform about rationing services. Come to that, last time I checked, there was no rationing of services in this country, either. It must be understood that the public sector offers no health services in this country (other that limited services to the Armed Forces, Public Service, Penitentiary inmates and Aboriginal people). The public sector is a single source purchaser of services from private sector service providers (hospitals, clinics, physicians, nurses, and other professionals). Since the public sector is only purchasing these services, not providing them, the public sector is in no position to dictate who gets treated when--that is a medical decision taken by the service provider.

Now, that being said, supply and demand for services do create pressures, but these are not issues of government control of access, but rather private service providers managing the demand for their services, the time available to provide services and the medical necessity of their patients. Meanwhile, provincial governments are being confronted with the political and legal challenges posed by wait times, and are making some headway in adding the infrastructure necessary to meet the service demand. It is by no means perfect, but it is hardly the circumstance that you describe.

As for cancer, given that our cancer mortality rates are lower than the US (148.2 vs. 160.5 per 100,000 for women, and 215.1 vs. 234.1 per 100,000 for men), perhaps our oncology services are just as good as yours. Our incidence rates are also lower, but I will grant you that while some of that may also be attributable to differing approaches to detection, which makes the mortality statistic the much more reliable evaluator of health services delivery with respect to cancer.

Oh, and our mortality rate from firearms: 4.78 per 100,000, as opposed to 11.66 per 100,000 in the US. (While your overall rate is a little over double ours, your firearms homicide rate is almost five times ours, which suicide and unintentional mortality are only about double our rate). Perhaps if your ERs weren't so busy with gunshot wounds you might be able to close that cancer gap.

Canada is the "kinder, gentler" America. While we produce, you guys behave yourselves very nicely. Just remember, if it were not for the U.S.A. the official language of Canada would be German.

ruveyn

And while on health care, lets lay the lawyer problem on the table too...

I was in the ER and the MD said OK were are going to do this test, this one and these others because it isn't that I think you need them all, it's so some lawyer won't sue my a** later and take away my livelihood.

He said in Canada, and I may not have the exact context correct here, but basically if I wanted to sue I would be liable for the money if I lost. So you better be damn sure the was negligence and not just some shyster trying to get his cut.

And being in health care I can vouch for this...we had some parents file a suit against one of our pediatric hospitals because they blamed the hospital for the kid not getting into an Ivy League school because of his delivery 21 years earlier...and you don't think that kind of BS doesn't add to health care cost.

I think you will find that we did more than our share in those two scuffles with Germany. And we showed up on time, too.

as both a firearm and coffee enthusiest i think this is a great step forward........whats that sound........oh yea thats change

I've been carrying concealed on a CCW for years, so the rules at Starbucks don't have all that much effect on me either way, but I'm happy to see that they aren't being stupid. Legal gun carriers are about the most law abiding demographic out there, excluding them from their stores wouldn't make anyone safer, and would simply drive those customers elsewhere. I'm sure anyone entering a Starbucks with malicious intent also might reconsider if a number of the customers were visibly armed, but that's strictly a side benefit.

And yet none other than Michael Moore pointed out that Canada actually has a pretty high per capita rate of gun ownership as well, and low crime even before they tightened up the laws a few years back. The difference in crime rates is a complex subject with a complex answer that's beyond the scope of this thread, but scapegoating guns is demonstrably the wrong answer.

True. But equally, the uncritical exemption of the regulatory framework of gun ownership from public policy debate is also the wrong answer.