Last Valentines Day, the NGAC, or National Gun Victim’s Action Council, called a boycott on Starbucks. Starbucks allows customers in carrying guns, whether or not they are licensed, or if the gun is visible or not. Elliot Fineman, who heads the NGAC, stated that "Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," while Starbucks combats with the idea that they are perfectly in line with the communities beliefs. Where guns are prohibited, they prohibit them, and where they are allowed, Starbucks allows them. So who then, is in the right, and who is in the wrong, or is there a middle ground?

Many supporters of the 2nd Amendment showed up at their local Starbucks wielding their choice of firearms, $2 bills (in support of the 2nd Amendment,) and in some cases, T-shirts, mugs, and stickers featuring the Starbucks logo holding pistols in either hand with the words “Guns & Coffee” around the logo. Their argument states that the places with the most gun-related killings are where there are laws relating to who can carry a gun. As some say, “If you take guns away from the innocent and responsible, then only the crazies and criminals have them, so who protects them now?”

The supporters of the NGAC see things the other way. The way they see it, “Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence. Open and conceal-and-carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S,” or at least Elliot Fineman, who is leading the boycott, does. They say that seeing someone carrying a gun openly makes them nervous, and feels like a threat to their right to Life, or to safety.

Personally, I have to agree with Starbucks. They are not flaunting state laws by allowing guns in states where they are not allowed, they simply do not ‘infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ as our constitution states. If it makes other customers, they may leave. There are other options for coffee. I think that Starbucks should stay strong, for although the boycott is supposed to continue until they revoke their policy, keeping it in place seems better for their pockets. The anti-gun group is protesting by not buying and protesting outside of stores, while the pro-gun group comes in, buys coffee, and leaves peacefully. Some even buy coffee for anyone who asks.

So when it comes down to the question of right and wrong, I personally favor Starbucks and the pro-gun crew. Starbucks has broken no rule, and hasn’t had any issue with shootings, so why should they cancel a policy that protects the people’s ‘God-given rights’ to self defense? Go Starbucks, and keep it up!