Best answer yet to Navy Yard shooting: Starbucks' declaration

A day after the Navy Yard shooting, Starbucks stands up for customers to be free of guns in stores. Such declarations to protect the innocent can help change the gun-safety debate.

Dave Munch/Carroll County Times/AP Photo
Colette Turner, left, observes a moment of silence during a vigil in honor of Richard Ridgell in Westminster, Md. Sept. 17. Ridgell was killed in Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington.

Howard Schultz, chief executive of Starbucks, made a declaration of intent on Tuesday. It is not one he will enforce nor will it be one made very visible in the chain’s 12,000-plus stores. Rather, Mr. Schultz merely took a moral stand. Guns, he stated, “should not be part of the Starbucks experience” for customers.

Those who now bring a gun into Starbucks will be politely served but not made to feel very welcome because, as Schultz put it, they make others “fairly uncomfortable.”

His here-I-stand declaration, coming a day after the mass killing at the Washington Navy Yard, could end up doing more to curb gun violence than another political debate over new gun laws. “We don’t have the votes,” declared majority leader Harry Reid when asked if the Senate might act in response to the navy yard shooting.

Even after last year’s killing of children in Newtown, Conn., the Senate failed to pass a bill to tighten background checks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has the money to defeat lawmakers who oppose it. Only a handful of states have since toughened gun laws. 

Starbucks’ declaration is an echo of a historic shift in public attitudes that began in 1971 in the way people viewed tobacco smoking. Instead of focusing on a smoker’s health, the focus shifted to the effects of smoking on innocent bystanders. The nonsmoker must be protected in confined places, declared then-Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld. From that, businesses began to set up nonsmoking zones. States then enforced such zones in public areas. A social stigma developed against smoking. Over time, smoking rates declined from 42 percent in 1965 to around 20 percent today.

A moral cause, inspired by individual concern for the innocent, led to a social movement that led to new laws. While today’s polls show overwhelming support for new gun laws, not enough Americans take as prominent or as moral a stand as Starbucks has.

Other retailers might now join in. Disney already bans guns in its theme parks. California Pizza Kitchen bans guns in its restaurants. Many big investors are withdrawing funds from gun manufacturers.

Other social movements could contribute to a grass-roots shift away from America’s violent gun culture. Young people, for example, are less interested in hunting than past generations (video games are a substitute). More people now see health – which includes freedom from gun violence – as an individual right.

Proclaiming what is good in society and worthy of protection – even if it is only a few minutes of freedom from fear in a Starbucks – will do more to influence new gun laws than simply holding a view on new gun restrictions.

The best route for laws against gun violence may now be ballot initiatives – rather than placing one’s hope on lawmakers who cower before the NRA. Voters in Maine and Washington State, for example, may soon see such ballot measures. They are the result of millions of individuals taking a stand that gun violence should not be part of their experience.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.