What I find most disturbing in the debate is not the usual redefining of terms, the sloppy logic, or obfuscation of FBI and Police data, but the (not-so-subtle) implication gun owners are inherently more violent and a hair-trigger (yes, I did that) away from climbing to the top of the nearest water tower and engaging in pedestrian target practice. In my recent email exchange with Panera Bread over their anti-gun request/policy, I was told the presence of firearms upset the desired ideal of ‘Panera Warmth” in the cafe. Well sure, If I’m waving my Beretta Cx4 Storm around or firing in the air in a Jihadist-style celebratory manner. But as a licensed Class A concealed carry guy, it’s concealed. All the years I’ve been going there, never has anyone accused me of harshing their carbohydrate mellow.
(kudos to this Scott fella for tricking his out similar to mine)
Hot Space Station Justice 
I have a problem with the ‘ideal of Panera Warmth’ — by implying that the feelings of some customers (panic, fear, loathing) about an inanimate object is more important than the feeling (safety, responsibility, independence) of other customers.
Basically they are pandering to the crowd — or saying they prefer the crowd that dislikes the presence of reality (crime does happen, police won’t be there).
Bob S.
The error or imposing cuts both ways. I respect another person’s opinion – based on whatever reasons – to dislike firearms. I don’t need to get in their face about it. It’s the reducing of human beings to caricatures based on flawed logic and skewed information that concerns me. The issue will never be resolved with hype, stereotypes and propaganda. The debate needs to be anchored in both respect and fact. The Panera policy is warm and fuzzy nonsense.