TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If every CHL holder committed to boycotting any theatre that had a 30.06 sign, I think there would be a big enough impact to be noticed. Same math works for restaurants, etc. I think the real problem is that a lot of CHL holders just don't care enough to actually change their purchasing behavior.

If that were the case you might be right and it might indeed matter. But I think your last sentence is most correct --most don't care enough to change their behavior. A lot of people with CHLs don't even regularly carry. I suspect a large percentage are indifferent to the 30.06 signs for that reason. Another large percentage are willing to disarm either because their girlfriend, spouse, parents, friends, etc...with little or no interest (or are actually anti gun) want to go.

In some cases, various stores for instance, a spouse who doesn't carry may continue to spend money there. A non CHL spouse spending money at Whole Foods is the same as the CHL husband spending money there.

The people in this forum are probably about as dedicated carriers and 2nd amendment advocates as their are and even some here will continue to trade at places that put up 30.06 signs.

Not only that, but even if ALL license holders carried 24/7/365, and even if ALL license carriers completely boycotted ALL 06/07 posted businesses, we represent no more than 3% of the population at large, and we don't ALL shop at ALL the same businesses. I think that license holders vastly overestimate our collective purchasing power. A 3% downtick in a company's business isn't going to put that company into distress unless it is already on extremely shaky financial footing. Like someone said above, paraphrasing the attitude of businesses that post signage, "we don't care, because we don't have to". The only incentive they have to change is to come to the conclusion that every dog has its day in the son, and that it is generally unproductive to make permanent enemies of your business. But there is a distinct difference between behavior that is unproductive for the future, and behavior that is financially costly in the present. The fact is, business boycotts by license holders are like mosquitos, and will be largely ineffective.

If those posted business owners change their minds, it won't be because of boycotts by license holders; it will be because they've come to the conclusion after some longer elapsed period of time that there have been no bloodbaths and that they might as well open up their businesses to concealed carry. I seriously doubt that - once posted 30.07 - most businesses will take down their 30.07 signs.

3% is 3%. Implicit in that is the assumption that all CHL holders do not shop at the same stores or go to the same restaurants. There may well be some businesses where there is a greater or lesser concentration of CHL holders, but on average, if a business gets paying customers from every segment of the population, then CHL holders should make up 3% of their customer base.

Most businesses have paying customers only above a certain age, say 16. So to determine the average percentage of CHL holders in that businesses customer base you need to take the same numerator and divide it by the smaller denominator that excludes the under 16 population. If the CHL holding customer can also influence the decision of a non-CHL holding customer, say a spouse, or a co-worker who is joining them for lunch, then the effective impact is magnified. I think the real impact could be 5% - 10% if all CHL holders actually believed in boycotting free fire zones. That isn't reality, so lets say that the impact on most businesses is really only 3% after all factors are considered.

I work in finance and have worked for many fortune 500 companies. Trust me when I say that if a company is expecting a 3% growth in same store sales (typical for a retailer), and the actual growth is 0%, then heads will roll. It won't cause the business to go bankrupt, but it will be enough to warrant investigation and remediation. If a policy change is found to be the driver of this revenue miss, then that policy will most likely be changed.

GeekwithaGun wrote:

jt88 wrote:Not sure where you're located, but if anyone lives near Flower Mound, the Moviehouse & Eatery is 30.07 posted, but supports concealed carry. Their food is much better than Movie Tavern, and the seats are super comfy. Service there is top notch as well. I cannot speak for the other Moviehouse & Eatery locations, but I now go out of my way to support the Flower Mound location due to their support of concealed carry. They have a sign next to their 30.07 that literally says that legally concealed carry is welcome.

Agree - we have been there one time and will be back because of the policy change at Movie Tavern.

It might be a good idea to also let the new place know why they are getting your money.

I'm going to try a different tactic in the wording of letters to these places. Something along the following lines (for a theatre). I think this frames the conversation in the right manner and also directly shows that their decision is costing them money.

"My family and I went to your theatre last night to see the ___ PM showing of _____. Unfortunately, I was sad to see that your building is now posted with a sign which requires your customers to be defenseless if they want to view movies in your theatre. Given the recent mass shootings across the country, and specifically the shooting at a theatre in Aurora, Colorado, my family and I are not comfortable knowing that a similar mass shooting at your establishment will result in the maximum possible number of deaths and injuries. We really love your theatre, but we cherish the safety of our children more, and we do not believe that being defenseless is consistent with a comfortable movie going experience.

Instead, we went to ____ theatre where we were able to just catch the ___ showing of this same movie. For reference, I have included a copy of our ticket and concession receipts totaling $___. This is money that we would have preferred to spend at your business but for your unfortunate decision to compromise the safety of myself, my wife, and our 3 innocent children. (If there are no non-posted theatres in your town, insert a different activity).

Please let me know if you decide to change this policy in the future so that my family and our friends can resume our patronage of your business. Alternatively, please provide me with a detailed plan for how you will ensure the safety of my family and all of your other customers if you are ever unfortunate enough to have a mass shooting at your theatre. I cannot, in good faith, allow my children to be in your business unless I know that they will be safe.

Sincerely,

Soccerdad"

VMI77 wrote:Reminds me of the old Lily Tomlin sketch on SNL about the phone company before the breakup of AT&T. The tagline was: "We're the phone company, we don't care, we don't have to." That's what this response amounts to. And they're right, they don't have to care because we're such a small part of their bottom line that they don't have to.

I'm not sure I believe that we can not have an impact. Yes, CHL holders may be only 4% of the population in Texas, but that means we are a higher percentage of the population that would actually be paying for a trip to the movies (need to exclude children and the very old from the denominator). So that gets us to maybe 6% of their targeted customer population. Now consider that we will frequently go to the movies with a non-CHL holder and we influence probably closer to 10% of their bottom line.

I have worked for many large, publicly traded companies, and believe me when I say that a 10% drop in revenues would be enough to get some extreme notice by senior management. At a movie theatre in particular, most of their costs are fixed (building rent, depreciation of equipment, utilities). This means that a 10% drop in revenue has a much greater than 10% impact on the bottom line.

If every CHL holder committed to boycotting any theatre that had a 30.06 sign, I think there would be a big enough impact to be noticed. Same math works for restaurants, etc. I think the real problem is that a lot of CHL holders just don't care enough to actually change their purchasing behavior.

At the risk of using a very over used phrase, a paradigm shift is needed here.

The problem is that the opposition equates the presence of guns with intimidation and violence, even if they can't see the guns. If we could somehow shift the conversation, it would make so much more sense. Just think if the theatres' response had been "we do not believe that customers having a means to resist violent assaults is conducive to a comfortable movie going experience. We think our customers will be more comfortable knowing that a mass shooter will kill as many people as possible."

When framed more accurately, it is very clear that their position is non-sensical. The question is how do we shift the terminology?

This is something that I have really struggled with. Recently my mother was visiting from Seattle. I mentioned that open carry had passed and that some businesses like Whataburger were not allowing customers to carry weapons openly. She responded by saying that was good since nobody wants a bunch of nuts running around with guns. She knows that I own a fair amount of guns, and that I carry. As far as I know she doesn't think I am a nut, and I still had no success convincing her to see things in an unbiased light.