Movie Tavern a No Go now also

[dhoenich]

My favorite place to go see a movie just posted... I did leave them a note and got a response.

Mine:
I just saw that you are now posting 30.07 AND 30.06 signs on your Texas locations to forbid firearms. While I understand the 30.07 open carry signs to prevent distraction, the 30.06 will prevent me and the majority of the CHL community from patronizing your establishments. You are certainly well within your rights as a private company to have any policies you wish. I along with all other CHL holders will respect that decision. This is the same as all of the other CHL customers. We follow the law, and will just not enter if the 30.06 is posted. These 30.06 signs do nothing to prevent people that wish to do harm while preventing law abiding people from entering. All of the mass shootings have happened in gun free zones and I will have to abstain from frequenting any business that asks me to allow myself to be a victim.

My wife and I enjoy evenings at Movie Tavern and have carried concealed while attending. It was our date night pick, but I cannot and will not support a business that posts the 30.06 sign. I will be back if the concealed signs come down.

Their response:
Thank you for your email. Our parent company Southern Theaters has long had a "Gun Free" policy. The recent change in Texas law has expedited our change to conform to that policy. As a company we do not feel that the carrying of firearms is conducive to a comfortable movie going experience for our collective guests.
I understand your feelings on the subject, and while I hope that you continue your patronage of our establishment, you must of course do what you feel is best for you and your family.
Again, thank you.

My Follow up:
Thank you for your response. Hopefully you will forget to post the 30.06 sign on the new theater, or decide that it is not needed.

"As a company we do not feel that the carrying of firearms is conducive to a comfortable movie going experience for our collective guests." Your guests did not know, and were not concerned about CHL holders in the theater. A 30.07 open carry sign will satisfy 99% on both sides of the argument. No CHL holder that I've spoken to plan to do any business with establishments that disallow concealed carry.

Hopefully your policy toward concealed carry will change, but if not, I did enjoy the theater and food.

[rtschl]

Don't forget movie theater mass shooting July 20, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado.

Edited. Thought I was responding to a post by someone else - might be one of those disappearing ones. You might tell them about the gun free killing zones that theaters like Aurora and in Louisiana.

[Bitter Clinger]

After avoiding Whole Foods, we will settle for a nice bottle of wine at home and a little "pay per view"....

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[Lynyrd]

Their response:
Thank you for your email. Our parent company Southern Theaters has long had a "Gun Free" policy. The recent change in Texas law has expedited our change to conform to that policy.

My guess is that the decision makers for corporations owned out of state just recently realized that among their patrons were CHL customers. This due to all of the publicity nationwide about the new open carry law in Texas. It's a shame. We haven't caused any trouble, yet they treat us like snakes.

This also makes me wonder what these multi state businesses do in other states.

[Lena]

This is very true with many. Per the above post.
We have noticed just in 12 days now since passing that about 1/2 of the places we frequent now have new signs up some of both in places that were NONE before, not too happy with that but after seeing all the media coverage I expected it, but not to this degree.

[VMI77]

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.

Seattle. Enough said.

The "opposition" has no problem with intimidation and violence....and they resort to it whenever they think can get away with it. Their paradigm was created with the intent of ultimately leaving THEM a monopoly over the tools of violence and intimidation. So when you talk about a paradigm shift it is only relevant in application to those in the middle --the same audience indoctrinated by our opposition. The problem is, THEY control the schools and the media, so they have successfully set the narrative. All we've got is the internet.

[Lynyrd]

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.

"Nuts running around with guns." Sadly that's what many people think. We are "NUTS." Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone who looks at us as nuts would ever openly and objectively listen to evidence to the contrary.

[VMI77]

Their response:
Thank you for your email. Our parent company Southern Theaters has long had a "Gun Free" policy. The recent change in Texas law has expedited our change to conform to that policy. As a company we do not feel that the carrying of firearms is conducive to a comfortable movie going experience for our collective guests.
I understand your feelings on the subject, and while I hope that you continue your patronage of our establishment, you must of course do what you feel is best for you and your family.
Again, thank you.

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.

[VMI77]

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.

"Nuts running around with guns." Sadly that's what many people think. We are "NUTS." Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone who looks at us as nuts would ever openly and objectively listen to evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, we're all crazy nuts, or so they say. Nuts with guns. Obviously it's not intended to be anything more than an insult because only truly crazy people would deliberately insult and antagonize crazy nuts with guns....if they really believed they were crazy.

[Solaris]

It is going to be interesting to see how criminals react to these signs. Are they aware what they mean? Will they target the more? Here is recent case...

http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/20 ... /78437148/

06/07 location and criminals basically took it over and robbed everyone who came in. No fear anyone armed would come in.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

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"

[XDgal]

I think we need an even more radical change in our communications with businesses. Maybe something like this.
Dear Business Owner,
I recently noticed you made the decision to post your business with the TPC 30.06 and TPC 30.07 signs. I find this a troubling decision. As you know, these signs prohibit only the most law abiding segment of Texas society as per the Texas Department of Public Safety's 20 year records of license holders. This, by default, means you are now catering to the more criminally inclined. This inevitably leads to more vandalism and petty theft, which eats away at your profits. It opens you up to more armed robberies, which takes all your days receipts. Your patrons will also be open to more muggings, purse snatchings, car burglaries, even rapes, while on your property. This leads to a drop in patronage. You will have to hire very expensive armed guards. All cutting in to your profits.
As a member of this community, I'm very concerned with the continued prosperity of our local economy. Your business is an integral part of that economy, and we need you to prosper. I hope you reconsider your decision to bar law abiding citizens and remain a vital part of our community.
Sincerely,
XDgal

What do ya'll think?
XDgal

[VMI77]

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.