Impact of 30.06 to businesses

[bbhack]

Active LTC as a percentage of adult pop in Texas is 4.7%, according to my calcs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... tr2015.pdf

[Tracker]

Active LTC as a percentage of adult pop in Texas is 4.7%, according to my calcs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... tr2015.pdf

Yeah, I think it was the Dallas Morning News that reported it's 5% of the adult population. To get the best handle on the stats knockout the infant to 20 year old and if possible all those in rest homes. What's telling is that young women, who make most of the buying decisions, are the fastest growth segment of the population buying handguns. http://www.guns.com/2015/01/22/women-fa ... un-buyers/

Personally, I know a few women that at one time wouldn't think of having a handgun in the house (or wanting one in the same zip code) now intertaining the the thought of buying.

[Solaris]

At 3% of the population, LTC holders boycotting a business has absolutely no effect on their revenue or profit.

True, and the whole idea that a business might "lose 3% of their customers" is statistically invalid. Look at the Applebee's 06 sign, for example. Out of the LTC holders in Texas, how many carry regularly? Out of those, how many eat at Applebee's? And out of THOSE, how many would boycott Applebees because they have an 06?

For the record, this is mis-attribution and I did not write that. I have personally steered hundreds of thousands of dollars away from antigun places.

[oldshooter]

Simply boycotting a business may not make much impact by itself; however, I have found that by talking to the managers of the business that posts a 30.06 or 30.07 sign, you can have more impact. I discussed with the local manager of a Costco (which has a corporate "no guns" rule nationwide), the fact that their initial signage would not affect TPL holders (CHLs back then) because the sign provided by corporate HQ did not conform to TX law. I also discussed with them (there were 2 managers talking to me) how the presence of correct signage would make their premises LESS safe (ie, statistics on "Gun Free Zones") and that I not only would not patronize their store anymore if they put up proper signage (and would want my prorated membership fees back), but would also recommend to all my friends that they not to do so either, based on the perception that they were not only unsafe, but inherently "anti-civil rights" too. The discussion was friendly and the managers were very surprised at the civil rights (for example, I had told them I would no more patronize a store that banned guns than I would a store that banned black people, and for the same reasons) and safety angles (which they had never considered before in the light of "Gun Free" areas being less safe from mass shootings). Within a week, they took down the ineffective corporate signage, and we are still waiting (it's been almost 3 years now) for the proper signage to be posted. And this is in a company with a strong national/corporate "no guns" attitude, but a local manager with some cojones.

On the first of this year, Half Priced Books put up BOTH 30.06 and 30.07 signage. They had never previously put up any anti-gun signage at all. I got the manager and told him I had (yet another) big box of books outside in my car, but despite having been a regular customer for the past 8 or 9 years, I was taking my box of books to Goodwill and would no longer be patronizing Half Priced Books. I also told him that I understood the signage was a corporate decision, and that I'd miss shopping there, but that since they have put up BOTH types of signs, they have taken a stand against civil rights (the SCOTUS has held that no government agency can ban ALL kinds of carry- which is why DC and IL now have CCW laws) and so, given my new safety and civil rights concerns with their company, I just couldn't, in good conscience, shop there anymore. The manager agreed to pass on my comments and feelings to the corporate HQ by their internal E-mail. Again, the conversation was friendly rather than confrontational (which I think is very important). Will they take down their signs? Who knows? I'd guess probably not, but at least if they see any drop in business in the coming year, they are more likely to consider the possibility that, just maybe, their new signage might be a factor (even if, in reality, it isn't), since they have had internal E-mails discussing at least SOME loss of business (mine) due to their signs. I think an E-mail from a branch manager has more impact than one from a customer, BTW.

I am also looking into the possibility of filing a civil rights case against them based on the concept that the 2nd Amendment creates a special "protected class" within the citizenry, of those who carry guns in public (in addition to being a protected right in itself). This makes it a civil rights issue, just like banning any other "protected class" of people (ie Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Women, Gays, etc.) and should be actionable under the 14th Amendment as well as the 2nd. The argument is that it is discriminatory, and therefore illegal, to deny services to a class of people, if you are a business that offers goods or services to the general public. Since the late 1960s, the courts have always found in favor of the discriminated minority group in such cases, consistently ruling that private property rights are restricted in this manner for businesses that serve the public. In essence, they have always ruled that, if you offer goods or services to the public, you have to offer them to ALL of the public, without restriction, except for individuals who create a danger to public health or safety (such as aggressive drunks or unsanitary "homeless people"). So, while they could deny services to an individual (with good cause) they cannot do so to a general class of people, especially a minority group (and 394K TPL holders can certainly be considered both a "class of people" and a "minority group"). Of course, since the TX law allows BOTH types of signs in the same establishment, such a lawsuit would necessarily have to challenge that element of the law itself. Keep in mind that this argument only works on businesses that post BOTH 30.06 and 30.07 signs, thereby banning ANY type of exercise of the 2nd Amendment on their premises.

[The Annoyed Man]

At 3% of the population, LTC holders boycotting a business has absolutely no effect on their revenue or profit.

Have you ever run a business or worked in financial planning for a business?

We can argue about the percentage. Personally I think 3% is low. But ask any business owner out there if a 3% decrease in their revenue will impact them. The answer will be a resounding yes for pretty much every single business. If it is a business with a high proportion of fixed costs, that 3% revenue drop may be enough to swing them from a net profit to a net loss.

3% is what you get when you do the math, comparing active license holders (numbers available at DPS website) to the state's population (Google it). I've done the math several times. 3% is about right. It used to be lower than that. I can remember when it was barely over 2%, and then 2.5%, and then 2.75%.

Now, in recent weeks, there has been an uptick in license applications in the wake of Paris, San Bernardino, Obama's SOTU speech, and other perceived threats; but the state's population is also increasing, so it will be a couple of years before the numbers shake out to know if we have a larger percentage than 3% for the period of late 2016/early 2016. And don't forget that there are any number of people who let their licenses expire each year..... so the percentage never climbs as fast as you think it would if you don't take that into account as well as the population increases.

A few years ago, someone started a thread on this forum, asking how many of us carry 24/7. I've been trying to find the thread and I'll post it here if/when I find it, but the upshot was that not everybody who is a member of this forum carries all day, every day. There were many who said that they only carry if they are going into a "rough part of town", or "running an errand late at night". There were even some who said that they practically never carry, but that they had their license so that they could do so legally if they felt the need. ............And that was members of THIS forum, who arguably represent those with a higher commitment to carrying a gun and the issues surrounding it than either the total body of licensed people, or the general population at large.

[The Annoyed Man]

Active LTC as a percentage of adult pop in Texas is 4.7%, according to my calcs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... tr2015.pdf

First of all, you're comparing a 2015 license report against a 2014 population number. But EVEN IF you were comparing 2015 licenses against the 2014 population, check your calculator.......... I get a completely different percentage of 3.48% (937,419 2015 license holders divided by the 2014 estimated population of 26,956,958).

However, if you divide the 2014 active licenses (825,957) by the 2014 estimated population (26,956,958), you get a figure of 3.064%.........or "about" 3% as I previously stated.

Apples to apples, and all that.

Edited to add:

If you google "2015 estimated population of Texas", you get this figure from the state: 27,695,284 (SOURCE).

Now, divide 937,419 2015 license holders by estimated state population of 27,695,284, and you get 3.38%......... a little closer to what I claimed, and a lot more sustainable by the available data than your number of 4.7%......which I'm still not sure how you obtained it.

[Tracker]

Active LTC as a percentage of adult pop in Texas is 4.7%, according to my calcs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... tr2015.pdf

First of all, you're comparing a 2015 license report against a 2014 population number. But EVEN IF you were comparing 2015 licenses against the 2014 population, check your calculator.......... I get a completely different percentage of 3.48% (937,419 2015 license holders divided by the 2014 estimated population of 26,956,958).

However, if you divide the 2014 active licenses (825,957) by the 2014 estimated population (26,956,958), you get a figure of 3.064%.........or "about" 3% as I previously stated.

Apples to apples, and all that.

Edited to add:

If you google "2015 estimated population of Texas", you get this figure from the state: 27,695,284 (SOURCE).

Now, divide 937,419 2015 license holders by estimated state population of 27,695,284, and you get 3.38%......... a little closer to what I claimed, and a lot more sustainable by the available data than your number of 4.7%......which I'm still not sure how you obtained it.

But marketers/businesses are interested in who will be purchasing and making the buying decisions. What they want to know is how many of those with LTCs are in their customer base. The problem with dividing total Texas population by total Texas LTCs you include millions who don't make those buying decisions, infants and elderly. I think it's safe to say that a higher percentage of customers with an LTC buy from Tractor Supply then from Whole Foods.

[baldeagle]

TAM, is this what you were referring to? viewtopic.php?t=17454
Or perhaps this? viewtopic.php?t=69823
Or perhaps this one? viewtopic.php?t=1489

BTW, I don't use the forum search function. It's absolutely horrible. I use google and do this: site:texaschlforum.com searchstring

[The Annoyed Man]

Active LTC as a percentage of adult pop in Texas is 4.7%, according to my calcs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... tr2015.pdf

First of all, you're comparing a 2015 license report against a 2014 population number. But EVEN IF you were comparing 2015 licenses against the 2014 population, check your calculator.......... I get a completely different percentage of 3.48% (937,419 2015 license holders divided by the 2014 estimated population of 26,956,958).

However, if you divide the 2014 active licenses (825,957) by the 2014 estimated population (26,956,958), you get a figure of 3.064%.........or "about" 3% as I previously stated.

Apples to apples, and all that.

Edited to add:

If you google "2015 estimated population of Texas", you get this figure from the state: 27,695,284 (SOURCE).

Now, divide 937,419 2015 license holders by estimated state population of 27,695,284, and you get 3.38%......... a little closer to what I claimed, and a lot more sustainable by the available data than your number of 4.7%......which I'm still not sure how you obtained it.

But marketers/businesses are interested in who will be purchasing and making the buying decisions. What they want to know is how many of those with LTCs are in their customer base. The problem with dividing total Texas population by total Texas LTCs you include millions who don't make those buying decisions, infants and elderly. I think it's safe to say that a higher percentage of customers with an LTC buy from Tractor Supply then from Whole Foods.

I agree with that, but even so, there are a lot of complaints on this forum about Whole Foods.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM, is this what you were referring to? viewtopic.php?t=17454
Or perhaps this? viewtopic.php?t=69823
Or perhaps this one? viewtopic.php?t=1489

BTW, I don't use the forum search function. It's absolutely horrible. I use google and do this: site:texaschlforum.com searchstring

It must have been one of the first two, as it was started after I joined in January of 2008. I'll have to peruse those threads. I have the vaguest memory that it was a poll......but I might be wrong about that.

[Oldgringo]

Assuming the economy is alive and well, merchants live and die by their business decisions. If they choose, or are directed, to post anti-gun signs, I'm assuming they know what they're doing and I'll abide by their decisions. IOW, it ain't no sweat off my back, I have other matters of greater concern; such as, which pellet does my new HW97K prefer and where might we take the RV next.

[gdanaher]

Statistics can be made to do whatever you wish, but consider the following in determining the affect on retail business:
a) the number representing the total population of Texas
b) subtract all those under the age of 21
c) subtract all those who have felony or class a convictions and are not eligible
d) subtract all those who who otherwise do not qualify due to citizenship or residency issues

The figure I come up with is close to 5% of the ELIGIBLE population, or close to 3% of the total population.
Now, balance that with some figure that represents the percentage of the population who not frequent particular retailers because they have NOT signed their stores.

I'd presume that most stores don't really care if you carry or not as long as it does not affect their black ink. If the unlicensed population refuses to frequent a retailer because they are not signed, it could impact even more seriously the bottom line than posting 30.06.

Just my 2c.

[Breny414]

Statistics can be made to do whatever you wish, but consider the following in determining the affect on retail business:
a) the number representing the total population of Texas
b) subtract all those under the age of 21
c) subtract all those who have felony or class a convictions and are not eligible
d) subtract all those who who otherwise do not qualify due to citizenship or residency issues

The figure I come up with is close to 5% of the ELIGIBLE population, or close to 3% of the total population.
Now, balance that with some figure that represents the percentage of the population who not frequent particular retailers because they have NOT signed their stores.

I'd presume that most stores don't really care if you carry or not as long as it does not affect their black ink. If the unlicensed population refuses to frequent a retailer because they are not signed, it could impact even more seriously the bottom line than posting 30.06.

Just my 2c.

Not sure that you can subtract all those because, with the exception of (b) , all of the others have an economic impact and need to be included in your impact analysis. I would question (b) too... 21 year olds are adults who have choices about where they spend their money. Maybe it should be that you subtract folks 17 years or younger.

[gdanaher]

We're trying to see what percentage of the poplulation is licensed. With military exceptions which are few, you can eliminate those under 21 from being candidates for licensure. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. The question was two-fold---what percentage of the popluation is licensed, and secondly, what percentage of the eligible population is licensed? Some folks just aren't eligible. You can also eliminate a percentage of the senior population (pick a number, say over 75 yo) , but I doubt that would affect the final numbers very much..

[Soccerdad1995]

Statistics can be made to do whatever you wish, but consider the following in determining the affect on retail business:
a) the number representing the total population of Texas
b) subtract all those under the age of 21
c) subtract all those who have felony or class a convictions and are not eligible
d) subtract all those who who otherwise do not qualify due to citizenship or residency issues

The figure I come up with is close to 5% of the ELIGIBLE population, or close to 3% of the total population.
Now, balance that with some figure that represents the percentage of the population who not frequent particular retailers because they have NOT signed their stores.

I'd presume that most stores don't really care if you carry or not as long as it does not affect their black ink. If the unlicensed population refuses to frequent a retailer because they are not signed, it could impact even more seriously the bottom line than posting 30.06.

Just my 2c.

Not sure that you can subtract all those because, with the exception of (b) , all of the others have an economic impact and need to be included in your impact analysis. I would question (b) too... 21 year olds are adults who have choices about where they spend their money. Maybe it should be that you subtract folks 17 years or younger.

Yes, but 17-21 year olds do not have nearly as much disposable income as those over 21. Maybe subtract 16 and under entirely and subtract 50-75% of the population that is 17-21 to adjust for their lower discretionary income.

There should also be an adjustment for the fact that LTC holders, on average, should have a higher disposable income than non-LTC holders. LTC holders can support an expensive hobby, including the purchase of a weapon and accessories (say $800 minimum), and range time (maybe $50-$100 a month on average between range fees and ammo).

Of course, there are necessarily a lot of guesstimates in this, but I stand by my rough approximation that LTC holders, in Texas, can influence anywhere from 5% to 10% of the total revenue for an average business. Whether LTC holders actually are willing to do so, or not, is a whole other matter. What I do know is that I am doing whatever I can to shift my family's spending away from businesses that post, and I encourage others to do the same.