Impact of 30.06 to businesses

[Solaris]

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

It has an effect, it is just hard to measure something that did not happen. I imagine if they could measure it, the signs would not be there except for die-hard anti-gun places.

[flintknapper]

That is exactly the way you have to look at the much vaunted (but factually absent) effect of LTC boycotts on businesses with 30.06 and 30.07 signs. My decision to boycott a business is an entirely one-sided transaction. I will have the satisfaction of not giving my dollars to a business I cannot support, but the merchant whom I boycott won't even notice I'm missing.......especially if I had not previously frequented his establishment and become personally known to him.

Boycott them if you must. I do myself. But understand that about 99% of the time, your boycott will have exactly zero effect on the merchant, and it is nothing more than an act of conscience on your own part.

^^^^^^^^ Agreed.

In the Grand Scheme...we would not be 'missed' by many businesses.

But, some exceptions apply (Expensive items with high profit margins). Pretty sure most business owners would prefer NOT to miss any of those sales.

Also any business/service that tends to attract or cater to groups (family units, friends, like minded enthusiasts, etc), rather than individuals. The potential loss there could be significant. If I eat at a particular restaurant once a week, then stop...so what! IF I take my family to that same restaurant or if our church GROUP stops going there...that might be noticed.

But of great importance....is the need to politely make businesses aware that we are choosing to go elsewhere. IF we fail to do that...somehow thinking they will figure it out at the end of the month, we are kidding ourselves. We MUST politely and respectfully approach them. Then let them decide if its all really worth it, is it fair, are they safer, what does it really achieve!

[Ruark]

1 in 20 Texas adults have a Texas LTC. If all of them boycot stores/restaurants posting 30.06 signs, depending on their market, businesses could feel the pinch

Those 1 in 20 are spread out all over the state. To have any impact at all, you would have to get a significant number to agree not to shop at a particular store. If, for example, you got 10,000 people to sign a petition stating that they will never shop at a store with a 30.06 sign, it probably wouldn't have any impact. If you got 100,000, it might get some notice. And that's only 1/10th of the LTC holders and 0.5% of Texans.

That's an angle, if anybody wants to pick up that ball and run with it. Present businesses (or their corporate headquarters) with a very brief summary of LTCs, the 06 signs, etc. and a petition signed by 500,000 license holders saying they will not patronize any business with a 30.06.

[Ruark]

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?

[baldeagle]

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?

Well, I'm one. I don't eat there often, but if our local Applebee's is now signed, I will never eat there again. I do not patronize 30.06 businesses. I will go way out of my way to not patronize 30.06 businesses. I refuse to go to Costco because of what they did to Erik Scott and because they are anti-gun, posted or not. That pisses my wife off, but I don't care, and she knows I will not change my mind.

I don't expect other people to walk in my shoes, but I try to live out my principles to the best of my ability. There are certain actors whose movies I will never watch, certain businesses that I will never do business with. I dropped my car insurance and got another company because of their politics (and paid a higher price for car insurance to boot.) If you post a 30.06 sign, I will never darken your door again - forever. I don't care if you take the sign down later. You've made your position known, and I took note of it.

If EVERY LTC lived that way, it might have an impact, but not every one will, nor would I expect them to.

[bbhack]

There is a Mex place that we sometimes eat at 2 times a week. Saw a report that they posted 06 AND 07, but on further inspection, it was a different location, and I'm not sure if the one on I10 has done something stupid.

So, at lunch today, my 12 YO asked if we can really not go there anymore. I said I don't know. Thats THREE people, ONE CHL. That was my original point, but of course, the analysis has some level of conjecture.

[pushpullpete]

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

Exactly. We comprise a shade less than 3% of the state's population. It would be a mistake of epic proportions to operate on the premise that all 3% of us shop at all businesses in the state. It is equally wrong to go on the assumption that all 3% of us carry a gun 24/7. The fact is, most LTC holders don't. Even all of the members of this forum, which are collectively probably much more committed to carrying than pretty much the average LTC, do not all carry 24/7. Since our numbers are spread throughout the state, only a minuscule number of us exist in any one location at any one time, who are actually carrying a gun.

Take my church as an example, which is posted 30.07 (compliant signs have replaced the non-compliant signs initially posted), and which has an average weekly attendance of about 1500-1700. If you calculate backwards on that number and assume that (a) 3% of our congregation have LTCs (not necessarily a safe assumption), and (b) that all 3% of the congregation who have LTCs are carrying on any given Sunday at church (definitely not a safe assumption since I know LTCs at my church who don't carry at church), then your assumption would be that 45 to 51 people are carrying on any given Sunday at my church. Let's assume for the sake of argument that all of your assumptions are true. If ALL of them refused to attend church there any longer because of those 30.07 signs, the truth is that the church's pastoral staff probably wouldn't even notice their absence (an average of 48 people out of 1,600) unless there existed a personal relationship between a pastor and some of the missing congregants.

That is exactly the way you have to look at the much vaunted (but factually absent) effect of LTC boycotts on businesses with 30.06 and 30.07 signs. My decision to boycott a business is an entirely one-sided transaction. I will have the satisfaction of not giving my dollars to a business I cannot support, but the merchant whom I boycott won't even notice I'm missing.......especially if I had not previously frequented his establishment and become personally known to him.

Boycott them if you must. I do myself. But understand that about 99% of the time, your boycott will have exactly zero effect on the merchant, and it is nothing more than an act of conscience on your own part.

The only sure way to change a merchant's opinion is to (a) show them the elevated and mature behavior expected of us (and not the boorish disregard for the merchant's wishes), and (b) to let the passage of time and the statistics we amass in our favor speak for us.

Sir, nice name by the way, I believe your analogy is a good one. However, I also believe (or have to believe) that our absence at that business would be noticed in some way, shape or form. I also agree that educating them, if at all possible, is a much better path than just walking out.

[nimravus01]

A small, but very vocal, community can be heard.

[G.A. Heath]

A small, but very vocal, community can be heard.

Correct, but we must be careful with how people perceive us since it was a small but vocal community (various unnamed open carry groups) that ensured businesses equated 30.06 with keeping them out.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

[chamberc]

Yes, I work in management of one with over 300k employees and over 3000 retail stores within the United States.

3% of the population is the absolute maximum that have a LTC per the State of Texas.

Most do not carry every day or even on their person every day.

Of those that do, not all care if there is a sign or not and will obey the law.

Therefore, it's very easy to determine that at a "happy path" maximum, only 3% is affected by the signs, and in reality, the majority of those don't read this board or even care about the issue. Then you have to recognize what kind of revenue will be lost with the minimum amount of the maximum 3% that would actually boycott. What kind of revenue is that? Is it high margin or low margin?

In the end, posturing about boycotts is just that- now if it was a sample of the population such as "all men" or "all people who drive", you'd have a very different impact. Instead, you're talking about one that is far less than 3% of the population.

[Soccerdad1995]

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?

3% of the population is 3% of the population.

It doesn't matter if every LTC holder does not patronize XYZ business. It only makes a difference if CHL holders comprise a greater or smaller proportion of that businesses customer base. At a business like Academy, LTC holders will make up a higher than average percentage of the customer base. At a Hillary Clinton memorabilia store, LTC holders will make up a lower than average percentage of the customer base. At a grocery store, LTC holders might make up the same percentage of their customer base as they do for the general buying population.

You also need to consider several other factors beyond the mere percentage of Texas residents who have active LTC's. Some of those factors are as follows.

- Some of those LTC holders may not care enough to change their purchasing behavior

- A sizeable percentage of the non-LTC population is not old enough to actually make buying decisions (the typical 4 year old is not buying groceries)

- There is a "force multiplier" effect where LTC holders that care can impact the purchasing behavior of others. One example is where a family buys groceries. Another example is where a group of co-workers decides to eat lunch

So we start with 3% and then adjust for all of the factors above. I agree that the 3% impact guess is statistically invalid. Personally, for an average business that draws customers across the political and economic spectrums, I would guess that the impact will be somewhere in the 5% - 10% range for posting a 30.06, and maybe half that for posting a 30.07. Absent a full study, there is no way to know for certain.

[chamberc]

We'll have to disagree. I don't see the minority of a minority participating.

[cowhow]

A big hurdle I see in estimating our collective economic prowess is that you have to assume you're not going to get participation from all 3% of LTC holders. As i see it we have two options, a proactive (but civil) boycott or a passive effort at educating the general public. One stands litte chance at success anf the other will take time.

[Soccerdad1995]

A big hurdle I see in estimating our collective economic prowess is that you have to assume you're not going to get participation from all 3% of LTC holders. As i see it we have two options, a proactive (but civil) boycott or a passive effort at educating the general public. One stands litte chance at success anf the other will take time.

These are not either / or options. We can do both.

Personally, I refuse to enter a 30.07 posted business if a non-30.07 business provides a similar product / service and is less than 10 miles away. I refuse to enter a 30.06 posted business unless there is no other business within 50 miles and it is essential that I get that product / service. For me, this only applies to emergency healthcare facilities. I make an exception to these rules for my work (my buildings are not posted but we sometimes have meetings in posted locations). These rules apply regardless of whether I am armed.

I encourage my wife and kids to also show preference to non-posted businesses. They do sometimes go to such places without me, but never with me.

This is not part of some organized protest. It's just what I am doing personally.