B O Y C O T T!!! ALL restaurants that serve alcohol....

[Guest HexHead]

It's time we start fighting fire with fire. This restaurant decision today wasn't about constitutionality. It was about money. If we want to preserve our rights and punish those than want to take them away from us, we need to take action.

You may be thinking "why punish the places that didn't post or weren't behind this?" In these economic times, restaurants are a lot emptier than they were a year ago. We need to hit them all in the cash drawer to get the restaurant owners that didn't really care a reason to pressure the hospitality association and the plaintiff restauranteurs to back off on this stupidity.

This legal action was all about them not wanting to lose any money by making the state the "bad guy" so they could keep their hands clean by not posting. Let's show them that this is a losing proposition for them and that we have the money they need to keep the doors open and are willing to deny it to them.

This is going to call for sacrifice, giving up going to favorite places. You'll probably take a lot of heat from your wives and friends. But it's the only language these guys understand. And it's going to take more than just one or two of us. A lot more.

BTW...you'll probably save some money too.

__ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE____________________

TGO does not support the idea of a blanket boycott. Please read this post (LINK) before adopting this tactic.

Edited November 21, 2009 by TGO David
See notes included inline.

[Guest G-Pa Glynn]

I agree! Start going only to places the don't serve! Will not miss them.

[Guest mikedwood]

I'm in. Most resturants in Oak Ridge and Knoxville are crap anyway.

[Fallguy]

As I said in the other thread...

But pressure them to do what?

They already filed the lawsuit....they already received a favorable (for them) ruling.

It's not like they could change their mind now even if they wanted to.

I'm not saying don't boycott if it makes you feel better. But HCP holders are a very small percentage of the population of the state. Also as evident on this board you can't get all of us to agree on somethings. So not sure how much boycotting is really going to affect any place. But again, if it does, how will make in change in this situation?

Personally I think time and effort would be better spent contacting your elected officials to support whatever knew bill is introduced next year.

[Oh Shoot]

Like 4% of the TN population, even IF every single one participated, would make a whisker of difference state wide to any given restaurant, or chain.

- OS

[Guest Pvt.Joker]

Hmm; I wonder some sort of class action lawsuit against those plantiffs who signed onto this might be possible? Something that might establish their personal acceptance of liability for anyone harmed due to their efforts to restrict the ability of patrons to provide for their own defense? At the very least, it might drive up their liability insurance costs, which would maybe hit them where they care...

[USMCJG]

Like 4% of the TN population, even IF every single one participated, would make a whisker of difference state wide to any given restaurant, or chain.

- OS

Any business that loses 4% of it's revenue is going to feel it. Plus you have to factor in the people who don't have a permit, like me, who will support a boycott.

[Guest HexHead]

A boycott now would pressure restaurants not to support defeating whatever the legislature comes up with in the next session. We can't get them to support us by reasoning with them, so maybe some financial pressure will do the trick. These restaurant owners need to know that if they aren't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. We need them to take a stand with the TN Hospitality Assoc. that their position is hurting their business, not helping it. We didn't need the TNHA handing out "No Guns" signs to restaurants, that only fueled the fires of the unnamed plaintiffs. It's all connected.

[Fallguy]

Hmm; I wonder some sort of class action lawsuit against those plantiffs who signed onto this might be possible? Something that might establish their personal acceptance of liability for anyone harmed due to their efforts to restrict the ability of patrons to provide for their own defense? At the very least, it might drive up their liability insurance costs, which would maybe hit them where they care...

The short is answer is No.

Or rather a suit would not be won.

They have no duty to protect you from society at large or any general threat, only known or should have been known danger.

But with this ruling it is the State of TN, by law, that is preventing carry, not those that filed the lawsuit.

[Guest HexHead]

Any business that loses 4% of it's revenue is going to feel it. Plus you have to factor in the people who don't have a permit, like me, who will support a boycott.

And that 4% usually doesn't dine alone. So figure that now to be 8-12%. Dad stops taking his family of 4 out for Sunday brunch at O'Charley's, well if enough dads do that, they'll notice. Restaurants are working on razor thin margins in this economy, I'm surprised when I've been eating out how less crowded most restaurants have been, so yeah, they'll notice it.

[Mark@Sea]

Effective or not, I'm just ornery enough to avoid giving my $ to them.

[Oh Shoot]

Any business that loses 4% of it's revenue is going to feel it. Plus you have to factor in the people who don't have a permit, like me, who will support a boycott.

Bzzt...math alert.

4% of population, boycotting restaurants all over the state does NOT equal any single restaurant losing 4%.

More like .000004%

At worst.

- OS

[USMCJG]

Bzzt...math alert.

4% of population, boycotting restaurants all over the state does NOT equal any single restaurant losing 4%.

More like .000004%

At worst.

- OS

There is no math in your post, just made up numbers:confused:

Actual math alert!!! If 4 out of every 100 people has a carry permit, then logically 4 out of every 100 restaurant patrons has a carry permit. If those 4 of every 100 that eat at certain restaurants stop eating at said restaurants that equals an average 4% loss in revenue. It doesn't matter if it is citywide, statewide, or nationwide. If 4% of potential customers stop patronizing certain businesses those businesses lose 4% of their revenue.

[Guest Muttling]

There is no math in your post, just made up numbers:confused:

Actual math alert!!! If 4 out of every 100 people has a carry permit, then logically 4 out of every 100 restaurant patrons has a carry permit. If those 4 of every 100 that eat at certain restaurants stop eating at said restaurants that equals an average 4% loss in revenue. It doesn't matter if it is citywide, statewide, or nationwide. If 4% of potential customers stop patronizing certain businesses those businesses lose 4% of their revenue.

Statistics my friend. 4% is less than the normal variation of income for a restraunt. We're talking a difference of about 20 patrons on their busiest night of the week. It's too small for them to even notice.

Their income fluctuates by far more than 4% on a routine basis.

[USMCJG]

Statistics my friend. 4% is less than the normal variation of income for a restraunt. We're talking a difference of about 20 patrons on their busiest night of the week. It's too small for them to even notice.

Their income fluctuates by far more than 4% on a routine basis.

Yes, but if they lose 4% of their business every single day, it equals a 4% loss of revenue over an extended period of time. And, as HexHead mentioned, permit holders have family, friends, and supporters as well. Of course this would all be dependent on every permit holder joining in the boycott, and bringing their friends and family along with them, which will never happen.

[Guest Muttling]

Yes, but if they lose 4% of their business every single day, it equals a 4% loss of revenue over an extended period of time. And, as HexHead mentioned, permit holders have family, friends, and supporters as well. Of course this would all be dependent on every permit holder joining in the boycott, and bringing their friends and family along with them, which will never happen.

The data is too noisey for them to even remotely hear a 4% difference.

From one year to the next, their income fluctuates by several times that level. If you have 6ft waves slapping on the beach, you're never going to notice the short ripples from a rock thrown into the surf.

What's more, one good ad or coupon campain will boost their sales by far more than 4% and they run such routines regularly.

Finally, what makes you think that ALL 4% of us will mantain the boycott for any period of time? At best, half might do it for a month or so. Now we're down to 2% of their income and we are incapable of maintaining that for any real period of time.

It's silly to think that we are a large enough group to be a factor that gets noticed when we don't show up. Run an ad campain, picket, etc might work, but not boycotting.

[strickj]

Yes, but if they lose 4% of their business every single day, it equals a 4% loss of revenue over an extended period of time. And, as HexHead mentioned, permit holders have family, friends, and supporters as well. Of course this would all be dependent on every permit holder joining in the boycott, and bringing their friends and family along with them, which will never happen.

Ok,lets say that it will affect them by this 4%.

But how many out of this 4% eat at these places each day?

At best,you're looking at 4% at the weeks end. That's only a few bucks per restaurant. Out of all the restaurants in TN,they wont even notice the numbers.

Spanned out across several days,it wont even effect their daily close-outs at all.

You're looking at a restaurant loosing what,20 bucks a day...at best.

Also gotta keep in mind,there are more people that don't want guns in restaurants then those few of us that do.

If it comes down to a restaurant manager,or corporate big wig having to play sides,whos side do you think he would choose?

The 4%ers or the other 96%ers that either don't care,or are against it

Edited November 21, 2009 by strickj

[Oh Shoot]

There is no math in your post, just made up numbers:confused:

Actual math alert!!! If 4 out of every 100 people has a carry permit, then logically 4 out of every 100 restaurant patrons has a carry permit...

Bzzzt. Logic alert.

That assumes that EVERY DAY, ALL 4% of HCP holders in the state eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

I eat in one maybe twice a month, tops, for example.

But I wish you lots of luck in the boycott.

I'll give up my 2 days per month to really hurt them.

- OS

[Wingshooter]

I've mentioned it before... I always carry, so it equates to a boycott for me and my family. That's one permit holder and 4 non-permit holders: scratch 5 customers.

Even if I wasn't carrying for some reason, I don't like to hang out in "Gun Free Zones" anyway. Why don't they just hang a sign on the door that says, "Robbers Welcome Here." Nope, you won't find me in these restaurants.

I don't know if it will have an impact or not, but this is my money not being spent at a restaurant in Cleveland, TN and surrounding areas that serves alcohol....

Does it hurt them in a bad economy? dunno. Doesn't help them....

[Guest 270win]

There may be 3-4% of Tennesseans that have handgun carry permits, but few actually CARRY on their persons regularly. Many buy permits in order to keep a loaded handgun in the glovebox or console of their cars and the gun MAY get carried at night to bad parts of town.

There will probably be an appeal to this Davidson County ruling to a higher court, which will take time. I will not lose sleep over this because I've never gone through a metal detector when going to eat. I never have favored my handgun being left in a car to be stolen in Memphis ANYTIME...before or after this ruling...and even before the law was changed. Conceal well a small handgun has always been my motto..take that as you will. The safety of my family and mine has always been and will be more important than some politician's garbage writing.

[USMCJG]

Bzzzt. Logic alert.

That assumes that EVERY DAY, ALL 4% of HCP holders in the state eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

I eat in one maybe twice a month, tops, for example.

But I wish you lots of luck in the boycott.

I'll give up my 2 days per month to really hurt them.

- OS

Your premise assumes that every day the other 96% of the population DOES eat out at these same restaurants. Their should be roughly a statistically equal chance that anyone, whether they are permit holders or not, will eat at a restaurant on any given day. And let's give credit where credit is due, it's HexHead's boycott.

Do I think it will make a difference? No not really. But I feel that I should do what I think is right even if I believe I will fail. My sig line pretty much sums up my feelings on all issues liberty related.

[Oh Shoot]

Your premise assumes that every day the other 96% of the population DOES eat out at these same restaurants. Their should be roughly a statistically equal chance that anyone, whether they are permit holders or not, will eat at a restaurant on any given day. ..

Nope. Assuming that the restaurant actually does 100 patrons per day, and that all 4% of the population does not eat out each day, the odds are MUCH greater that ALL 100 will be from the 96% sample than that there will be even FOUR there from the 4% sample.

Do I think it will make a difference? No not really. But I feel that I should do what I think is right even if I believe I will fail. ...

I don't think it will make a difference either; if anything, will just sound absurd to the general public, which helps nada in over all PR.

But unlike you, I don't get any moral satisfaction tilting at windmills any more.

- OS

[USMCJG]

Ok,lets say that it will affect them by this 4%.

But how many out of this 4% eat at these places each day?

At best,you're looking at 4% at the weeks end. That's only a few bucks per restaurant. Out of all the restaurants in TN,they wont even notice the numbers.

Actually, you would be looking at 4% every day. I'm not aware of any studies done on the subject, but I would think the odds of a permit holder eating at a restaurant on any given day would be virtually identical to the odds that any other member of the population would.

Spanned out across several days,it wont even effect their daily close-outs at all.

You're looking at a restaurant loosing what,20 bucks a day...at best.

It would theoretically effect daily closeouts by 4%. If they made $500/day, then yes it would be $20.

Also gotta keep in mind,there are more people that don't want guns in restaurants then those few of us that do.

If it comes down to a restaurant manager,or corporate big wig having to play sides,whos side do you think he would choose?

The 4%ers or the other 96%ers that either don't care,or are against it

I am unaware of any study that says that there are more people who do not want guns in restaurants than those who do. Could you link to this study? I have seen numerous, admittedly unscientific, polls that say exactly the opposite. Even though these polls are unscientific, they would at least seem to indicate that those who are very strongly pro-gun outnumber those who are very strongly anti-gun, as these two groups are the most likely to participate in such a poll.

I would imagine, though I really don't know, that there would be more people on the pro-gun side of this issue that would actually make their dining choices based on whether or not guns are allowed. I agree that the vast majority probably don't care one way or the other. But I think there are more people who are strongly pro-gun than who are strongly anti-gun in Tennessee.

Once again, for a boycott to be successful, it would require that ALL permit holders, along with their friends and families(bringing the number to perhaps 10%), participate. This obviously will not happen. Though I believe that it is a noble idea.

[USMCJG]

Nope. Assuming that the restaurant actually does 100 patrons per day, and that all 4% of the population does not eat out each day, the odds are MUCH greater that ALL 100 will be from the 96% sample than that there will be even FOUR there from the 4% sample.

This is incorrect. There would be an exactly equal chance that 8 of the 100 patrons would be permit holders as there would be that 0 of the 100 patrons were permit holders. The average would always be 4%, assuming that 4% of the population has a permit and that permit holders are statistically just as likely to patronize a restaurant on any given day as non permit holders. This should be a safe assumption. Edited November 21, 2009 by USMCJG

[strickj]

Actually, you would be looking at 4% every day. I'm not aware of any studies done on the subject, but I would think the odds of a permit holder eating at a restaurant on any given day would be virtually identical to the odds that any other member of the population would.

The entire 4% of permit holders are not eating out every day.

As far as the rest,no,I don't have any scientific research to back up that there are more anti-gun people then pro-gun people.

But that's not what I said. I said there are more people that don't want guns around booze then those who do. There are even some here on this very pro-gun message board that feel that its a bad idea.

Back to whether or not it would actually work or not.

No,not as stated it would not work. Its just to few to spread too far for it to even show up at the smallest establishments.

Now,if it was organized,in one location,at one restaurant then it might work.

Only cavet is you would still have to patronize the establishment to order a lonely coke for them to see the possible potential business loss.

however at the end of the day,they know that the few that attended to show their distaste in the ruling are part of a very small percent of their actual customer base.

If you cant please everybody,then you'll not please the minority because that's taught in money making 101.

I personally once thought this 'protest' was a good idea,but I've since came to realize that we are a small group. A small group that wont make a difference without a 100% unity in the protest.

That 100% just wont happen. Not even close to 100%.

Hell,we cant even get but a very small percentage of TGO members to meet for an outing at a restaurant at any given time. Much less trying to organize 300k permit holders

Edited November 21, 2009 by strickj