Would this help our 2A cause????

[wpmason]

I don't want this post to be political. I'm just brainstorming here, so bear with me.

Whether it's right or wrong, accurate or false... THE NRA HAS AN IMAGE PROBLEM. I'm not bashing the NRA, I'm just saying that it's PR is terrible. The NRA itself does tons of wonderful things for all of us, members or not. Likewise, the NSSF has no PR whatsoever... most non gunners have never heard of it.

So, in this political climate, with the way the media covers guns, and the UNDENIABLE violent atrocities that make us all shake our heads in disbelief, and shortly after wonder if this will be the last straw... Will Washington come down hard on all of us? There's too many wolves at the door, and not enough being done on our part, as a community, not as individuals, to change the way non gunners perceive us.

I've seen it on here a number of times... What can we do? What should we be doing? How do we make them understand? How do we separate ourselves from the monsters?

I was brainstorming, and thought of an idea for a new nonprofit organization for us, to show the world that we are not heartless monsters who feel nothing when children or police are gunned down. I'm talking about an APOLITICAL charity whose main goals would be safety, training, community involvement, and most of all, showing the human, warm and friendly side of all of us. The NRA ILA is fighting our fight on the Hill, we need to fight it everywhere else. Let's have scholarship funds in memory of and specifically for the victims of gun violence. Let's PROUDLY show our faces in the community doing good things. Let's show the media that we will not be bullied or misrepresented. Let's show those that believe Wayne LaPierre is the sole voice of 2nd Amendment Rights that we are EVERYWHERE, and we are no different than them.

Let's show the criminal element, the deranged shooters, that they ARE NOT US. Let's earn the public trust to the point that open carrying is no longer probable cause. We need to collectively rise up and say that gun owners are AGAINST senseless violence.

What say you? Does this sort of an organization have merit and traction? Would you support it with your time and money? Would you attend events and purchase swag, make donations or buy memberships?

I truly believe this is the sort of thing we need, because in the court of public perception we are losing. Religion is a protected right in this country, and religions are extremely charitable even though they don't have to be. Bearing arms is our protected right, and maybe being more charitable is just what we need to end the debate.

I'm currently job-hunting having just graduated from college, but if this is a solid idea, based on your input, and will get backing amongst most gun owners, I'm completely ready and willing to go all in on it.

So please, leave your thoughts and opinions, but don't hijack the thread and shift the conversation to political or news issues. We all know what's going on.

 

[dusterboy49]

 

[MCgrease08]

If that awful Moms Demand Action group can get as much traction as they have, I don't see why this wouldn't be a viable idea and worthwhile organization.

 

[Mgderf]

Individuals can make a tremendous difference.

I have been volunteering to teach the NSSF "First-Shots" program at my local range.
Over the past 3 years I have helped put more than 300 people through a shooting class. Most all participants will end up being life-long shooters. You can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices after the class.

One suggestion I have would be to NOT fall into the anti's narrative , and it seems you may already have started.
I absolutely abhor the term "gun violence". It is, by definition, an oxymoron. A gun is an inanimate object. It has no conscience or will. It carries 0 chance of any action what-so-ever barring manipulation.

A few years back I took the steps to become a certified NRA instructor.
One thing my instructors impressed on us at the outset of the class, and often throughout, do NOT refer to a handgun as a "weapon".
The term "weapon" suggests an offensive use, something to be wielded to assert power.
Rather, the terms "firearm, handgun, gun, pistol, revolver..." suggest no intent. These terms merely describe the object, with no connotations or stigmas attached.

I'm not trying to downplay your idea. Quite the contrary, I think it's a GREAT idea.
I just worry about the delivery.

The NRA has the Eddie Eagle safety program, but it carries the name NRA, and that turns some away before they consider anything else.

 

[the1kidd03]

I've thought of the same effort before. It is a good idea, provided it was organized properly and solely in the interest of benefiting the victim's families.

From an organizational leadership perspective, I would say that the issues you address with the other groups are not really "PR" issues although they tie closely together.

The idea you present has the potential to be an enormous bonus to gun owners from a PR perspective, but that will rely completely on HOW you organize and present it. For example, you wouldn't want to provide benefit to someone who was rightfully dispatched by a gun, in the act of committing a crime. Then you wouldn't have the support of many gun owners (the people you are trying to unify.)

 

[wpmason]

Individuals can make a tremendous difference.

I have been volunteering to teach the NSSF "First-Shots" program at my local range.
Over the past 3 years I have helped put more than 300 people through a shooting class. Most all participants will end up being life-long shooters. You can see it in their eyes and hear it in their voices after the class.

One suggestion I have would be to NOT fall into the anti's narrative , and it seems you may already have started.
I absolutely abhor the term "gun violence". It is, by definition, an oxymoron. A gun is an inanimate object. It has no conscience or will. It carries 0 chance of any action what-so-ever barring manipulation.

A few years back I took the steps to become a certified NRA instructor.
One thing my instructors impressed on us at the outset of the class, and often throughout, do NOT refer to a handgun as a "weapon".
The term "weapon" suggests an offensive use, something to be wielded to assert power.
Rather, the terms "firearm, handgun, gun, pistol, revolver..." suggest no intent. These terms merely describe the object, with no connotations or stigmas attached.

I'm not trying to downplay your idea. Quite the contrary, I think it's a GREAT idea.
I just worry about the delivery.

The NRA has the Eddie Eagle safety program, but it carries the name NRA, and that turns some away before they consider anything else.

Absolutely, I don't blame the guns. When I said "gun violence", I wasn't using it the manner we're accustom to hearing, I literally meant simply violence perpetrated with guns. And if you'll note, I was quite a bit vaguer than that elsewhere in my initial post. I just want to make it clear that I see what you're saying, I'm just not in "official" mode on here amongst friends. Any official documents would definitely be worded extremely carefully. To that point, I thought of a name, with a nifty acronym that includes the word "Tragedies" in place of violence and all of its synonyms in representing what it is that we're against, so it's more of a catch all and doesn't limit our involvement simply to gun matters. (Sorry, I don't want to give my name away until I'm sure what the future holds.)

As for the education aspect, I feel like it was too vague now. I'm not considering classes or hands-on training, at least not early on; the NRA has that sufficiently covered. I meant more like public awareness campaigns, common sense rules, safe gun storage protocols, and so on. Basically things that can be put on a website or distributed as pamphlets/flyers. Both for gun owners and non gun owners. Generally speaking, just getting our worries and concerns into the public consciousness without any perceivable bias, rhetoric, or hyperbole. I think one of our biggest problems is just that "they" don't understand us.

I appreciate your input though.

 

[24Carat]

Great idea! An unbelievable logistical mountain to climb to do it right. I advise you involve an MBA and a highly experience non-profit administrator for a round table fat chewing session. A lot of head shed resources here on INGO that would be invaluable.

I am no fanboy of the NRA but they are the 800 lbs Gorilla in the room in this effort so I would drop your intro as you are comparing apples to oranges here. Just a little free advice.

 

[wpmason]

I've thought of the same effort before. It is a good idea, provided it was organized properly and solely in the interest of benefiting the victim's families.

From an organizational leadership perspective, I would say that the issues you address with the other groups are not really "PR" issues although they tie closely together.

The idea you present has the potential to be an enormous bonus to gun owners from a PR perspective, but that will rely completely on HOW you organize and present it. For example, you wouldn't want to provide benefit to someone who was rightfully dispatched by a gun, in the act of committing a crime. Then you wouldn't have the support of many gun owners (the people you are trying to unify.)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I don't want it to be solely for victims. That's essentially just trying to buy forgiveness for simply owning guns. I want to include victims, to show that the majority of us do care, and realize that they've made a sacrifice in the name of our right. I believe in the interconnectedness of all things, and I believe that such an organization could benefit our lifestyle, our communities, and the lives of those who have been on the front lines one way or another. It's not about apologizing, it's about putting a human face where the media only shows a rack of rifles. It's easy for the public to hate guns, but if they see us who defend guns doing good works, I think that could certainly have far reaching implications.

And, I agree with you 100%. My vision would trumpet successful defensive gun uses, make it clear to all that the world is a dangerous place, and those of us that wish to have a sidearm are not crazy or paranoid. We would publicly shame and condemn those obtaining or using guns in an unlawful manner, and celebrate lawful and responsible usage.

It's important to always remember that we're the minority these days, and the majority is only getting soundbites from Wayne LaPierre and some other people on YouTube. They will never view them as anything but crazy, but you and I and most of us, we're their friends and neighbors. They can trust us, we just have to explain that to them.

At any rate, yes, execution would be the most vital aspect, and I'm still working on the finer details. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[wpmason]

Great idea! An unbelievable logistical mountain to climb to do it right. I advise you involve an MBA and a highly experience non-profit administrator for a round table fat chewing session. A lot of head shed resources here on INGO that would be invaluable.

I am no fanboy of the NRA but they are the 800 lbs Gorilla in the room in this effort so I would drop your intro as you are comparing apples to oranges here. Just a little free advice.

Yeah, the NRA is just one of those things. I appreciate the work they do, but lately they've been less than helpful at least as far as the media goes. The work of the ILA is great. It's just the comments that you see on news articles about Wayne LaPierre... they're not good. Here, amongst like-minded folks, I wanted to make the comparison just to make it. What I was actually thinking about was a viable alternative to the NRA, for anyone who feels like its not their cup of tea despite enjoying firearms. Around a quarter of Democrats own guns, and I really doubt any of them would be in a rush to get a membership these days. Where the NRA can be seen as closed off and combative, I was thinking of making something that open and inclusive. Much less emphasis on the politics of guns, and more about the people behind the guns. As I said, we are good people who make up a good community. It's time to shout that from the mountaintops. Coming on here and patting each other on the back isn't really helpful since very few non gunners know this site exists.

But yeah, if I move forward, the NRA will be left out of it, except as far as resources (instructors, ranges, etc.) go.

Glad you like it though. I'm going to do some more research on just how big the mountain is.

 

[spectre327]

This is a very good idea. However as some have said, delivery will be the most important factor.

Terminology is several fold more important than anything else as first impressions will make or break its success.

Think like a lawyer fighting for the case that firearms are simply tools that are useful for more purposes than just carrying for self defense. Advocate their safety and without sounding like a desperate attempt to force a change of opinion, use convince arguments backed by data and history to provide a welcoming community.

One thing would be to offer 1-2 hour classes in firearm safety and history, another class displaying proper and safe usage, and another class which allows hands on practice at the student's expense in ammo (50 rnd minimum) using donated firearms in a variety of calibers (.22, .38, .380, 9mm, 40 s&w, and .45 acp).

The classes should be much cheaper, if not free, than NRA classes and occur only once or twice a month with limited students so as not to step on the toes of the NRA.

If this could gain traction, then there could be small groups started up in every city and utilizing private ranges for practice. Over time, if even marginally successful, it would garner positive attention from the NRA and local police, provided the PR is good

 

[netsecurity]

I completely agree with OP.

I said after the Colorado shooting that the NRA needed a new PR campaign, not for itself, but for its members. We are not criminals because we own guns. We do not want to kill people because we shoot. We want to protect people, and/or shoot for sport. We should not be insulted and belittled by people who don't understand guns or gun culture. We should not be discriminated against for exerting our second amendment rights! Our rights should be respected, and we should be respected as people. For example, many NRA members are police and military men and women, and they are exalted in the media for that, but the next day are called baby killers (indirectly, for supporting the NRA).

Instead of blaming the NRA when someone commits a mass murder, or when gangtas shoot each other in Chicago, we should be celebrated as role models for proper respect of the weapons, and human life. The Democrats (and all sorts of non-profits) have PR campaigns to put Muslims, and illegal immigrants in a good light after they commit serious crimes, because they don't want discrimination to occur, yet they call legal gun owners murderers based on someone else's actions. It's unbelievable. I'm telling ya, it is a backwards universe we are living in!

The NRA is doing a good job of lobbying and such, that is for certain. But they are not winning the hearts and minds of young people and immigrants. Logic alone--no matter how correct--is not enough, and we will fail if we don't make an emotional appeal. We must show that gun owners are the GOOD people that most of them are. Perhaps most of all, we must celebrate American culture, and stop letting everyone tell us that America is so terrible and wrong.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I don't want it to be solely for victims. That's essentially just trying to buy forgiveness for simply owning guns. I want to include victims, to show that the majority of us do care, and realize that they've made a sacrifice in the name of our right. I believe in the interconnectedness of all things, and I believe that such an organization could benefit our lifestyle, our communities, and the lives of those who have been on the front lines one way or another. It's not about apologizing, it's about putting a human face where the media only shows a rack of rifles. It's easy for the public to hate guns, but if they see us who defend guns doing good works, I think that could certainly have far reaching implications.

And, I agree with you 100%. My vision would trumpet successful defensive gun uses, make it clear to all that the world is a dangerous place, and those of us that wish to have a sidearm are not crazy or paranoid. We would publicly shame and condemn those obtaining or using guns in an unlawful manner, and celebrate lawful and responsible usage.

It's important to always remember that we're the minority these days, and the majority is only getting soundbites from Wayne LaPierre and some other people on YouTube. They will never view them as anything but crazy, but you and I and most of us, we're their friends and neighbors. They can trust us, we just have to explain that to them.

At any rate, yes, execution would be the most vital aspect, and I'm still working on the finer details. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

The fact that you disagree with my point, is exactly why I emphasize proper organization. PR is all about interpretation. Looking at things in how OTHERS will interpret them. Personally, I wouldn't give a dime to an organization who used it to benefit families of criminals. That was the point I was intending to convey. Not all shooting "victims" became so from just or legal actions.

Organizing is part of my professional studies and background. There is a lot to consider, but it can be done. I certainly wouldn't assume gun owners to be the "minority" though. Even if it seems like it near larger metropolitan areas. There is little evidence to support a claim in either direction, but I would think most of it suggests we are not a minority on this debate. We're just the "more quiet" side of it.

 

[armedindy]

we should lobby to have actors in movies follow the four gun handling rules

 

[BE Mike]

It's good that you are concerned about this issue. The NRA is a multi-faceted organization. Before diving headlong into starting another organization, I'd suggest that you thoroughly research just what the NRA is and does. No organization has done more in the area of firearms safety than the NRA. Have you ever heard of the "Eddie Eagle" program? The NRA sponsors many shooting competitions each year. How many people are killed or maimed as a result? Once you have peeled the onion that is the NRA, maybe you can work within it to make a difference. The biggest obstacle to overcome is that many people have a prejudice against guns and don't think people should be allowed to own them. They regularly ignore the facts regarding crime and guns. The prejudice is media driven. The media has awesome power and when they throw their weight against or in favor of anything, public opinion follows.

 

[netsecurity]

we should lobby to have actors in movies follow the four gun handling rules

No crap, that drives me nuts! These are the people small children emulate, and every time they get a gun in their hands it is a joke. I just watched 'This is the End' and they pull out a revolver and start spinning it and throwing it while it is supposedly loaded (turned out to be a prop gun, but still). I don't think it is funny ever when I see a gun mishandled because I know some child somewhere will be a copycat.

 

[wpmason]

It's good that you are concerned about this issue. The NRA is a multi-faceted organization. Before diving headlong into starting another organization, I'd suggest that you thoroughly research just what the NRA is and does. No organization has done more in the area of firearms safety than the NRA. Have you ever heard of the "Eddie Eagle" program? The NRA sponsors many shooting competitions each year. How many people are killed or maimed as a result? Once you have peeled the onion that is the NRA, maybe you can work within it to make a difference. The biggest obstacle to overcome is that many people have a prejudice against guns and don't think people should be allowed to own them. They regularly ignore the facts regarding crime and guns. The prejudice is media driven. The media has awesome power and when they throw their weight against or in favor of anything, public opinion follows.

You're looking at it backwards. Functionally the NRA is great. There's no debate about that. But as far as the media and public perception goes, their brand is toxic these days. They're TOO politicized. What I was envisioning is a group of gun owners that could reach out to the greater community at large with no political agenda at all. If we change the perception of who we are, it would counteract the negativity that the NRA has garnered in the media. The whole thing is an issue of media representation and public relations, the NRA is losing on those fronts. Gun owners getting into newspapers doing good works is exactly what is necessary right now, because our opposition imagines all of us sitting in bunkers surrounded by ammo cans hugging a rifle. We need to be seen as humans to dispel that image.

 

[zippy23]

Here is the answer to your post. The image "problem" that the NRA has is with the DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA. In my view and all members i feel they are awesome. If they werent doing their job, then the democrats would love them, BUT they are very effective and thats why the media casts a bad light on them. Think about this, Rush Limbaugh gives the charities that are apolitical and does wonders for many many people, he is still trashed daily in the media and they cast a terrible light on them. Your mistake is this, you are trying to play their game. You will lose, they have the media on their side not yours, thats all they need to give you a bad image. The point is to NOT CARE what they think or so, as they certainly do not care what you think or say. Do what you want to do, regardless of how they or anyone else will view you. PR is controlled by the big whigs, you can find all types of articles and good things conservative groups have done but it has amounted to nothing because it will never be given national attention by the big dogs. Grass roots voting, the tea party, THAT is what is effective, just look at what a movement like that has done, and they do not care one bit how they are portrayed in the media, we all know better and so do they. word of mouth and education are more effective than PR.

 

[BE Mike]

You're looking at it backwards. Functionally the NRA is great. There's no debate about that. But as far as the media and public perception goes, their brand is toxic these days. They're TOO politicized. What I was envisioning is a group of gun owners that could reach out to the greater community at large with no political agenda at all. If we change the perception of who we are, it would counteract the negativity that the NRA has garnered in the media. The whole thing is an issue of media representation and public relations, the NRA is losing on those fronts. Gun owners getting into newspapers doing good works is exactly what is necessary right now, because our opposition imagines all of us sitting in bunkers surrounded by ammo cans hugging a rifle. We need to be seen as humans to dispel that image.

I'm not so sure that your assumptions are correct. It would seem, with record sales and the shortage of guns and ammo, that there are many people coming over to our side daily. I also think that the best way to win over people is on a ftf basis and always be aware of the image each one of us presents. The NRA had a campaign called, "I'm the NRA!" I thought it was a good step. Actually, over many years, I see the NRA as being more effective in getting people to look at gun ownership as a necessary part of their lives and the 2nd Amendment as just as important as the other nine. For as long as I can remember, the news and entertainment industry has tried to portray the NRA in a bad light. The more the NRA grew, the more the news/ entertainment industry pushed their anti-NRA agenda. The growth of the internet started allowing people to see more than one side of an issue. It also allowed anyone with a pc to say stupid things, as well as, anyone with a digital camera to post photos of themselves doing stupid things with guns. Unfortunately bad gun publicity is like a hurricane. It does a lot of damage and it takes a lot of repair to correct the image of one incident. You will never change the minds of many antis and I really don't care what close-minded people (the news and entertainment industry included) think. It is the reasonable people that I am concerned about. Far be it from me to discourage you. You could start out by swaying the opinion of Michael Moore.

 

[HavokCycle]

the problem here is pretty simple and one that is inherent to conservatives. the idea of 'give people the information, and let them decide themselves' is very altruistic and i wish wish wish it was more effective.


unfortunately you don't win people over that way, not many at least. you grab some of the better and sharper individuals but the masses you have to threaten, bludgeon, and terrify to get them to come on board. you -CANNOT- expect people to just 'make the right decision'. they dont have the foresight for it. it happens in every aspect in life, from religion, politics, education, economy, business, EVERYTHING. its because of this that tyrants gain control so easily.

think of it as warfare - if you're constantly just defending your tower, and never attack, your corner will become smaller and smaller.

unless you become a tyrant there is no way to win against other tyrants. THAT is the unfortunate truth.

 

[AutomationEngineer]

Here is the answer to your post. The image "problem" that the NRA has is with the DEMOCRATS AND THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA. In my view and all members i feel they are awesome. If they werent doing their job, then the democrats would love them, BUT they are very effective and thats why the media casts a bad light on them. Think about this, Rush Limbaugh gives the charities that are apolitical and does wonders for many many people, he is still trashed daily in the media and they cast a terrible light on them. Your mistake is this, you are trying to play their game. You will lose, they have the media on their side not yours, thats all they need to give you a bad image. The point is to NOT CARE what they think or so, as they certainly do not care what you think or say. Do what you want to do, regardless of how they or anyone else will view you. PR is controlled by the big whigs, you can find all types of articles and good things conservative groups have done but it has amounted to nothing because it will never be given national attention by the big dogs. Grass roots voting, the tea party, THAT is what is effective, just look at what a movement like that has done, and they do not care one bit how they are portrayed in the media, we all know better and so do they. word of mouth and education are more effective than PR.

Hit the nail on the head. The only image problem is with the people who will NEVER give anything but "more government is good" attitudes the light of day. Our media and in my opinion, Government, has been taken over by those that wish to see us back into the same, government dependent situation as the rest of the world. By simple logical argument, our "President" cannot possibly be eligible for his office. All efforts at verifying his eligibility have been disallowed. Members of both political parties have taken part in either the refusal to verify his credentials, or have promoted red herring issues, such as the birth certificate fiasco, as a way to divert attention.

The NRA does have the support of the majority of Americans. Don't let the propaganda convince you otherwise.