Monday, February 4, 2013

Put your money where your mouth is


NRA members vs. NRA leadership

There has been a lot of talk recently about how Americans actually feel about “gun control.” The term itself holds a negative connotation for many, especially within the NRA. However, some might be surprised that most of the NRA’s members disagree with its leaders by supporting some common sense proposals  to prevent gun violence. A poll of NRA members reveals some extreme disconnects with NRA leadership. Conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, you might be surprised by some of its findings below. (Fun Fact: Luntz is the same “conservative messaging guru” who appeared on the Colbert Report to help Colbert market his superPAC)

NRA Members
NRA leadership
74% support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun (87% of non-NRA gun owners support this)*
Opposes universal background checks because they don’t believe they will work.
64% believe gun owners should be required by law to alert police to lost and stolen guns
Opposed to “lost or stolen” ordinances/statutes
91% believe states (not Federal government) should decide basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places
Pushing for Federal legislation for national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.
*In another poll in January 2011, The Mayors Against Illegal Guns found similar results regarding opinions on background checks, showing that 86% of Americans and 81% of gun owners support universal background checks.
Luntz’s poll revealed that a vast majority NRA members agree that "support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals." If these people had turned on the TV last Wednesday, they would have seen the NRA's CEO and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Lapierre, arguing against universal background checks. A majority of NRA members and gun owners disagree. Why continue to give money to an organization you disagree with on such an important (and potentially life-saving) issue? 
Having an opinion on gun policy is one thing-- how about acting on it?
I found some interesting results from a survey by the Pew Research Center in early January. When asking Americans what is more important--protecting gun rights or controlling gun ownership, the results were fairly balanced, with a slight advantage to those favoring gun control. However, the most compelling results showed that gun rights supporters are far more likely to contribute money to organizations with a position on gun policy and contact a public official about gun policy.

45% of Americans say it is more important to protect gun rights:
  • 23% of these people have contributed money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy
  • 15% have contacted a public official about gun policy

51% of Americans believe it is more important to control gun ownership:
  • Only 5% of these people have contributed money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy
  • Only 8% have contacted a public official about gun policy

However, both groups have similar percentages for expressing opinions about gun policy on social networks (19% of gun rights supporters and 15% of gun control supporters) and signing a petition on gun policy (12% of gun rights supporters and 10% of gun control supporters). This makes sense to me--I remember the flood of facebook posts and tweets after Sandy Hook and some petitions going around. 

What doesn't make sense, or what frustrates me the most, is this huge gap in activism between the two sides. Why do Americans who value gun rights contribute more money than those who value gun control? Is it the NRA and its legislative agenda? There are many possible contributing factors and I definitely need to do some more research. I look forward to getting to know people from both sides of the issue to find out what gun policy issues are most important to them. In the meantime, let's start evening the playing field and address this "activism gap." I encourage you to call your representative and donate to organizations that support the gun policy you believe in--to put your money where your mouth is. See the "Get Involved" page for a list of organizations working to prevent gun violence!


7 comments:

  1. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
    If we don't call or do anything, we are as guilty as those who will fire the next weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, but that poll by Lutz is inaccurate. NRA Leadership is completely in line with NRA Members. Look at the survey they did on their own members. See here: http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

    You (and other gun controllers) can't seem to understand that the NRA doesn't drive the conversation. NRA *MEMBERS* do. Gun owners do. We are independent by nature (hence owning guns) and WE push what the NRA supports, not the other way around. The NRA then pushes OUR message to the public and politicians.

    This is why gun rights supports are more involved and spend more money. It is something that directly affects us, unlike gun control supporters who it only peripherally affect. Gun control is a top down driven movement. Gun rights is a bottom up driven movement. Gun rights supporters think about this all the time. Gun control supporters only think about this after a shooting.

    I hope that helps you understand our side.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, sorry, kids, the Lutz poll is way off the mark -- and NRA policy are steered by the membership, not the gun industry. I encourage people to call of their representatives and ell them to stand firm on the Second Amendment and say NO to useless, feel-good measures like an "Assault Weapon" ban, magazine limits and universal registration disguised as universal background checks.

    So-called gun control has a long, mostly racist history, from the "black codes" of the South to the California Assembly banning the open carry of loaded long guns in response to *peaceful* actions by the Black Panthers.

    Stand up for the Bill of Rights, all ten Amendments! Don't let fear and panic disarm you and the coming generations: the bad guys will always have guns. Shouldn't the good guys have them, too?

    ReplyDelete
  4. And if they actually took the time to read both the Heller and McDonald decisions, gun controllers would recognize that many of their current efforts may turn out to be flat out unconstitutional. Democrats have really backed themselves into a tight corner. Those of us who care deeply about these issues have let our opinions be known to our elected representatives, and many of them are now backing down from the most prized pieces of legislations (AWB, 10-round limit, etc.). 2014 will be a replay of 1994, and many Democrats will pay the ultimate political price for simply bringing up this issue. Not only that, but should they be able to pass anything, it is likely that the Supreme Court could end up undoing the very legislation that will cost some of these senators and congressmens' jobs. Not a very smart move folks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Those poll results supposedly of NRA members, done by Frank LUNTZ - not "Lutz" as some of the comments above say - are displayed on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website.

    Well, for starters, this longtime NRA member/gun owner does not trust any statistics coming from the MAIG.

    The MAIG are an anti-gun group run by the arrogant billionaire mayor/wannabe dictator of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, who thinks that whatever laws he does not like should not apply to him. He used his undue influence to get the term limit for his own mayoral office removed. Not only is it next to impossible for the "little people" of New York City to exercise their 2A rights, Mike Bloomberg apparently even feels that he also has the right to dictate to the "little people" of New York City what they can and cannot eat and drink. Plus, Mike Bloomberg's MAIG itself is full of mayors who are themselves illegal, having been either accused, indicted, or convicted of corruption or other crimes while in office. Bottom line is this: Mike Bloomberg and his MAIG group can go pound sand for all I care. I will never spend even one dime of my hard-earned money in New York City because of that guy.

    I also find it interesting that just about every comment on this apparently anti-2A blog is coming from pro-2A supporters such as myself.

    Here are two questions I would like to try to answer:

    "Why do Americans who value gun rights contribute more money than those who value gun control?"

    It's because talk is cheap. It's also because many pro-2A people vote with their wallets by choosing to contribute to the NRA when they make gun, ammunition, or gun-related gear purchases. As far as I know, anti-2A people cannot do anything quite similar to this. I don't see any anti-2A business establishments out there shilling for the MAIG group, and even if I did, I would boycott all such establishments.

    Is it the NRA and its legislative agenda?

    No, it's more like just regular folks like me who can see through the anti-2A groups like the MAIG and its legislative agenda. I am old enough to remember all of the gun control propaganda in America in the late 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's, and up until now. It used to be that the anti-2A folks back in the 1970's said the 2A only applied to state national guard units, and that they only wanted to ban handguns, or at least place severe restrictions on them. The anti-2A folks kept saying the same all throughout the 1980's, but then in the 1990's, they started whining about the so-called "assault weapons" simply because of how they looked. Keep in mind that the gun manufacturer, Colt, began marketing the Colt AR-15 rifle for civilian sales rifle all the way back in 1963, with a so-called "high capacity" magazine included. The Colt AR-15 is a semi-automatic-only version of the military-issue, select-fire M16 rifle. It was not until over 30 years later that the AR-15 rifle and other semi-automatic rifles like it started getting demonized by the anti-2A folks, and this was simply because of how these rifles look, not because of their rate of usage in crime, which was relatively low back then, just as it is now. This led to the AWB of 1994, which did nothing whatsoever to affect the rates of gun crime as the anti-2A folks claimed it would. So, unlike back in the 1970's, and about five years after the DC versus Heller case at the Supreme Court, the anti-2A folks don't have much of anything to whine about when it comes to handguns - it's those "scary" semi-automatic rifles with all of their "scary" features, like adjustable stocks and pistol grips, that they whine about and want to ban - all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ AnonymousFebruary 13, 2013 at 8:28 AM: I am also old enough to remember what the national gun control debate in America was like in the late 1970's. I was in junior high school back then, and our assignment for social studies class was to split up into teams, prepare our arguments, and have a pro vs. con classroom debate on gun control. I was on the pro-gun rights team. I can remember how the school library had so much more anti-gun material available than pro-gun rights material in the forms of books, periodicals, and filmstrips. Unlike today, there were no Youtube videos, no internet blogs, no talk radio hosts, and no cable TV news stations available for us kids on the pro-gun rights team to give us any balance to all of the lies, distortions, and half-truths about guns and gun ownership in America that were coming from the likes of Time Magazine, Frank Reynolds and Peter Jennings on ABC World News Tonight, Handgun Control, Inc., the Washington Post, etc. Because this "old media" from 35 years ago no longer has the near-total monopoly on where Americans can get their information on the gun control debate, many of these proposed ineffective "feel good" and blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws are not getting the type of acceptance from the American public like they once did. The anti-gun crowd of today really needs to understand this if they don't already, instead of just blaming the NRA for everything, like they have been doing for all these years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why do Americans who value gun rights contribute more money than those who value gun control?"

    For many of us it is because money is cheaper than blood. The "anti" civil rights (gun ownership) side knows that if they "lose" today they can try again tomorrow. The "pro" civil rights side knows that losing today means absolute surrender or war -- and as awful as war is, it is better than surrender.

    If you try to bend me to your will, I'll try to talk some sense into you. But be assured I'll NEVER give up my ability to make a "no" stick if you are not amenable to reason.

    ReplyDelete