The NRA.....lets talk!

[mr.72]

There are presently a lot of mommies "educated" only by the media, etc. that don't want their boys "playing with guns". Guns are evil. Everybody except that "NRA Kook" down the street says so.

Women are an important part of any permanent solution and will only be "won over" in a grass roots campaign.

I am far from being an expert on women. However, I don't think "guns are fun, hunting is fun, let's go shoot some targets" is the way to get women to support the Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA.

I don't think these "NRA kooks" really understand the first thing about how to communicate with those on the other side. The whole shooting sports, hunting, gun collecting and hobbyist angle is, IMHO, destined to ruin the chances of a real support for the meaningful RKBA in America.

We have to stop being such a collective wuss.

I think an angle more like "guns are dangerous, even deadly, and that's the whole point" will do the cause much more good.

I guess this is why I am not a member of the N(H)RA... National (Hunting) Rifle Association.

[flintknapper]

Wow. I disagree completely. Promoting gun ownership and use as a fun hobby is to completely miss the point of the RKBA. Taking someone new out shooting does nothing to inform them of the need for guns.

The first step is to convince folks that guns aren't totally evil. The next step is to demonstrate that the folks that go to gun ranges aren't all knuckle dragging gang bangers thats just looking for an excuse to kill someone. Progress is all about the little steps.
.

YUP!

[TxD]

There are presently a lot of mommies "educated" only by the media, etc. that don't want their boys "playing with guns". Guns are evil. Everybody except that "NRA Kook" down the street says so.

Women are an important part of any permanent solution and will only be "won over" in a grass roots campaign.

I am far from being an expert on women. However, I don't think "guns are fun, hunting is fun, let's go shoot some targets" is the way to get women to support the Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA.

I don't think these "NRA kooks" really understand the first thing about how to communicate with those on the other side. The whole shooting sports, hunting, gun collecting and hobbyist angle is, IMHO, destined to ruin the chances of a real support for the meaningful RKBA in America.

We have to stop being such a collective wuss.

I think an angle more like "guns are dangerous, even deadly, and that's the whole point" will do the cause much more good.

I guess this is why I am not a member of the N(H)RA... National (Hunting) Rifle Association.

The problem is perception.

President Kennedy was killed with a gun. Martin Luther King was killed with a gun.
The neighbor kid down the street was killed playing with his father's "hidden" gun.
We do not need to educate people to the fact that "guns are dangerous, etc".

The populace perceives guns and the people who have them to be dangerous and the politician seeking votes caters to the perception of the populace.

RKBA is protected by the 2nd amendment but until the perception of the populace is changed attacks will continue.
These attacks will not necessarily be against "arms" but by other means such as high taxes on
ammo, limiting the amount of ammo, transfer fees, and so on.

[mr.72]

We do not need to educate people to the fact that "guns are dangerous, etc".

The populace perceives guns and the people who have them to be dangerous and the politician seeking votes caters to the perception of the populace.

RKBA is protected by the 2nd amendment but until the perception of the populace is changed attacks will continue.
These attacks will not necessarily be against "arms" but by other means such as high taxes on
ammo, limiting the amount of ammo, transfer fees, and so on.

On the contrary, here's how I think it really is:

Some people have no interest in owning a gun, shooting a gun, hunting, cleaning a gun, collecting guns, looking at a gun, shopping for guns, and in many ways really just don't want to have anything to do with guns. They are basically inanimate objects that do not have any appeal. However, the perception that they are dangerous adds a motivation to actively oppose owning a gun. So these people see no useful purpose in owning a gun, and they perceive that the likely outcome of owning a gun is that someone will get hurt or killed in an accident or a crime.

Now, what needs to happen for most of these people is that they need to have their eyes opened to the usefulness or purpose of owning a gun that goes along with the perception that they already have of guns being dangerous or deadly. Telling them that they are not dangerous, just go hunting, they are for fun, etc. does not accomplish this goal at all. They know full well that guns are dangerous and you appear to be an out of touch moron when you try and tell someone that guns are not dangerous or that they are fun and useful for sports. You have to inform them that guns are useful for their own protection and the very thing that makes them dangerous in the hands of criminals also makes them valuable tools in the hands of normal people. In fact the danger of guns in the hands of criminals is counteracted by the ownership and use of guns by normal people.

I look at it more like this. The SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) does not carry the flag for owning a car. Everyone knows cars are dangerous if misused or used by criminals. Heck, cars are used in crimes far more often than guns are. However, most people understand that the utility of a car makes owning one well worth the risk. We don't expect the SCCA to be telling people that the reason they need a car is so they can go have fun racing it on closed tracks on the weekends, look how much fun it is and how it is safe. No, most people are dispassionate about their cars and just want something to get the job done. Half the people I know would rather not have to drive a car but they own one, pay lots of money for it, learn to use it and commit a great portion of their life to the ownership experience of a car because they know that they need it. I think we need to approach gun ownership the same way. You don't have to care about shooting sports or hunting. You don't have to enjoy shooting. You can be scared of the recoil and hate the noise of guns, and you can even think that all of the hunters out there are kooks and you can still own a gun and comprehend its intended purpose in society. Just like weekend car racers are a fringe of car owners, NRA members as they are now, those who shoot guns for fun or sport or go hunting, should rightly wind up being a fringe of gun owners. This is not to disparage those who enjoy shooting sports but what I am trying to get at is that gun ownership is not about a hobby or a sport. RKBA is about the defense of life, liberty and property. That's not about fun or sports! It has nothing at all to do with it. We need to stop going down this road, IMHO.

Shooting a home invader is not fun. Having to take up arms against a tyrannical government is not fun. RKBA is not about fun or sports.

[seamusTX]

Mr.72, I agree with you in principle. What I keep asking for is a plan.

If you stand on the courthouse steps and make speeches to the effect that we have the right to keep and bear firearms to overthrow a tyrannical government, 90% of the people who hear you will think you're nuts.

People have also been sold on the twin ideas that you don't need a weapon, because the police can protect you, and having a firearm in your home is more likely to result in injury to you.

Both of these ideas are false, but they are widely repeated and believed. (Police officials are among the worst offenders in this respect.)

We don't have a billions dollars for a nationwide advertising campaign, and we don't have a George Soros or Joyce Foundation on our side.

So please propose a feasible plan.

- Jim

[mr.72]

Well, Jim, I don't have a plan. However, I don't think continued promotion and funding of the NRA is the right plan. I think we need another plan, and quite frankly it has little to do with gun rights organizations and mostly to do with decoupling the government from education IMHO. The best way, in a generation or less, to turn around our societal awareness for all of our rights, is to stop sending $10K+/year/student to the government so they can educate our children for us. It is little wonder that our government schools produce adults who, as voters and taxpayers, seem to think that government is the answer for everything and have no value for individual liberty. I am not talking about a grass roots effort to get teachers on our side. I am talking about a brute force effort to get our children out of public schools.

Tomorrow is my birthday. My 12 & 15 year old children are going shooting with me. They are the least likely demographic to support guns, being teen age girls. But they do. They understand that liberty has a cost and the currency that bought it was violence. They understand the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They are learning to shoot and handle guns because one day their life or liberty may depend on it. They were not educated by the government. This is no coincidence.

[TxD]

We do not need to educate people to the fact that "guns are dangerous, etc".

The populace perceives guns and the people who have them to be dangerous and the politician seeking votes caters to the perception of the populace.

RKBA is protected by the 2nd amendment but until the perception of the populace is changed attacks will continue.
These attacks will not necessarily be against "arms" but by other means such as high taxes on
ammo, limiting the amount of ammo, transfer fees, and so on.

On the contrary, here's how I think it really is:

Some people have no interest in owning a gun, shooting a gun, hunting, cleaning a gun, collecting guns, looking at a gun, shopping for guns, and in many ways really just don't want to have anything to do with guns. They are basically inanimate objects that do not have any appeal. However, the perception that they are dangerous adds a motivation to actively oppose owning a gun. So these people see no useful purpose in owning a gun, and they perceive that the likely outcome of owning a gun is that someone will get hurt or killed in an accident or a crime.

Now, what needs to happen for most of these people is that they need to have their eyes opened to the usefulness or purpose of owning a gun that goes along with the perception that they already have of guns being dangerous or deadly. Telling them that they are not dangerous, just go hunting, they are for fun, etc. does not accomplish this goal at all. They know full well that guns are dangerous and you appear to be an out of touch moron when you try and tell someone that guns are not dangerous or that they are fun and useful for sports. You have to inform them that guns are useful for their own protection and the very thing that makes them dangerous in the hands of criminals also makes them valuable tools in the hands of normal people. In fact the danger of guns in the hands of criminals is counteracted by the ownership and use of guns by normal people.


Shooting a home invader is not fun. Having to take up arms against a tyrannical government is not fun. RKBA is not about fun or sports.

However no one in this discussion or at the NRA has advocated telling people that guns are not dangerous, unless you want to challenge the saying "Guns don't kill. People kill".

The argument of cars and the SCCA is totally flawed in that no one is trying to ban cars
therefore the need for an NRA type organization doesn't exist.

Again, it is perception.
I want a car even if it is dangerous.
I don't want a gun because it is dangerous.

[mr.72]

I want a car even if it is dangerous.
I don't want a gun because it is dangerous.

Trust me, if you didn't need a car, you would not likely buy one.

You need a car, even though it is dangerous. Since it is dangerous, you must learn to use it responsibly and be prepared to use it safely.

However, most people don't comprehend the need for guns, so why own one if it is dangerous and you don't need it? Telling them that they are fun to shoot and you can have hobbies with them does not solve this problem of need. The reality is that they may very well need a gun one day. By the time they know they need it, it will be too late to get it, much as if they didn't get a car before needing one to flee floods in New Orleans after Katrina. We need to educate people as to why we, as a society, need to be armed. Not why we want to. Only a fringe of people truly enjoy owning and shooting guns. But the mainstream needs to own and shoot them for the defense of society.

[seamusTX]

The best way, in a generation or less, to turn around our societal awareness for all of our rights, is to stop sending $10K+/year/student to the government so they can educate our children for us.

I think the probability of this happening in any foreseeable future is close to zero.

Most state constitutions, including Texas, require the state to provide a free public education and low-cost public colleges.

Most states, again including Texas, have laws that require the teaching of American history and the meaning of the Constitution. Unfortunately, they leave the details to professional educators.

Public education is a huge industry that all the political clout that you expect a huge industry to have.

Suburban residents are quite happy to fund their highly-rated public schools. Even if they don't have kids in school, the quality of the schools supports their property values.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that private education would result in the change that we want. I went to 12 years of Catholic schools. We learned about events like the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary War as dry facts. No one every came out and said, "We are free today because our forefathers waged a bloody, violent war, and we retain the right to repeat it if necessary."

Few people think that way.

I don't recall any discussion of firearms in school, other than physics class.

BTW, people on what you would call the far left also think that government-run schools turn out meek, obedient citizens who are willing to give up their rights. Those people are just concerned with different rights.

Happy birthday tomorrow, and thanks for raising kids who will know and defend their rights.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

However, most people don't comprehend the need for guns, so why own one if it is dangerous and you don't need it?

That's half the problem.

The statement "guns are dangerous" is true but incomplete.

Guns are dangerous to whatever is in front of the muzzle when the trigger is pulled.

They are not dangerous when stored and handled in a safe manner, unless and until a criminal needs to be stopped. Most people who do not shoot do not understand that, and our opponents have done a pretty good job of keeping them convinced.

We need more mugged liberals. Marion Hammer was a mugged liberal. We need a new generation of muggers that will scare the dickens out of people without permanently hurting them.

Seriously, I think the trend is in this direction. Look at the number of people buying their first firearm this month. Look at the increase in CHL applications, which is a sustained trend in every state.

Notice the number of politicians swearing off "gun control" efforts (though many are insincere). It reflects a change in public perception.

- Jim
[Edited to fix typo]

[Charles L. Cotton]

This has been discussed here when Richard Feldman was hawking his sour grapes book. The claim is false. The President, 1st Vice-President and 2nd Vice-President don't get paid a dime. You actually mean Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre and he doesn't make anywhere near $1 million a year.

I stand corrected. I was referring to LaPierre, just got the title wrong.

That said, LaPierre's combined salary and deferred compensation totaled $892,166 in FY2004 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/99 ... =990O&t9=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). "Near $1 million a year" might indeed be stretching it, but it's still a lot of dues money. Compared to GOA Executive Directory Lawrence Pratt's FY2004 salary of $65,000 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/99 ... =990O&t9=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), that's quite a difference in my book.

You were talking about taking the high road, so let's do that and be honest about Feldman's claim and Wayne's true income. Here is Feldman's comment from the article you linked in your post:

Harlon Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today's dollars) as executive vice president. Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits on the executive vice president throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005.

That's false, blatantly false. His salary in the link you posted shows it was $633,823 and credits to his retirement account were $258,343. That's not "pocket[ing] about $950,000" as Feldman stated and you quoted. There are also accounting issues dealing with recognition of retirement obligation and funding of those obligations, but regardless of the then-current method, Wayne LaPierre didn't have a salary that even approaches $950,000 and he certainly didn't "pocket" $950,000. Arguing that he did is hardly taking the high road.

I never said Wayne didn't have a significant salary. He makes more money than most people working for a living, but most people aren't responsible for generating $685,000 in revenue every day of the year to run a $250,000,000 civil rights organization. Compare his salary to that of top executives in private industry and he is grossly underpaid.

What I do argue is that Feldman was lying with the figures he threw around. To "pocket" $950,000, Wayne would have to earn about $1,420,000 exclusive of retirement credits or funding.

Your comparison of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA to Larry Pratt and GOA is faulty at best. I'm not going to belabor the issue, but I want to point out a few interesting things in GOA's Form 990 you linked.

First, Mr. Pratt's salary is listed as $65,000 on gross revenues of $2,056,136; that's 3.1% (0.031) of total revenues. Wayne LaPierre's salary of $685,000 on 2004 gross revenues of $170,639,628 is only 0.04% (0.004) of total revenues. So Larry Pratt "pockets" 3.1% of GOA's total revenues, while Wayne LaPierre "pockets" only 4 tenths of one percent (0.004) of total revenues. As a percentage of revenues, Mr. Pratt "pockets" 775% more than does Mr. LaPierre. That comparison is taking the high road because it compares a CEO's salary to the revenue he generates for the entity.

But Mr. Pratt's combined salary from all entities related to GOA (as per IRS regulations) was more than twice the $65,000 from GOA alone. Look at the last page of GOA's Form 990 where you will see that Mr. Pratt got additional salary amounting to $85,000 from two tax exempt entities related to GOA. So Mr. Pratt's total reported income from three related entities was $150,000, not $65,000.

But let’s break that down by entity. Gun Owners Foundation had total revenues in 2004 of $306,867. Mr. Pratt’s salary of $35,000 represents 11.4% of total revenues. English First Foundation has total revenues in 2004 of $59,908. IRS Form 990, Part V appears to show Mr. Pratt took no salary, but on page 18, it shows he took a salary of $50,000. That is 83.5% of total revenues!

So Mr. Pratt’s total reported salary from three related entities is $150,000 on total revenues of $2,422,911. This is 6.2% (0.062) of combined total revenues, compared to Wayne LaPierre’s 0.4% (0.004).

Wayne LaPierre's salary isn't close to $1million annually as falsely claimed by Feldman. Further, he is paid far less than people in comparable positions (CEOs) in private industry and he works much harder. As I noted in an earlier post, he works 20 hrs a day and travels all over the country giving him almost no personal life. He accepts a lower salary and makes a personal commitment to the NRA because he believes in the cause.

As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, we can have differing opinions on many of the issues that face us and how they should be addressed. Fund raising methods, the content and frequency of letters and advertisements, proposed legislation, candidates, etc. are fair game for discussion and disagreement. But Feldman-type lies about the NRA, its goals, methods and leadership is counterproductive and just plain dishonest.

Chas.

Resources:

Gun Owners Foundation Form 990 http://www.charitablegift.org/guidestar/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

English First Foundation From 990 http://www.charitablegift.org/guidestar/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brianko]

As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, we can have differing opinions on many of the issues that face us and how they should be addressed. Fund raising methods, the content and frequency of letters and advertisements, proposed legislation, candidates, etc. are fair game for discussion and disagreement. But Feldman-type lies about the NRA, its goals, methods and leadership is counterproductive and just plain dishonest.

It's all a matter of what spin is put on the numbers. You've introduced a new metric to the discussion (salary as percentage of revenue), one that wasn't even brought up previously. I might argue that this metric is meaningless, because it sidesteps the true issue of the absolute numbers that comprise salary (my original argument). So we differ in opinion. Your opinion and my opinion as to how the numbers are interpreted is different, and I respect your opinion even though I don't necessarily agree with its validity. (I don't believe you or I have a disagreement on the actual numbers involved, as we have both produced authoritative references.)

One more thing: Even if Pratt is making $150,000 a year (and I'll take your word on that), it's a far cry from LaPierre's salary. Both the GOA and the NRA have made great strides in protecting our 2A rights. It's my believe that the GOA is providing the most "bang for the buck," which is why I support the GOA. However, the climate for gun owners has changed considerably with the installation of a virulently anti-2A administration, and I am considering supporting both organizations in what will probably turn out to be a long and protracted battle over gun owners' rights.

[seamusTX]

Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.

I think he could go to work for a lobbying firm and earn millions a year. That's how much drug companies, oil companies and the like are willing to pay.

I know that this argument is made for executive pay all the time, and in many cases it is bogus. No board in its right mind is going to hire a CEO that ran his previous employer into the ground, and give him a raise.

But I think Wayne LaPierre has done a good job, and deserves to be paid what people who have his skill set are generally paid.

If you don't think he has done a good job, tell me what he could have done differently, to produce a better result.

There is a lot of vague "want" and "should" in this thread. I want the feds to keep their hands off our firearms, because they should. But it isn't going to happen without a positive plan of action.

At the risk of suggesting that I can read minds, I think that people who criticize the pay of heads of not-for-profit organizations have first decided not to support the organization, then looked for rationalizations. I see the same arguments made about the Red Cross and similar organizations.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, we can have differing opinions on many of the issues that face us and how they should be addressed. Fund raising methods, the content and frequency of letters and advertisements, proposed legislation, candidates, etc. are fair game for discussion and disagreement. But Feldman-type lies about the NRA, its goals, methods and leadership is counterproductive and just plain dishonest.

It's all a matter of what spin is put on the numbers. You've introduced a new metric to the discussion (salary as percentage of revenue), one that wasn't even brought up previously. I might argue that this metric is meaningless, because it sidesteps the true issue of the absolute numbers that comprise salary (my original argument). So we differ in opinion. Your opinion and my opinion as to how the numbers are interpreted is different, and I respect your opinion even though I don't necessarily agree with its validity. (I don't believe you or I have a disagreement on the actual numbers involved, as we have both produced authoritative references.)

One more thing: Even if Pratt is making $150,000 a year (and I'll take your word on that), it's a far cry from LaPierre's salary. Both the GOA and the NRA have made great strides in protecting our 2A rights. It's my believe that the GOA is providing the most "bang for the buck," which is why I support the GOA. However, the climate for gun owners has changed considerably with the installation of a virulently anti-2A administration, and I am considering supporting both organizations in what will probably turn out to be a long and protracted battle over gun owners' rights.

Chas.

Resources:

Gun Owners Foundation Form 990 http://www.charitablegift.org/guidestar/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

English First Foundation From 990 http://www.charitablegift.org/guidestar/index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're the one spinning the facts, and now I see why. You've taken a side in the NRA v. GOA argument.

Okay, let's stick to the facts, Wayne LaPierre doesn't make $1million a year as you said. Your spin of wanting to include retirement credits or funding doesn't make your statement any more accurate.

As for Pratt's salaries, don't take my word for it, read the links I provided along with the link you provided. It's quite telling when you complain about the absolute dollar amount of Wayne LaPierre's salary, but refuse to acknowledge the importance of the NRA's gross revenues. I'm far more impressed (in a negative sense) with the fact that Larry Pratt puts 6.2% of his organizations' gross revenues in his pocket, compared to LaPierre's 0.004%.

NRA v. GOA is a joke. Tell me one bill GOA has gotten passed. Tell me one bill GOA has killed. Show me one place where the Brady Campaign, the American Hunters & Shooters Association, or Rebecca Peters has blasted GOA for blocking "reasonable gun safety laws." GOA isn't mentioned by the enemies of the Second Amendment because it is not a threat to their mission and goals.

This exchange between us began with your opinion that the NRA exaggerates the threat to the Second Amendment and your belief that we should "take the high road." Now it comes out that you support the GOA. Do you contend the GOA's message isn't full of exaggeration and saber-rattling? The best thing I've every heard said about the GOA is that they are so radical they make the NRA look moderate.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Brian and I have hijacked this thread and I apologize.

Chas.