The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Lately, Philadelphia has spent untold amounts of money on their own television stations running a PR campaign begging people to visit. They even include a pitch to people in the suburbs, asking them to stop mowing their lawns to come to the city.
Except it’s hardly convincing. In fact, mowing the lawn may well be better than going to Philadelphia. Consider the following: Continue reading “Philadelphia’s Failed PR Campaign”
In the gun issue, many gun owners are quick to demonize the media without a second thought. I don’t completely blame anyone for a healthy dose of cynicism, but sometimes I wonder where it’s coming from and whether it’s appropriate.
Yesterday, SayUncle noticed that his knowledge of laws didn’t mesh with what an article in the Nashville City Paper claimed on the topic of guns where alcohol is served. The reporter claimed “extensive legal research” provided by a law firm that was hired to challenge the law. Uncle requested the research from the reporter and then I saw Rustmeister’s decidedly cynical comment assuming that Uncle would likely never receive the research at all, even referring to the research in scare quotes. Why assume the worst in this case? I responded that folks should have a little faith, alternative papers are often very reliable for demanding evidence.
But that got me thinking about the deeply rooted hatred for the media that many gun owners have. Many are willing to burn the bridge with reporters without a second thought. Why is that? (I might add that the reporter did send Uncle the data.) Do gun owners seek to live in a world where they truly believe that everyone is out to get them? Or would we be better off balancing a healthy cynicism that only a few people are out to get us with an understanding that this is a complex issue that many people in and out of the media don’t get?
Obviously, I suggest the latter. Yes, the mainstream media is, in general, not friendly to our side of the gun issue. But, we also need to realize that many don’t really have much of an opinion about it or have an opinion that could be swayed to neutral with just a little friendly outreach. Why do some want to assume the worst and burn the bridges to those who we can sway? Does it just feel good? I don’t understand. I want to create a more gun-friendly media, and maybe not everyone shares that desire.
While I’m not saying that gun owners should turn the other cheek if there’s a bad article out there, here are a few things I think folks should consider before assuming the worst (and saying as much) about a reporter:
Going back to the specific case with Nashville’s City Paper, there’s significant room for improvement, but I don’t think the reporter deserved denunciation or assumptions of the worst based on this particular article. In this case, before the data was even sent there were a few folks pointing out that there were different interpretations of the law that could have stumped the reporter. Looking at what the law firm compiled, I believe that’s the case based on the laws in the list I do know. Perhaps more importantly, the reporter did make clear that the firm providing the data was working on a legal challenge to the new law in Tennessee.
In all, I think it’s time to stop throwing all members of the media under the bus in our movement. We shouldn’t seek to burn bridges that don’t need to be burned. It’s fine if there is a true sin and bias is far beyond any limits of reasonable understanding, but we should take a moment to ask whether it does cross those limits. If it doesn’t, try a bit of honey instead of vineagar. If you make an effort to educate, you could easily find yourself becoming a source to answer future questions the next time the subject comes up.
Completely by chance, a state lawmaker here in Pennsylvania had a tele-townhall tonight. We got a call and I opted to listen in even though I was on the cell with Sebastian as he was driving home. I asked Sebastian if he had suggestions for me for our representative. There’s not much going on at the state level in regards to guns, so I suggested possibly something about reform of the beer/wine/liquor sales given today’s news.
In getting the queue, they only ask for the general nature of your question. I gave an overview and said I would simply like to ask if there is any real chance of legislative relief of any kind. I pointed out that if you’ve ever tried to buy just enough beer for a small cookout or perhaps a bottle of wine, it’s a real pain under the system. When the staffer chuckles and agrees, you know that’s generally a good sign.
Of course, as Sebastian says, “Everyone hates it, but no one is willing to get angry enough to do anything about it.” I figured with the Supreme Court case as cover, there was a door open to get the conversation started about a legislative remedy.
Unfortunately, there were too many questions and mine didn’t make it to the rep during the course of the call. However, he did pledge that anyone with a policy question will get a personal phone call back from him this week.
Given that, what proposals should I lay out as reasonable reforms to make. I know I’d ideally like a completely free market system on sales, but I realize that when dealing with a massive monopoly force (the beer distributors) and a government patronage service (the state liquor stores), it won’t be a realistic solution. So, what kind of system would you suggest for Pennsylvania’s sales of beer and wine, and possibly of liquor? I’m particularly interested in hearing from other Pennsylvania residents. What kind of compromise reform would you be happy with as a starting point?
A mother and daughter team in Ohio offer basic safety classes to women who want their concealed carry licenses. While they do teach men, they do something a little different and offer all women’s classes to help some get over the intimidation factor.
One of my proudest moments was after teaching a woman to shoot a handgun, taking a break to watch her learn how to shoot rifles ranging from high-end competition .22s to a beat up AK-47 and then hearing her brag about how many clays she busted on the shotgun range. But that wasn’t particularly noteworthy at this all female event. What was noteworthy was when she came up to ask me how to join the club, if there were more women involved other than just me and that this was a first step she was taking after losing two family members to tragedies involving firearms. (IIRC, one was suicide and the other an act of violence.) That was pretty amazing.
Back to the article, one of the women specifically cites getting involved, taking the class, and getting her carry permit as a direct response to Obama’s gun positions. Again, so much for the Brady argument that it’s all seasoned shooters buying up the guns.
I’ve always loved having the argument in my pocket that gun sales are good for Bambi. This California outlet points out that rising gun sales have been VERY good for Bambi in the last few months.
According to a federal report, in the last three months of 2008, the amount of money paid into the fund spiked 31 percent, as compared to the year before. Nearly all of the increase was due to increased handgun production.
Of course, I keep that argument on hand mostly for the folks who sit on the fence or aren’t typically on our side but could be swayed by it. I also realize that the excise tax money can go for public ranges, which some states are quite good about. (Florida and Arizona come to mind.) Hopefully that means in the next couple of years, we’ll see vast improvements in range quality. (It’s going to take a while since the feds only disperse the money once a year and most states don’t have much money to kick in the 25% they are required to pay for projects. It’s not “free” money for them and they can’t print more if they feel like it.)
For the FY2008, money distributed to the states & territories totaled nearly $310 million. It will be interesting to see how much is available by the end of FY2009.
I listened in on the social media session offered by NSSF for gun & hunting industry folks. It was a combination of “THIS!”* and facepalm**. (I’m adding a glossary at the end for those in the industry who find this and need it. Believe me, after what I heard, some really need it.)
It was really amusing to hear Steve Hall of AdRants mentioned since he and I never did meet up for a beer like we talked about when I was living in Massachusetts. Considering my first AdRants link was about a bikini line razor, it can be edgy territory that would honestly scare a lot of the people involved in this industry. (BTW, I’m still on their accolades section. Even though I don’t follow AdRants nearly as often anymore, it’s still a very informative & entertaining site if you’re into the topic. Although I did just start following Steve on Twitter.)
But beyond my own favorite blog shoutouts***, it was an interesting session. I was fearful at first. There are many people who claim to know it all when it comes to new media. If they claim it, they are full of shit. The best people admit that they definitely don’t know it all, but they have some good ideas to get things started. The beauty of the internet is that you can scrap a plan and try again if it doesn’t quite work. Continue reading “New Media & The Gun Industry”
With this report from Uncle that several gubernatorial candidates on both sides of the aisle seem to be lining up against a major gun bill, what on earth can a gun owner do to make a difference and change this rhetoric?
There’s a problem of timing for the election. Unlike New Jersey and Virginia which have elections this year, Tennessee gun owners are still a year and a half out from the next election. It’s not like it’s time to start phone banking or doing precinct walks for candidates yet. It’s hard to step up and give the manpower to sink or promote a campaign in response to these statements against concealed carry access.
The problem is that this early on, candidates have to be thinking about what the editorials will say about them if they come out against members of their own party or other political issues. Voters aren’t paying that much attention, and even most activists haven’t quite tuned in yet. They are fighting for donors, endorsements, and positive press to raise their name recognition.
But, this early in the game there are a few steps I would suggest:
It’s really not a fun situation to be in. It’s also not something most Tennessee gun owners expect. Sure New Jersey gun owners are used to being election punching bags, but not most red state gun owners. It’s a situation that’s going to evolve.
In 2009, there were more eligible voting members of NRA than at any other time since I’ve started keeping detailed records of the votes. A total of 1,549,130 members were eligible either as life (or higher) members, or as consistent 5-year+ annual members. Here’s a breakdown based on a chart I posted earlier in the year that looks at whether or not NRA members really vote.
| Year | Ballots Cast | Ballots Not Cast | Ballots Sent |
| 2006 | 79,227 | 1,468,502 | 1,547,729 |
| 2007 | 99,785 | 1,443,256 | 1,543,041 |
| 2008 | 94,361 | 1,452,174 | 1,546,535 |
| 2009 | 93,472 | 1,455,658 | 1,549,130 |
As you can see, there was a slight decline in the number of ballots cast even though more members were eligible to vote, leaving us with only 6% of the eligible members returning a ballot at all.
This matters because the difference between the “last winner” and the “first loser” was only 725 votes this year. If you really care about a candidate, your vote and those of your shooting buddies can make a difference. (Even if a candidate loses, how well they place in the “loser” category often determines if members will support them in the election of 76th director that takes place at the Annual Meeting.)
With all of that said, our endorsed candidates did very well given the number of “celebrity” names on the ballot this year. Ronnie Barrett came in third, Robert Brown in seventh, Scott Bach in twelfth, Edie Fleeman Reynolds in thirteenth, Steve Hornady in fifteenth, and Joe DeBergalis in eighteenth. In fact, all of our endorsed candidates outperformed the new NRA president (Ron Schmeits) who came in at 19 – in the bottom third of candidates. Two of the candidates even outperformed the now past president and next president.
But many may be wondering about the status of George Kollitides, the candidate I raised questions about during the election given his lack of involvement. AR15.com leaders who endorsed him and came on to defend him appeared to be completely unaware that Kollitides wasn’t showing up for committee meetings. Well, he lost. In fact, he came in dead last – far beyond all of the other candidates.
| “Losing” Candidates | Vote Tallies | Difference from Previous Candidate |
| Donn DiBiasio* | 61,188 | 725 |
| Steven Schreiner | 60,688 | 500 |
| Robert Sanders** | 59,561 | 1,127 |
| Todd Walker | 57,130 | 2,431 |
| George Kollitides | 49,855 | 7,275 |
*Another Board member resigned after ballots went out, so Donn fills his seat.
**Robert was elected at the 76th Director.
As you can see, the members really smacked Kollitides down in the election. As I mentioned to someone at the Meeting, I don’t think the whole buying advertising in American Rifleman went over very well – it came off as trying to buy a Board seat. Considering what we know about his attendance, there’s little he could fall back on to counter that claim. Add in the Chrysler bailout, and there’s suspicion about him which I don’t think is completely misplaced since he, according to industry sources, never does interviews. If he refuses to talk to NRA members and their main media outlets, then who is he accountable to in the course of his service? It’s a fair question. Clearly, the members don’t think he answered it.
In other news, I am a little surprised by the performance of two “celebrity” Board members. Richard Childress won the final seat on the board, and John Milius came in just two spots above him. I would have expected that NASCAR (Childress) and Red Dawn/Rome (Milius) would bring them more votes.
I just posted some very random facts about the NRA Annual Meeting and Second Amendment Blog BashTM over at my blog. If you’re curious about exactly how many people attended, how much was raised, how many publishers participated, and more, then check it out.
I will follow up here with an in-depth report on how the NRA Board of Directors results came out. It was all very interesting, and I know that the endorsed candidates who did interviews here were very appreciative of the support and very excited to see the interest from Sebastian’s readers through the questions submitted.
“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,†says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which advocates for more gun control in the US.
I’ll take that, Josh. Thanks for the recognition, it’s great to know we’re appreciated.