karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/16/85)
Jeff Shallit contends that the NRA is not a sporting organization. I, in turn, contend that his view of the NRA is inaccurate because the only view he has of it is its political activities, which are substantial to say the least. But the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action represents only a fraction of the overall activities of the NRA, even by Mr Shallit's figures. Also, he claims that the NRA's current anti-legislation stance is somehow improper because a number of reforms were voted into existence a few years back. This is not so; that is, the stance is perfectly OK. If it weren't, people wouldn't join; or they wouldn't stay after their first year if they found they didn't like it; or they'd vote the reforms back out of existence. ---------- >>> The NRA USED to be a responsible sporting organization. >>We still are. In the words of President Reagan at an address to the 1983 NRA >>annual convention: >> >>"No group does more to promote gun safety and respect for the laws of this >>land than the NRA." [October 1984 *American Rifleman*, page 7, Carter's HWS >>column.] >Pardon me while I chuckle. Quoting Ronald Reagan on the responsibility >of the NRA is a little like quoting Adolf Hitler on Goering's humane >treatment of the Jews: the response you'd get is quick, predictable, >and deliberately fashioned to mislead. ---------- You are, first and foremost, entitled to your opinion. However, your comparison of the NRA with Nazi Germany is slanderous and does little more than discredit you. ---------- >For chrissakes, Reagan is a MEMBER of the NRA (since 1972). Of course he thinks >the NRA promotes gun safety and respect for the laws. ---------- The complaint is groundless. You seem to suggest that only those outside the NRA, particularly its opponents, may comment on its worth. Nonsense. The fact of the NRA's support for the respect of existing laws is unquestionable. The NRA fights to have laws repealed, but the NRA never advocates illegal activities. Just recently, a note came out from the NRA advising handgun owners in the Chicago area to make sure they get their permits renewed. How many other organizations do that sort of thing? Also, the NRA sponsors a huge number of Hunter Safety courses. Who else does anything of the sort? ---------- >Look, [Reagan] got shot in the chest >with a bullet from a gun aimed by a man with a psychiatric history--a gun >the man could NOT have purchased so easily if we had strict Federal >controls--and still was able to say with a straight face that handgun control >is bad idea. If so, then NO handgun control is an even worse idea. ---------- No. In this newsgroup in the last week, there have been quite a pile of articles which detail the statistics from various cities when handgun "controls" were put into effect. The gun owners' statistics invariably cite cities where the crime rate went up with the introduction of these laws, and the gun control advocates' statistics invariably cite cities where the crime rate went down. There's even a few cities where it's contested which way the rate went. The only thing that can be learned from either side of that discussion is that there is conflicting evidence about the thesis, "gun control laws result in effective gun control." I used to keep a count, a couple years ago, of the number of cities where the rate supported each side. I got up to about 30 cities where gun control seemed to hurt, and 26 where it helped. Now I do not claim that the evidence weighs against such laws; rather, I conclude that the evidence is contradictory and I reject all of it. I do not think it reasonable to conclude that Mr Hinckley couldn't have found a firearm of any kind he wanted; as you noted, he had a psychiatric history, and was deeply intent on impressing an actress he'd never met. If he'd been prevented access to a firearm (which, retroactively speaking, he was; the BATF's normal check on *every* firearms purchaser revealed his past), he would have found a different way. Some positively ingenious and trivially simple bombs can be made from the most seemingly harmless materials; Hinckley just didn't need it, particularly since he didn't want to take down anyone but Mr Reagan. Someone suggested that anyone could go into a bar in NYC and buy a firearm, probably of any kind you wanted. I support that conclusion. I have seen such illegal transactions occur, from a distance I assure you. Mr Hinckley's desire to "prove" himself would have outweighed the ability of gun control legislation to stop him easily. ---------- >The NRA likes to portray itself as a **sporting organization**. This is >the propaganda it feeds to its 2.8 million members, and they believe it. >The truth is, 15 years ago it used to be such an organization. Since 1968, >however, it has spent a dramatically increasing percentage of its budget >on lobbying and political activites, which are decidedly NOT the function >of a sporting organization. ---------- In all honesty, the phrase "the truth is..." in the above paragraph makes my stomach turn. How can a person who has avoided contact with a particular large portion of an organization then turn around and say, "The truth about this organization is..."? Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But you're off the mark because you don't know what the NRA does; you're not associated with it closely enough to say. All you can do is quote the propaganda you get from HCI and related organizations. (And we had all best admit that most of the information we're getting on this issue have to do with propaganda from one side or the other.) The reason 1968 is significant to the NRA is that 1968 is the year that an awful thing called the Gun Control Act of 1968 [GCA 68] became law. It is only in this past year that some of its more absurd provisions were repealed. For example, it had become illegal, under GCA 68, to import firearm relics and curios. Now, anyone versed in the intricacies of firearms will inform you that prohibiting the importation of what amounts to antiques is positively ridiculous; a lot of them can't even be fired anyway, that's why they're called relics. But this is the sort of definition problems which the NRA has had to fight, because some fool legislator decided that something "had to be done," whipped up some legislation which inadequately defines the task to be completed, and left so many useless and contradictory requirements for the average Joe that it simply leaves one stupefied. Do you know that, in the state of Massachusetts, it's almost impossible to do such a simple thing as *drive through the state* with a rifle in your trunk? Even on your way to, say, New Hampshire to go hunting? A man was sentenced to a year in prison for driving through Massachusetts. Great things, this GCA 68 has spawned. Before anyone complains that the NRA is trying to dismantle the whole of GCA 68: it is extremely significant that the NRA has never opposed legislation which added to the legal penalties for those convicted of violent crimes with firearms. Since we're on the subject of the sporting activites, tell me: Q. What organization trains more police officers by private means than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. Every single month, there are announcements about where and when the next courses will be taught. This month's announcements include Jan 14-18 (Commerce, CA), Feb 11-15 (Atlanta, GA), and Feb 18-22 (Quincy, FL). Q. What organization trains more hunters than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. I won't even go into details. Q. What organization *strongly* backs legislation which leads to stiffer sentences against those who have committed violent crimes with firearms? A. The NRA. Of course, HCI hangs on the armor-piercing issue alone, attempting to depict the NRA as deliberately trying to endanger police officers; sheer fantasy, in light of the NRA's work to train officers. Q. What organization maintains more firing ranges than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. Q. What organization organizes more shooting competitions than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. Q. What organization gives more advice to more states' Game & Wildlife Departments than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. Q. What organization trains more gunsmiths than all other organizations combined? A. The NRA. These are all sporting activities by any definition I know. ---------- >Item: 22% of the NRA's $53 million in yearly expenditures go to the >lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. ---------- I thought it was closer to 30%. Either way, doesn't bother me at all. The vast majority of the NRA's activities (78% by the preceding figure) still go to non-political SPORTING activities. This is the real crux of the matter. Mr Shallit holds this figure up as though it proves in some way that the NRA doesn't do anything for, about, or with sportsmen in any way. He misses the point that the remaining three quarters of the organization are expressly devoted to such activities. This is considerably more at this point, in both people and dollars, than the NRA spent some years back when the reforms to which Mr Shallit objects [below] were implemented. ---------- >Item: NRA's president, Neal Knox... ---------- You don't even know who the President of the NRA is right now. How much credence can I put into any of your facts about the NRA? Combined with your lack of accurate knowledge about other aspects of the NRA, I consider your claims about the NRA suitable to be ignored. The president is Howard W Pollock. ---------- >NRA has FIVE fulltime lobbyists. ---------- I wish it were more. But that seems to suffice. The NRA claimed a 95% success rate in the November elections. When the NRA supports a candidate, he's got a 95% chance of being elected. That's pretty good. ---------- >Item: The NRA has very strong ties to the handgun manufacturers, who make >2.6 million handguns annually. ---------- You seem surprised. Why? When there is a single organization which does so much work for the manufacturers, is it unusual that they return whatever favors they can? This doesn't bother me at all. I support it. ---------- >Here are five paragraphs from "Guns Don't Die--People Do" by Pete Shields: ---------- Pete Shields? No context given on the name; who is he? Pulling a commentator's name out of a hat doesn't do anyone any good. ---------- > In early 1977, some old-guard members urged the NRA to move out of >Washington and reestablish itself out west. Colorado was the favored >site. Some cited the high-crime rate in Washington as the reason for >the move, while others mentioned the need to become better identified >(re-identified?) as an organization of sportsmen. ---------- If they felt that the NRA ever left sportsmen behind, they were wrong. It's that simple. The NRA still uses better than 3/4 (by your own figures) of its considerable budget to the cause of improving the sportsman's lot. ---------- > The proposal resulted in increasing bickering between the hardliners, >who felt the NRA's chief responsibility was to fight gun legislation, >and the old guard, who wanted the NRA to return to early, >less-acrimonious days. ---------- Tell me: if a majority wanted to fight gun legislation, are they not within their rights to organize for that purpose? Or to put to use an existing organization? What exactly is being complained at here? That somebody just didn't like a re-organization? Clearly, no such thing would have occurred without someone saying, "Let's do it," and a whole lot of others agreeing. And considering that we are gaining 25,000 new members every month, there's an awful lot of agreement. If the 2 million who have joined since 1977 didn't like it, they wouldn't have joined. They wouldn't renew their memberships at the highest rate since the NRA's creation. The NRA must be well-liked by somebody out there. ---------- > Only those life members who actually attend the annual convention are >allowed to vote--which works out to roughly a thousand of the 1.8 million >members. [Now about 2.8 million -- JS]. It is not hard to see how a >strong, yet tiny faction could actually control the organization. ---------- I am getting tired of correcting these sorts of facts. (a) The NRA passed the 3 million membership mark in November 1984. Case closed; quit posting to the contrary. You're attempting to give us the appearance of losing 7% of our membership, and it's wrong. (b) This nonsense about "only life members can vote" has got to go, too. As I said in my previous posting, NRA life members and those with 5 continuous years' membership are entitled to vote; this restriction prevents ballot box stuffing. (c) Based on the amount of mail I'm getting, it seems that the NRA is going to gain an extra 30 or so members, and that only counts the ones that I know about personally. See next posting for an address to which to write. ---------- > Indeed, that's exactly what happened in 1977 when a group of hard-line >members took over, ousting the old-guard group. Since 1977, the >organization has been rabidly anti-control. As the Washington Star >put it, in its recent series: "The old leaders, accused of being a bunch >of environmentalists and bird-watchers who had become soft on pistol >control, learned that the issue could be as hazardous for them as it could >for the members of Congress on the NRA's political hit list." ---------- The notion of a "hit list" is offensive, and implies clearly that the NRA advocates illegal action. This is untrue and unfounded. Not to mention the emotional impact of "hard-liners" (I recall the media referring to the Ayatollah frequently with that word) and "rabid." While we're on the subject of emotional terms, let's discuss the National Coalition to Ban Handguns' "Dirty Dozen." It seems that NCBH wanted 12 congressmen ousted, and gave them this name. Ten were easily re-elected, one was defeated narrowly, and one was just plain defeated. As for losing the "environmentalists and bird-watchers," the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. It took ten years after such fiascos as GCA 68 before action was taken. I, for one, am glad that group is gone. ---------- > Regarding the strange election setup, the Star quoted an officer of the >California Rifle and Pistol Association, who was ousted in the 1977 purge, >on the point that the largest number of members ever to show up at a >convention was 1,248 in 1980--which represented less than half of one >percent of the eligible voters. "The way they've set it up," said >Michael Opsitnik, "they can take over a $50-million organization with 625 >votes. The Federation says this is election by the members. We say...if >they call this election by the members, they must have studied politics >in Russia." ---------- You must be kidding: If we're not doing things the way that a political minority likes, then we must be anti-American? That's silly. Not to mention your relentless misunderstanding of voting (and non-voters' rights) within the NRA. What is the Federation? No organization associated with the NRA has "federation" in its name. What are you talking about? I persist: a majority voted for the changes. Huge numbers of people like the way it runs now. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't be here. You can ramble on all you like about the minority who are upset with the changes; it doesn't change the fact that the majority approve. ---------- > So much for the "sporting" activities of the NRA. Its 2.8 million >members have little control over the rabid, hard-line policies of its >leadership. I feel sorry for Karl. He is a victim of propaganda, and >doesn't realize it, much as members of the German Army had little or >no idea what genocide their leaders were participating in. He has a choice, >though. He can read the news and become better informed. ---------- ???"So much for the 'sporting' activities of the NRA..."??? You sound as though you think you've closed the book on the subject. You don't even have contact with the sporting activities; how can you comment on them? The only contact you have is with the political aspect. Considering how massive that part of the NRA is, with its budget, its lobbyists, its campaigns...how large do you think THE OTHER THREE QUARTERS are? Good heavens, it boggles the mind to think that only 1/4 of our energy is devoted to political purposes. Think what we could do if we became an exclusively political organization...but I wouldn't want that. Neither would most NRA members, I think. We like its sporting qualities. And keep your sorrow. I neither want it nor need it. You, on the other hand, feel a need to compare the NRA with Nazi Germany twice now, which is flagrant propaganda of the worst kind. The NRA is not out to commit genocide in any way, which is so clearly implied by the comparison. Have you noticed that the NRA doesn't support Mr Goetz (NYC subway)? There's a bunch of reasons for that, starting with the fact that, even not liking the law, Mr Goetz should have had a permit before carrying his firearm; remember, the NRA pushes respect for existing laws, even while trying to get them changed. Your arguments are going nowhere. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl