When talking to the news media and policymakers, the National Rifle Association never misses a chance to boast of its membership of four million. From news releases to statements by its leadership, this number, virtually by its very utterance, is offered as validation of the organization's mission.
And it's so much larger than the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year.
When asked for proof of these claims, the NRA cites the sanctity of its membership list and falls into its default mode of 'trust, but don't expect us to verify.'
This week I received in the mail a letter from the NRA promoting one of the various specialized insurance plans it's always trying to foist on its members with manufactured urgency. The letter, from NRA Treasurer and CFO Wilson H. Phillips Jr., urged me to register (yes, register) for the NRA's new Emergency Assistance Plus insurance.
The letter states the program was developed "especially for NRA Members. This is because we are more at risk while we're traveling. So we're more likely to get hurt or sick in a place we don't know."
The insurance is primarily a series of support services if you're faced with a medical or other emergency while traveling. Why NRA members are more at risk than others while traveling is never explained. Maybe it's because they don't bring their guns with them. Or more likely because they do.
Mr. Phillips continues, explaining what a bargain this insurance represents, promising that the NRA has "put together a package of essential support services. All are vital in an emergency. Then, with about 3 million NRA Members 'on our side of the table,' we negotiated a bargain price."
Wait a minute: "about 3 million NRA Members"? What happened to "four million members strong"? Where's the missing million members? Shouldn't the Treasurer and CFO of the NRA know the membership numbers? Unless, of course, the NRA is being less than, uh, forthcoming. This would, however, help explain why an organization that gives every adult member a choice of one of three free magazines with their membership dues has a total circulation for these publications of less than 2.7 million for the six months ending in December 2007 according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Maybe Mr. Phillips' citation of "about 3 million NRA Members" is just an error. Or maybe it's because the underwriter for the plan is in California, and practices forbidden under California's insurance statutes include:
Making or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatsoever, any statement containing any assertion, representation or statement with respect to the business of insurance or with respect to any person in the conduct of his or her insurance business, which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue, deceptive, or misleading.
Or maybe those who accept the NRA's membership claims at face value should be a little more skeptical.
There's certainly no twisting these statistics now, is there?
"The regular citizen in Chicago cannot go anywhere and buy firearms," says Williams, eyebrows raised. "And yet, in one year, in the 1990s, we had more than 19,000 weapons recovered. In one year. We've been averaging 10,000 weapons recovered every year for the last 10 or 12 or 14 years. And that's with a ban."
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
Or maybe you'd like to throw out the "racist red herring" as you usually do?
Good thing Josh and jade aren't doctors, or their treatment for brain cancer would be chemotherapy for the foot.
What aren't we focusing on legislation and remedies which target a specific demorgaphics, geographic areas, and thinking with regards to violenct crime instead of focusing on blanket policies which nto only infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding, but also target areas which are non-issues?
The gun ban (its not really a total gun ban) in Chicago was implemented years ago. According to MolonLabe and his fellow adherents, this means Chicago should see murder and crime rates that climb ever Northward.
But reality shows us crime n Chicag has declined. Murders are down over the past 4 years.
That Jadegold "reality" again.
I wonder why we never saw the "Click Here to Donate Now(tm)" campaign for Chicago like we have been seeing for the past year with the Brady's and Virginia Tech? I guess to draw attention to the fact that gun control is useless against violent crime no matter what the Brady rating grade is would be a no-no, hugh?
http://www.wcbs880.com/NYC-Loses-Lawsuit-Against-Gun-Industry/2100199
PT Barnum had it right.
Lies about children and guns.
Brady Campaign and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have claimed that 12 children die from gun accidents every day, and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has claimed that 13 children are killed with guns every day. The HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) Network (which is dedicated to “changing society’s attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns”) put the figure at “an average of 9 children” daily. Other “gun control” advocates have varyingly claimed 14 per day (or 5,000 yearly or one every 90 seconds). Some count anyone under the age of 24 as a “child,” to get even higher numbers.9 Anti-gunners add the relatively small number of firearm-related deaths among children to the much larger number of deaths among juveniles and young adults, and dishonestly call the total “children.” In fact, on average there is just under one firearm-related death among children per day, including one accidental death every 5.8 days.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
I guess if it's your kid, you can shrug it off and say it's "just one."
Here is a common tactic used by the NRA. They take differing statistics --using different sources and differing parameters in different time periods--then accuse their opponents of lying.
Of course, the NRA isn't above a little creative statistic-twisting. For example, they claim only 1 (actually 1.2) firearm death per day among children. But that's only kids under 14. Over 14 to age 19, the total jumps to 8.3. Additionally, the NRA claims its opponents count children as up to age 24. But they never cite an instance.
In reality, the number of children killed by firearms is not hard to ascertain. In fact, the figures are broken down by age groups and cause (accident, homicide, suicide, legal intervention, etc.). Nor are the sources of these stats partisan--unless one counts the CDC, FBI, or National Safety Council as partisan.
You also fail to realize the most effective way to reduce violent crime is to take the criminals off the streets. They should never be released. If necessary, put them on a reservation, from which they cannot escape.
. A cited instance.
Ok, Jade. Let's assume that the NRA only has 3 million members. How 'bout this, lets say they only have a million. Or for argument's sake, only 1.
As a US citizen and a gun owner, these are the only statistics I really care about (2007):
Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 80%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. Therefore, the firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904.
Today, the odds are a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.
Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally....
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
These are the only statistics that will prove time and time again that gun control was, is, and will continue to be an utter failure. These are the statistics which cannot be refuted by anti-rights people like Josh and jade.
This is why they have to resort to cookies and paint and membership numbers.
If the first case is true, then the organization has misplaced a million members.
If the second case is true, then you are confusing two different categories to make a point, and are not interested in the plain facts of the case.
I don't blame him, it must be uncomfortable to see his beloved organization caught in such a lie. People who are duped into investing in perpetual motion machines, beachfront properties in Utah, and a 4M member NRA often quickly switch topics.
And we all know how the Brady Campaign and the VPC is "all facts all the time."
What a joke.
I'll provide a picture of the NRA's headquarters
http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/4669
Now you go out and find a picture of the VPC's headquarters.
Let the lurkers here decide which organization doesn't really want to brag about membership numbers.
NRA caught lying about membership? Look! There's a shiny building! The one with the bird on it!
In reality, of course, most of the offices at NRA HQ are leased out (or are vacant) to a variety of companies having nothing to do with firearms policy. Apparently, the address isn't particularly desirable as the NRA is advertising on CraigsList to lease office space. Recently, office space at NRA HQ was going for $16/sqft--which, in the Washington DC area, is about what one would pay for industrial space.
This is a logical fallacy. It assumes there are only two possible outcomes--that one is either "pro-gun" or "anti-gun."
IOW, Dr. Brown apparently believes one rigidly agrees with the NRA agenda or one is "anti-gun."
Further, in trying to explain away the NRA's exaggerated membership, Dr. Brown suggests the NRA has achieved its goals and therefore membership has dwindled. Of course, this is rather laughable in light of the fact polling shows the vast majority of Americans favor keeping gun laws and regulations as they are or making them more strict. Issues dear to the NRA get single digit support.
Of course, Dr. Brown hasn't carefully read Josh Sugarmann's article. Nowhere does Sugarmann suggest the NRA's membership has declined--what he is saying is that the NRA never had 4M members.
Before dumping more unsubstantiated "facts" over on ths blog, I think there's a few people waiting for explanations and citations over on Bryan Miller's. Where've ya been?
While people like Josh and Jade like arguing over member size, paint, cookies that look like guns, let's not forget the fact that anti-rights groups can't even get the most "vanilla" of gun-control legislation (NICS Improvement) passed without NRA backing. 4 million, 3 million, a hundred... In the grand scheme of things, Josh arguing membership size is about as transparant as the liberal smear campain of John McCain....oh yeah....and eachother.
When you have no statistics, historical precedent, and no way to substantiate the argument FOR gun control, you have to resort to declining gun ownership, NRA membership, and other issues which are just fodder for the sheeple.
The truth is out there, sheeple. Just do a little research.
In the 1990s, an NRA official even admitted the NRA probably still carried many deceased and lapsed members on its rolls. Over the years, the NRA has offered free memberships and freebies if one became a member; many folks are NRA members in name only--they have zero interest in the aims of the organization.
It's also a fallacy to believe all NRA members have the same agenda. Many aren't interested in the NRA's desire to make guns accessible to terrorists and felons--they are members because they're interested in the hunting or competitive shooting publications and events.
Care to provide some evidence for this whopper?
I suspect that you are referring to the NRA's opposition to the "Denying firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists act of 2007."
Have you read this piece of legislation? Do you know what due process is? This Act makes no distinction between a known terrorist, dangerous or non-dangerous, and people SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, which is anyone Bush or the AG says so.
Let's see if we can learn from history. In Salem Mass. a few years back, some women were SUSPECTED of being witches. The courts allowed something they called "spectral evidence" to be used against them. These were dreams that other people had that convinced them that the ascused were indeed under the devil's spell.
These women were then burned alive.
Is this the justice system you want to RETURN to this country?
No, they were hung. If one tries to draw inept historical analogies, one should try and get the facts somewhat right.
{{I suspect that you are referring to the NRA's opposition to the "Denying firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists act of 2007."}}
Per usual, you suspect incorrectly.
Don't believe anything I or Jade says without checking for yourself, then you can make an informed decision as to who here is telling the truth.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2074:
Keep in mind...
The Clean Air bill was about promoting clean air, right?
The Healthy Forests Act was about promoting healthy forests, right?
The Patriot Act was about promoting patriotism, right?
Shortly after we invaded Afghanistan, US forces seized an Al Qaeda training manual that urged its followers to take advantage of the US' lax gun laws. Since the NRA seeks to make already lax gun laws even less strict or to do away with laws altogether--it's something terrorists must be licking their chops over.
Similarly, the NRA has long been on record as favoring allowing convicted felons legal access to guns.
These are facts and not in dispute.
Good observation, Doc. I myself, as vehemently pro-gun as I am, almost let my NRA membership expire this past year. In part, to the exact phenomenon that you touch on.
Also, because the price of .223 ammunition is so outrageously expensive these days that I could've used that $35 toward that last case of ammo I just bought. After all, what good is an "Assault Gun Machine Pistol Death Device(tm)" without a healthy diet of lead to feed it?
But the way Brady Campaign has been trampling the dead in the name of political agenda lately made me realize that even though the "political pendulum" is swinging our way, that $35 to keep the 800 lb gorilla on the hill is money well spent.
I do know that if you log onto the BC Blog, they count you as one of their "hundreds of thousands" of online supporters. Kaveman and I are 2 of thousands. LOL.
I have sensed that NRA membership is declining, but it isn't due to a sudden surge of support for the anti-gun lobby. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the political pendulum has swung in favor of the NRA and gun owners don't feel as threatened.
We all know that the VPC gets it's money from George Soros via various cutouts, er... foundations, but I think that the NRA should secretly fund the VPC.
Every time Josh came up with a way to score propaganda points (see: cop killer bullets, saturday night specials, tupperware parties for criminals, etc...) NRA membership would get a nice boost.
Unfortunately, poor Josh has lost his propaganda touch. His poor performance is hurting the NRA badly. This sad situation needs to be addressed. Get this poor man some help. We must do something! For the children!
The evil Republicans are controlling the world’s supply of Corn, Rice and Juicy fruit.
Black helicopters are circling over Josh’s secret “Bat Cave” in Washington.
Yes it is look’en mighty bleak out there , I think we all need to put the tin foil back on our heads, the NRA is attempting to read our thoughts, bad mean NRA.
Thank god for Josh’s guidance in the use of “Google™” to bolster our fact finding abilities, even if the referenced web sites are named, “lies conjured by the radical left” or “Bush blew up the twin towers” Yes, yes nothing but good research, by a well known scholars named by the name of “Spike”, or “aardvark trainer”.
Josh I am sure your handlers at the Joyce foundation are beaming with pride.
NSA, Melodyl, NSA.