5 ms·

I think there's a perceived difference with non profits. E.g. I enjoy alcohol but would still feel the same way if this happened with MADD vs Jonny Walker

• imsofuture 10y ago
  The NRA doesn't sell guns. pre-emptive edit in case someone finds some place where this isn't true: I mean generally. They are not a gun manufacturer or seller generally.
  • komali2 10y ago
    Furthermore, the NRA is pro-gun safety. I can't speak for the NRA, but myself and other members will be wearing orange on June 2nd. It's not like the NRA is going to run a "BUY MORE GUNS!" advertisement... it'll likely be something tasteful. Then again, I have been disappointed by the NRA's taste in the past.
    • npunt 10y ago
      The NRA has lobbied to block federally funded scientific research on gun violence and safety[1], so I wouldn't say they're pro gun safety, at a macro level at least. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...
      • wl 10y ago
        The Dickey Amendment only banned political advocacy, not research. The problem is that the CDC was producing research that was thinly veiled political advocacy.
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          The purpose of CDC research on public health problems is largely to identify and support policy responses to those problems.
          • wl 10y ago
            Patrick O'Carroll, one of the major researchers involved with the CDC's efforts in question, infamously wrote that, "We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Doing research to support a predetermined conclusion is not good science. It was political advocacy wearing the mantle of science.
            • kls 10y ago
              And that is a huge issue with people that don't understand science backing away from and outright rejecting science. That is the whole problem with "Science" today is once you inject advocacy in one little area and it is exposed people throw the baby out with the bath water. Take environmental sciences for example, the CRU and other leaks where scientist where exposed colluding with other scientist to blackball legitimate skeptics tainted the whole industry. Now we are seeing an wholesale rejection of environmental sciences and the gutting of the EPA. In a manner this is good, because there was obvious collusion and political advocacy and intent to stifle real science. On the other had, we also got a wholesale rejection by the voting majority which is now set to put clean energy back decades. I personally put the blame squarely on the scientist of the CRU and the NOAA pause buster scientists (they are a disgrace to the title). They cost us dearly by trying to advance their agenda. When you compromise the integrity of science the cost is just too great.
              • dsfyu404ed 10y ago
                When the logging industry finds certain invasive species on land it owns it clear cuts, chips and burns a few square miles just to be on the safe side. I have no problem with science taking that approach. At least it keeps it fairly pure.
                • 10y ago
      • wtbob 10y ago
        Only because it's impossible to trust the CDC to be professional in this regard.
• wef234t24 10y ago
  NRA is also a non-profit :)
  • npunt 10y ago
    Ya, a non profit sorta like how the NFL was :) It's more or less an industry advocacy group, so it's a bit different than a typical nonprofit advocacy group.
    • DannyBee 10y ago
      Err, no. The NRA is not an industry association non-profit like the NFL was (the NFL is no longer a 501(c)(6) since 2015) It's only an industry advocacy group in the sense that there is an industry that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund it. That's not an industry advocacy group, in the same way the various brady groups are not industry advocacy groups simply because there is an industry (trigger-locks, non-lethal weaponry, etc) that happens to have goals that align with the people who fund that.
      • npunt 10y ago
        I meant it as a bit of a tongue in cheek response, and indeed I used 'was' to indicate the NFLs former status. Nevertheless, I don't think its as simple as goals happening to align with industry, nor do I see equivalence in the industry relationships to brady groups (though admittedly I haven't researched that). Given the NRA's closely held governance structure and the large individual donations from manufacturers, one does not need a great deal of money (and certainly not majority of $) to influence direction toward industry ends that may not be in the interest of individual members as much as industry members and NRA leadership. That's honestly the best kind of influence to have, as your goals appear to be those of the large passionate group of individuals. I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. FWIW I'm not opposed to the NRA per se, in fact a group for teaching responsible gun use is great. I'm just opposed to the current incarnation of the organization.
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  Which is exactly why the auto insurance industry heavily funds MADD, to the point of driving MADD's agenda: the credit people give nonprofit advocacy groups with a superficially socially responsible purposes makes them a very good tool for industry.