7 ms·

There's a reason the NRA can do what they do: Guns are a >$30B/year industry. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-donors http://

There's a reason the NRA can do what they do: Guns are a >$30B/year industry. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-donors http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-cor...

mtgx 13y ago
How big is the part of the tech industry that relies on user trust?
- ihsw 13y ago
  That's different, people have to use Facebook because all of their friends and family are on it. If you don't like the company selling guns then you can easily go to another one -- you're not invested in one particular company.
  - hga 13y ago
    Very true, the network effects work in our favor when it comes to guns. E.g. if you're set on many designs you only have one company you can buy it from (but almost always many ammo companies), but the more popular ones out of patent protection have multiple companies making them, e.g. AR-15 and M1911 pattern rifles and handguns, dating from the '50s and, well, 1911 ^_^. And there's no single category I can think of that's sole source, not counting curiosities like FNH's PS90 (as seen in original full auto mode in Stargate).
hobs 13y ago
That's the clearest response possible. I think the radical part is that we are going to have to convince the general populace that PAYING for privacy is going to be the way going forward. If we move into that realm because the government will not stop spying, then it might be a lot easier to have the privacy organizations band together with financial might. (The EFF is awesome, but they are not nearly big enough)
bcoates 13y ago
Where most of the customers are governments. The gun industry donates less than 10% of the NRA's budget going from your link.
- hga 13y ago
  Hasn't been true for some time, except for a few companies. For most of the last century and continuing into this one, the US civilian market has been the most healthiest and reliable. E.g. while there are fads and fashions, we don't select guns because of politics or direct bribes. Fabrique Nationale of Belgium is a great example, they've been selling to the US market since the '20s or '30s, the first shotgun in my family is a Browning Auto-5 with FHN markings bought by the grandfather I'm named after, we still have the papers for it.
aestra 13y ago
It's amazing. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the USA. (http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/1999/11/FORTUNE_Releases_Annual_Survey_Most_Powerful_Lobbying_11-15-1999.php http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/1999/11/FO...)
- sp332 13y ago
  That link is from 1999. Also according to https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 they are the 174th largest lobbying group.
  - aestra 13y ago
    I'm not talking about largest at all, that's not important at all. They surveyed lawmakers and congressional staffers and asked them which lobbying group is most INFLUENTIAL. That's what the data is about. Size doesn't matter, influence does. I looked for later data, but it looked like Fortune stopped doing the survey in 2001 and in 2001 the NRA was #1. http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_specialinterestgroups_fortune.htm http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_specialinterestgroups_f... Straight from the horse's mouth: "NRA ranks no. 1 in this year`s "Power 25", Fortune magazine`s listing of the most influential lobbying groups. Compiled by Fortune`s senior writer and Washington bureau chief Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, the "Power 25" is based on responses to a survey sent to over 2,900 people, including every member of Congress, senior Capitol Hill staffers, senior White House aides, professional lobbyists, and top-ranking officers of the largest lobbying groups in Washington." http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2001/5/nra-ranked-1-on-ifortunei-power-25.aspx?s=%22Fortune+Magazine%22&st=&ps= http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2001/5/nra-ran...
    - sp332 13y ago
      Oinksoft's comment that you replied to was making a point about money. It seemed like you were agreeing that the NRA bought influence.
damoncali 13y ago
That's just not true. The NRA pushes the industry (which is quite small) around, not the other way around.
- chalst 13y ago
  [citation needed] Something you can reconcile with the NRA's $1/4 billion annual turnover would be great.
  - damoncali 13y ago
    Look up the profits of the two major (only?) publicly traded gun companies (Ruger and Smith & Wesson). Compare them to any single tech giant. The sporting arms industry is tiny. As far as the NRA pushing the industry around, there was a very public spat with Smith & Wesson around 2000 that nearly ruined the company. Google it. These days, the industry is more in line with with the NRA, but make no mistake about who has the power - it's the NRA (i.e. the customers).
  - damoncali 13y ago
    As far as their money goes. 4 million members at ~$25 per year = $100 million in annual revenue from dues alone. That doesn't count donations. The industry does of course contribute, but the mistake gun control activists make over and over again is that they assume the NRA is about money. They think they can outspend the NRA and win. They can't because the NRA is not about money. It's about people who are well organized and passionately engaged in the cause. If you listen to people talk, you'd assume the NRA is one of the big spending DC lobbyists. They're not. Look up where they rank on open secrets and how much they donate to candidates. They have a presence, but it's no where near indicative of their power. About a week before each election every NRA member gets a bright orange postcard in the mail with a list of the candidates, local and national, that are up for election and exactly what the NRA thinks of their stance on guns. Those members pay attention and vote. That is what makes the NRA powerful.
    - chalst 13y ago
      I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights) 1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad) 2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise) 3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are) 4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation to have most of its money come from sources other than membership fees and merchandising. The NRA seems to be around 40%, the NAGR claims that most of its money comes from subscriptions. It is common for corporate supporters to make donations on behalf of lobbyists, rather than to the lobbying outfit, and pay the lobbying outfit "consultancy fees". > About a week before each election every NRA member gets a bright orange postcard in the mail with a list of the candidates, local and national, that are up for election and exactly what the NRA thinks of their stance on guns. Those members pay attention and vote. That is what makes the NRA powerful. That's a good argument. I'm not sure what I think, to be honest, but the EFF seems to be grassroots to me in a way that the NRA isn't.
jstalin 13y ago
According to the NRA's 2010 form 990[1], total revenue in that year was $227 million. According to your link, only one corporate donor gave the NRA between $5 million and $10 million and four gave between $1 million and $4.9 million, etc. $100 million alone was from membership fees, $11 million from royalties, $11 million from sales of goods, $20 million from advertising, etc. Those who claim that the NRA is just an arm of the firearms industry don't understand the fervency of gun owners in the US. EFF needs to be the NRA of privacy and electronic freedom and everyone needs to get as fervent about privacy as gun owners are about the 2nd amendment. 1: http://ia601205.us.archive.org/32/items/NationalRifleAssociation2010IrsForm990/2010_NRA_IRS990.pdf http://ia601205.us.archive.org/32/items/NationalRifleAssocia...
- oinksoft 13y ago
  I never claimed that the NRA is an arm of the firearms industry. Firearms are a viable enough commodity that they generate such revenues. Large corporate donations indicate the industry's health. Certainly it is because people like, and often need, their guns. Bottom line, there's vastly more money going into fighting against privacy than for it.
  - damoncali 13y ago
    There is also vastly more money against the NRA than for it. With Bloomberg around, it's essentially infinite. You don't need money. You need people who care.
- stfu 13y ago
  $11 million from sales of goods In related news the EFF should definitly clean up their merch offerings. Especially their fashion section looks like crap. I would definitely leave more money there for apparel that appeals beyond a DefCon crowd. With a single blog post "submit t-shirt designs" and a followup with a bit of voting would fix that problem. Or just having one getting design by somebody like Fairey.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
hga 13y ago
And they have their own lobby, the National Shooting Sports Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Founda...
mason240 13y ago
I think has more to do with having 5 million members. Just for comparison, the ACLU has 500k. If the EFF had 5 million members, we could throw our weight around too, but for some reason they don't have membership, only donations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

mtgx 13y ago

How big is the part of the tech industry that relies on user trust?

ihsw 13y ago
That's different, people have to use Facebook because all of their friends and family are on it. If you don't like the company selling guns then you can easily go to another one -- you're not invested in one particular company.
- hga 13y ago
  Very true, the network effects work in our favor when it comes to guns. E.g. if you're set on many designs you only have one company you can buy it from (but almost always many ammo companies), but the more popular ones out of patent protection have multiple companies making them, e.g. AR-15 and M1911 pattern rifles and handguns, dating from the '50s and, well, 1911 ^_^. And there's no single category I can think of that's sole source, not counting curiosities like FNH's PS90 (as seen in original full auto mode in Stargate).

hobs 13y ago

That's the clearest response possible. I think the radical part is that we are going to have to convince the general populace that PAYING for privacy is going to be the way going forward. If we move into that realm because the government will not stop spying, then it might be a lot easier to have the privacy organizations band together with financial might. (The EFF is awesome, but they are not nearly big enough)

bcoates 13y ago

Where most of the customers are governments. The gun industry donates less than 10% of the NRA's budget going from your link.

hga 13y ago
Hasn't been true for some time, except for a few companies. For most of the last century and continuing into this one, the US civilian market has been the most healthiest and reliable. E.g. while there are fads and fashions, we don't select guns because of politics or direct bribes. Fabrique Nationale of Belgium is a great example, they've been selling to the US market since the '20s or '30s, the first shotgun in my family is a Browning Auto-5 with FHN markings bought by the grandfather I'm named after, we still have the papers for it.

aestra 13y ago

It's amazing. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the USA. (http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/1999/11/FORTUNE_Releases_Annual_Survey_Most_Powerful_Lobbying_11-15-1999.php http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/1999/11/FO...)

sp332 13y ago
That link is from 1999. Also according to https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 they are the 174th largest lobbying group.
- aestra 13y ago
  I'm not talking about largest at all, that's not important at all. They surveyed lawmakers and congressional staffers and asked them which lobbying group is most INFLUENTIAL. That's what the data is about. Size doesn't matter, influence does. I looked for later data, but it looked like Fortune stopped doing the survey in 2001 and in 2001 the NRA was #1. http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_specialinterestgroups_fortune.htm http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_specialinterestgroups_f... Straight from the horse's mouth: "NRA ranks no. 1 in this year`s "Power 25", Fortune magazine`s listing of the most influential lobbying groups. Compiled by Fortune`s senior writer and Washington bureau chief Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, the "Power 25" is based on responses to a survey sent to over 2,900 people, including every member of Congress, senior Capitol Hill staffers, senior White House aides, professional lobbyists, and top-ranking officers of the largest lobbying groups in Washington." http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2001/5/nra-ranked-1-on-ifortunei-power-25.aspx?s=%22Fortune+Magazine%22&st=&ps= http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2001/5/nra-ran...
  - sp332 13y ago
    Oinksoft's comment that you replied to was making a point about money. It seemed like you were agreeing that the NRA bought influence.

damoncali 13y ago

That's just not true. The NRA pushes the industry (which is quite small) around, not the other way around.

chalst 13y ago
[citation needed] Something you can reconcile with the NRA's $1/4 billion annual turnover would be great.
- damoncali 13y ago
  Look up the profits of the two major (only?) publicly traded gun companies (Ruger and Smith & Wesson). Compare them to any single tech giant. The sporting arms industry is tiny. As far as the NRA pushing the industry around, there was a very public spat with Smith & Wesson around 2000 that nearly ruined the company. Google it. These days, the industry is more in line with with the NRA, but make no mistake about who has the power - it's the NRA (i.e. the customers).
- damoncali 13y ago
  As far as their money goes. 4 million members at ~$25 per year = $100 million in annual revenue from dues alone. That doesn't count donations. The industry does of course contribute, but the mistake gun control activists make over and over again is that they assume the NRA is about money. They think they can outspend the NRA and win. They can't because the NRA is not about money. It's about people who are well organized and passionately engaged in the cause. If you listen to people talk, you'd assume the NRA is one of the big spending DC lobbyists. They're not. Look up where they rank on open secrets and how much they donate to candidates. They have a presence, but it's no where near indicative of their power. About a week before each election every NRA member gets a bright orange postcard in the mail with a list of the candidates, local and national, that are up for election and exactly what the NRA thinks of their stance on guns. Those members pay attention and vote. That is what makes the NRA powerful.
  - chalst 13y ago
    I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights) 1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad) 2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise) 3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are) 4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation to have most of its money come from sources other than membership fees and merchandising. The NRA seems to be around 40%, the NAGR claims that most of its money comes from subscriptions. It is common for corporate supporters to make donations on behalf of lobbyists, rather than to the lobbying outfit, and pay the lobbying outfit "consultancy fees". > About a week before each election every NRA member gets a bright orange postcard in the mail with a list of the candidates, local and national, that are up for election and exactly what the NRA thinks of their stance on guns. Those members pay attention and vote. That is what makes the NRA powerful. That's a good argument. I'm not sure what I think, to be honest, but the EFF seems to be grassroots to me in a way that the NRA isn't.

jstalin 13y ago

According to the NRA's 2010 form 990[1], total revenue in that year was $227 million. According to your link, only one corporate donor gave the NRA between $5 million and $10 million and four gave between $1 million and $4.9 million, etc. $100 million alone was from membership fees, $11 million from royalties, $11 million from sales of goods, $20 million from advertising, etc. Those who claim that the NRA is just an arm of the firearms industry don't understand the fervency of gun owners in the US. EFF needs to be the NRA of privacy and electronic freedom and everyone needs to get as fervent about privacy as gun owners are about the 2nd amendment. 1: http://ia601205.us.archive.org/32/items/NationalRifleAssociation2010IrsForm990/2010_NRA_IRS990.pdf http://ia601205.us.archive.org/32/items/NationalRifleAssocia...

oinksoft 13y ago
I never claimed that the NRA is an arm of the firearms industry. Firearms are a viable enough commodity that they generate such revenues. Large corporate donations indicate the industry's health. Certainly it is because people like, and often need, their guns. Bottom line, there's vastly more money going into fighting against privacy than for it.
- damoncali 13y ago
  There is also vastly more money against the NRA than for it. With Bloomberg around, it's essentially infinite. You don't need money. You need people who care.
stfu 13y ago
$11 million from sales of goods In related news the EFF should definitly clean up their merch offerings. Especially their fashion section looks like crap. I would definitely leave more money there for apparel that appeals beyond a DefCon crowd. With a single blog post "submit t-shirt designs" and a followup with a bit of voting would fix that problem. Or just having one getting design by somebody like Fairey.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago

hga 13y ago

And they have their own lobby, the National Shooting Sports Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Founda...

mason240 13y ago

I think has more to do with having 5 million members. Just for comparison, the ACLU has 500k. If the EFF had 5 million members, we could throw our weight around too, but for some reason they don't have membership, only donations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union