One of the fascinating things about the NRA is that buyers of guns think the organization represents them, when in fact its mission is to represent gun sellers — not gun buyers — and certainly never gun buyers against gun sellers. Guns for consumers largely have been banned in most of the world, with the exception of the U.S., which uniquely has the NRA. This likely makes the NRA the most effective industry association in history. The PC industry, which is facing yet another decline, could learn a lot from the NRA.
Tell ya what, we can settle this once and for all, just go to guidestar.com and pull the NRA 990 tax forms and point out where the NRA is working for the manufacturers...
As clearly you are accusing the NRA of committing tax fraud in violation of their 501C4 status which has severe limitations on how much such a tax exempt organization can earn for services...
So please do prove the NRA guilty, we dare you to try...don Quixote
The starting, dogmatically-presumed premise of this article is so laughably false, you can't take anything that follows seriously.
I really have to wonder how much money Bloomberg donated to the publication and/or author to have this hack piece published here. I actually hope that Mr. Enderle did receive some payola, since I'd respect a whore more than a moron.
In the end though I'm talking about how effective they are and how the tech industry could learn from them. I'm hardly anti-gun myself but I dropped my NRA membership when I realized they didn't represent me anymore.
"One of the fascinating things about the NRA is that buyers of guns think the organization represents them, when in fact its mission is to represent gun sellers -- not gun buyers -- and certainly never gun buyers against gun sellers."
On the contrary, the NRA has consistently supported the resale to private citizens of police and military surplus firearms and firearms confiscated by police from criminals, rather than destroying them -- even though these weapons compete with newly manufactured product and bring manufacturers no further profit. It has also opposed restrictions on import, which also competes with domestic manufacturers.
"The fact that this entire product class largely has been banned in developed countries other than the U.S. is testament to the NRA's effectiveness."
During WWII manufacturers of consumer goods such as automobiles and sewing machines switched to manufacture of military equipment. Similarly, today's firearms manufacturers could always switch to manufacture of other products.
It is primarily in the interests of the firearms consumer to protect the sale of devices making it easy to kill people, and for good reason. Even if killing people is difficult, a murderer can always wait for a time and place that makes killing feasible nonetheless. A victim does not have that luxury; she will likely be unable to kill in self-defense without a tool that makes killing easy.
It is a false division to claim an organization that represents users of a product really represents the manufacturers of that product; the organization must in fact represent both as neither can exist without the other. In fact, the NRA is not an industry lobbying group and was originally founded by civil war veterans to further american marksmanship (approximately 1000 bullets were fired for each bullet that actually struck an opposing soldier in the civil war). Until the middle of the 20th century when gun safety legislation was actually that and not designed as one of many bricks in a wall designed to lead to gun confiscation, the NRA supported and in fact wrote most "gun-control" legislation. It was not until well past the middle of the 20th century when world-wide movements aimed at civilian disarmament were becoming active in the United States that the NRA began to Oppose "gun-control" legislation. In addition to what you have mentioned in your article, what allowed the NRA in the United States to be successful and similar organizations in the UK and Australia unsuccessful in preventing civilian disarmament is the 2nd amendment to the US constitution that prohibits the US government from infringing upon the right of its citizens to "keep and bear" arm. It is the support of this freedom that drives the NRA, not the support of gun manufacturers.
As far as your advocacy of "smart chip" technology to "churn" gun sales, this idea is anathema to the NRA. A gun is an extremely simple and reliable machine. The idea behind your recommendation for "smart chips" is that they obsolesce and fail, necessitating replacement and insuring profit. When a gun is needed to protect a life, it must be immediately available and it must not fail. Adding a "smart chip" to a gun makes it more complicated, less reliable and much more dangerous to its owner; as such, the market for this would be small. To advocate the government mandate such an addition is to advocate a significant diminution of that weapons defensive capability.
One last point: voluminous recent research has completely debunked the myth perpetuated by shoddy, incomplete and biased research that a gun is more likely to kill an owner than defend him.
A gun is so rarely used against its owner (other than by the owner himself) that it is almost statistically correct to say that this does not happen. On the other hand, guns, particularly handguns, are used between one and three million (yes, that is million) times per year to prevent injury or death to the owner of that weapon or someone that person is protecting.
Loading ...
What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: Rob Enderle January 18, 2016 05:00 AMOne of the fascinating things about the NRA is that buyers of guns think the organization represents them, when in fact its mission is to represent gun sellers — not gun buyers — and certainly never gun buyers against gun sellers. Guns for consumers largely have been banned in most of the world, with the exception of the U.S., which uniquely has the NRA. This likely makes the NRA the most effective industry association in history. The PC industry, which is facing yet another decline, could learn a lot from the NRA.
As clearly you are accusing the NRA of committing tax fraud in violation of their 501C4 status which has severe limitations on how much such a tax exempt organization can earn for services...
So please do prove the NRA guilty, we dare you to try...don Quixote
The starting, dogmatically-presumed premise of this article is so laughably false, you can't take anything that follows seriously.
I really have to wonder how much money Bloomberg donated to the publication and/or author to have this hack piece published here. I actually hope that Mr. Enderle did receive some payola, since I'd respect a whore more than a moron.
Agree it wasn't always like this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
http://www.thenation.com/article/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners/
In the end though I'm talking about how effective they are and how the tech industry could learn from them. I'm hardly anti-gun myself but I dropped my NRA membership when I realized they didn't represent me anymore.
On the contrary, the NRA has consistently supported the resale to private citizens of police and military surplus firearms and firearms confiscated by police from criminals, rather than destroying them -- even though these weapons compete with newly manufactured product and bring manufacturers no further profit. It has also opposed restrictions on import, which also competes with domestic manufacturers.
"The fact that this entire product class largely has been banned in developed countries other than the U.S. is testament to the NRA's effectiveness."
During WWII manufacturers of consumer goods such as automobiles and sewing machines switched to manufacture of military equipment. Similarly, today's firearms manufacturers could always switch to manufacture of other products.
It is primarily in the interests of the firearms consumer to protect the sale of devices making it easy to kill people, and for good reason. Even if killing people is difficult, a murderer can always wait for a time and place that makes killing feasible nonetheless. A victim does not have that luxury; she will likely be unable to kill in self-defense without a tool that makes killing easy.
As far as your advocacy of "smart chip" technology to "churn" gun sales, this idea is anathema to the NRA. A gun is an extremely simple and reliable machine. The idea behind your recommendation for "smart chips" is that they obsolesce and fail, necessitating replacement and insuring profit. When a gun is needed to protect a life, it must be immediately available and it must not fail. Adding a "smart chip" to a gun makes it more complicated, less reliable and much more dangerous to its owner; as such, the market for this would be small. To advocate the government mandate such an addition is to advocate a significant diminution of that weapons defensive capability.
One last point: voluminous recent research has completely debunked the myth perpetuated by shoddy, incomplete and biased research that a gun is more likely to kill an owner than defend him.
A gun is so rarely used against its owner (other than by the owner himself) that it is almost statistically correct to say that this does not happen. On the other hand, guns, particularly handguns, are used between one and three million (yes, that is million) times per year to prevent injury or death to the owner of that weapon or someone that person is protecting.