Welcome Guest | Sign In
E-Commerce Times TechNewsWorld CRM Buyer LinuxInsider

TechNewsWorld Talkback

ECT News Community   »   TechNewsWorld Talkback   »   Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: Rob Enderle 2016-01-18 05:56:27
See Full Story

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.

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: Wfeather1940 2016-01-19 10:36:45 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: RobEnderle 2016-01-23 20:37:39 In reply to: Wfeather1940

Agree it wasn't always like this:



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.

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: BJH 2016-01-19 10:08:47 In reply to: Rob Enderle
(Editorial correction: "Handgun, Inc." should read "Handgun Control, Inc.")

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: BJH 2016-01-19 09:57:10 In reply to: Rob Enderle
"...in fact its mission is to represent gun sellers -- not gun buyers..."

When the premise of the article is facially false, what follows is built upon a counterfeit presumption.

The NRA exists to protect and advance individuals' right to lawfully engage in a variety of activities pursuant to the people's natural civil right to keep and bear arms.

The NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) is the trade association that represents the interest of manufacturers.

The NRA, being far better known, is set up by anti-Second Amendment rights advocates as the "evil gun industry" straw man to knock down - the 'bogeyman', if you will - to demonize in Alinskyite fashion anything and everything to do with guns. It's all bogus propaganda, totally false, and the anti-'s know it.

But being leftists, their modus operandi is "the end justifies the means", hence the outright lies and misrepresentation.

This is starkly demonstrated by the words of the founder of the Brady Campaign's predecessor (Handgun, Inc.), Nelson "Pete" Shields:

Im convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Were going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities going to be very modest. Of course, its true that politicians will then go home and say, This is a great law. The problem is solved. And its also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then well have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, wed be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal total control of handguns in the United States is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.

The CSGV (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) makes this mission statement in one of its flyers:

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of most handguns and assault weapons from the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership, posession and use by the general, American public. Reasonable exceptions would be made for the police, military, security officers, and gun clubs where the guns are secured on the club's premises. Gun dealers would also be permitted to trade in antique and collectable weapons kept and sold in inoperable condition. Hunting weapons, such as shotguns and rifles would be unaffected by these bans,as those weapons do not pose a large threat to the American public in comparison to handguns and assault weapons."

Josh Sugarmann is the VPC's (Violence Policy Center) founder and executive director. He says:

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

This is their mission. Deception is their method.

Such people are a material danger to the people's right to bear arms specifically, and all fundamental rights in general. Once they successfully marginalize one right, the rest are vulnerable.

Never forget that. EVER.

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: AndrewRS 2016-01-20 00:43:58 In reply to: BJH

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.

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: BJH 2016-01-20 11:34:18 In reply to: AndrewRS
Wow. You... you is CO'D, Andrew. [grin]

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: fsilber 2016-01-19 05:54:20 In reply to: Rob Enderle
"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.

Re: What the PC Industry Could Learn From the NRA
Posted by: flybywire 2016-01-18 20:10:00 In reply to: Rob Enderle
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.
Jump to:
What is the greatest challenge to organizations implementing Artificial Intelligence?
A shortage of talent with the skills to utilize AI to its full potential.
AI can be expensive and the return on investment is questionable to decision makers.
AI is an unfamiliar and complex technology that is not yet fully trusted.
AI has its own set of cybersecurity concerns which require additional resources.
Dependability of AI technology is still in doubt.
Many view AI as an unnecessary luxury.
Women in Tech