Originally Posted by bwiese
It's a mixed bag.
- Gura is, as usual, right from a civil rights issue (w/accompanying free speech matters - in fact, Leland
Yee's 'evil games bill' was overturned on those grounds). Consistence of civil rights across the board
helps all rights - and it helps gunrights falls into that pool of 'must be tolerated' in judicial mindset.
- Wayne didn't get that wise counsel from staff preparation, perhaps (likely) due to generational issues.
It would be interesting to see what a top-notch professional external marketing consultant would have
offered, given they're 'outside' and not in a proverbial 'echo chamber'.
One looming issue is the 'graying' of NRA membermship. We need to recruit far younger - and this doesn't
mean just getting nonrenewed gunshow membership.
Recruiting from the 20-40 age group is esp. harder when you start blaming 'violent' video games many
perfectly fine people have grown up with: I'd bet 70% of EBR buyers in CA have played Call of Duty, etc.
- and they're gonna say "Que?" to leadership of an org telling them they're doing 'bad things'.
- From pure political practicality: it occupied airtime/discussion time and displaced attacks on guns. It gave
something for politicians to substitute into argument frameworks instead of having to purely 'justify' guns.
I already notice House members talking about this and these sentiments being echoed by ordinary non-gun
folks in newspaper comment forums around the country.
This alone may be useful in spite of the above items. It may have secured the House some.
Nailed it... and I'm especially with you on the second point. Many younger people (say, under 35 years old) view the NRA as being an organization of foolish old crazies who embarrass themselves every time they say or write anything. The attitude of the organization and the image that they choose to project has only served to reinforce this view of the NRA--I, for example, lost even more respect for the NRA after
I joined because I was exposed to their literature (articles in American Rifleman, flyers, letters, pamphlets, e-mails, etc... then, of course, there are the slimy life insurance and identity protection offers). I understand that their approach to doing things probably works well on older generations, but they're doing it at the cost of their future.
The long term game here is one of hearts and minds, not of court cases and lobbying (please note, I am in no way stating that these things are not important... I am merely trying to emphasize that the foundation of preserving our ability to own firearms depends on maintaining and/or improving society's views on firearms ownership and getting more people openly involved in shooting sports). Unfortunately, I see this as the area in which the NRA is weakest (as mentioned above) and simply throwing money at the NRA isn't going to fix this... which is why I volunteer my time, knowledge, and skills to help what I view as local outreach programs like the California Members' Councils. If enough of us really get involved, then maybe some positive change will result?
Another area that needs work is the way in which the NRA markets to women (my wife happens to find all of their training materials that are targeted toward women particularly insulting/offensive)...
Originally Posted by CitaDeL
Perhaps the time has come for the NRA to support development of a multiple platform first person shooter promoting safe gun handling, operation, accuracy and shoot/dont shoot scenarios for people who are NOT professional soldiers.
No, just no... I don't see a scenario where 1) such a game would be meaningfully popular or 2) news of the NRA developing an FPS wouldn't blow up in their faces. Remember, you'd have to appeal to a larger audience than existing gun enthusiasts. How about we just get people into safety classes and onto the range?