Wounded Warrior Project Refuses Gun Organizations? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Wounded Warrior Project Refuses Gun Organizations?


TheJ
11-08-2012, 03:33
Saw a tweet from Tom Gresham:
Wounded Warriors Project just reconfirmed they don't do anything with media or companies involved with firearms. Don't need our $, I guess. (https://mobile.twitter.com/Guntalk)

A short time later he sent out this:
I'll stay with HAVA for helping wounded warriors. Gun folks taking veterans shooting and hunting.


Tom Gresham is an absolutely straight shooter and not prone to spreading gossip.

I found this shocking that they would be so bigoted against companies helping people exercise their basic civil right of self defense, that they won't do anything with them. I know I've heard/seen firearm related shows/groups/companies that were raising to help the WWP before. This just seems really strange.

Anyone else heard anything like this?

SFCSMITH(RET)
11-08-2012, 06:31
Confused.. in May they took a $50k donation from Kahr Arms.

Knew I could find the article..

http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story/260855

TheJ
11-08-2012, 06:50
I know I've seen stuff like that too that's why I find it so strange. Idk if this is some sort of recent development that maybe they decided to steer away form gun groups or if somehow Tom Gresham got bad information.. Like is said though Gresham is definitely NOT one to go off spouting this stuff without verifying it.


Idk

Brucev
11-08-2012, 07:05
Don't know the answer to this question. But, the logical thing to do is to contact WWP and ask them. Doubtless someone will be able to give you a responsible answer.

TheJ
11-08-2012, 07:18
Don't know the answer to this question. But, the logical thing to do is to contact WWP and ask them. Doubtless someone will be able to give you a responsible answer.

I did that early this morning and I'm still waiting..

I sent an email and a message on their Facebook page.

One thing I did notice is the WWP fb page has liked all their commercial partners pages... But none their partner page "likes" include any firearm companies or groups or industry.

TheJ
11-08-2012, 09:25
I got an automated response but No real reply yet.

I'll post back if I get one.

TheJ
11-09-2012, 08:17
No reply as of yet.

wrenrj1
11-09-2012, 08:35
I'll still support them regardless. They do good work.

professorpinki
11-09-2012, 08:38
I did that early this morning and I'm still waiting..

I sent an email and a message on their Facebook page.

One thing I did notice is the WWP fb page has liked all their commercial partners pages... But none their partner page "likes" include any firearm companies or groups or industry.

Never seen a firearms company say they'll be donating to WWP on the packaging either.

Not seeing something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist, though.

gjk5
11-09-2012, 08:41
WWP is the biggest but far from the best. They are a pain to work with here locally and there are BOATLOADS of other organizations that help vets.

I have worked with several that are less bureaucratic, more accessible and do not have a bunch of internal politicking going on.

WayaX
11-09-2012, 08:43
While I cannot find the source, I remember reading that they have declined promotions like "wounded warrior" AR-15 lower receivers, and accept some of the profit from their sale. Their response was that putting their names on weapons was not something that they felt would be productive to what they were trying to achieve. This, at least in my opinion, is different than not accepting contributions from gun companies. My guess is that manufacturers have donated directly, but discreetly.

RWBlue
11-09-2012, 09:47
While I cannot find the source, I remember reading that they have declined promotions like "wounded warrior" AR-15 lower receivers, and accept some of the profit from their sale. Their response was that putting their names on weapons was not something that they felt would be productive to what they were trying to achieve. This, at least in my opinion, is different than not accepting contributions from gun companies. My guess is that manufacturers have donated directly, but discreetly.

I understand not wanting to put your name on a gun. But not wanting to use the resources from the gun community.....sounds like someone I don't want to deal with.

RWBlue
11-09-2012, 14:13
Something is wrong with this. I just got an email from Gun Digest <gundigest-newsletter@weapons-community.com>; talking about 5% of sales going to WWP.

NeverMore1701
11-09-2012, 14:21
I know BCM has been a supporter of WWP for years.

Quigley
11-09-2012, 14:32
I know that Gun Smoke from American Guns is also a big contributor. They are always giving it a spot on their show. If this turns out to be the case I'll be boycotting WWP.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TheJ
11-12-2012, 07:36
They have never replied to me either on facebook or my email, other than an automated response.

I did visit their website (http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/get-involved/proud-supporter-guidelines.aspx) and found some information about their unwillingness to work with firearms groups/companies/media here:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/egu7a3y6.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/9atydety.jpg
(http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/get-involved/proud-supporter-guidelines.aspx)

TheJ
11-12-2012, 07:56
Tom Gresham actually spoke at some length about this on his national radio show (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2012-11-11-part-a) yesterday too. He said they will take money from anyone.. but they will not partner with or appear to in any way to associate with firearm companies or firearms media. Apparently, firearm people and companies are undesirable and they don't want to be portrayed as political.

Of course in their attempt to "not be political" they are anything but by showing obvious bigotry towards those who are firm believers in the protection of one of our most basic fundamental civil rights. They are in effect taking a anti-civil rights position.

I am sure they have done and will continue to do some very very fine things for our wounded veterans and I applaud them for that. However, just like if they were to not accept partnerships to help from pro first amendment organizations or other pro civil rights organizations, I find their stand offensive.

I certainly will no longer be giving any money to them. There are plenty of other less bigoted organizations out there to help our wounded veterans.
HAVA (http://www.honoredveterans.org/) or Honored American Veterans Afield, for example.

Gallium
11-12-2012, 08:03
most if not all of the wounded warriors in today's conflicts were volunteers.

Not sure why WWP has this issue again firearms ...

TheJ
11-12-2012, 08:15
They say it conflicts with their "mind, body and spirit approach to programs..."

I read that as firearms are bad for the mind, body and spirit.
How else could it be interpreted?

Bigotry.

frizz
11-12-2012, 08:35
Tom Gresham actually spoke at some length about this on his national radio show (http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2012-11-11-part-a) yesterday too. He said they will take money from anyone.. but they will not partner with or appear to in any way to associate with firearm companies or firearms media. Apparently, firearm people and companies are undesirable and they don't want to be portrayed as political.

Of course in their attempt to "not be political" they are anything but by showing obvious bigotry towards those who are firm believers in the protection of one of our most basic fundamental civil rights. They are in effect taking a anti-civil rights position.


It is not anti-civil rights to stay away from firearms so long as they do not take an active stance against the right to arms.

They may be concerned about the fact that some wounded vets are prohibited from having firearms. Then you have the vets with PTSD and other psych wounds who avoid firearms events because of the symptoms they aggravate.

There is also the concern that the organization could be co-opted into a gun rights organization rather than wounded vet assistance only.


If I knew a vet with PTSD that caused anxiety when a car backfired, I wouldn't ask him to go shooting. Fishing, boating, swimming or something like that.

With this in mind, I can understand, but not if they express anything anti-gun.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 08:40
It is not anti-civil rights to stay away from firearms so long as they do not take an active stance against the right to arms.

They may be concerned about the fact that some wounded vets are prohibited from having firearms. Then you have the vets with PTSD and other psych wounds who avoid firearms events because of the symptoms they aggravate.

There is also the concern that the organization could be co-opted into a gun rights organization rather than wounded vet assistance only.


If I knew a vet with PTSD that caused anxiety when a car backfired, I wouldn't ask him to go shooting. Fishing, boating, swimming or something like that.

With this in mind, I can understand, but not if they express anything anti-gun.

They refuse to accept help publicly or be associated with firearms companies, groups and media... That is taking a stand.

What if they said they would not publicly accept help from groups/companies/media that were promoting free speech or anit- segregation?

fnfalman
11-12-2012, 08:54
I don't give a flying hoot if Wounded Warrior were to get money from Obama. I'd still support them because I care about the soldiers. Of course that's just me.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 09:04
I don't give a flying hoot if Wounded Warrior were to get money from Obama. I'd still support them because I care about the soldiers. Of course that's just me.

It's not an either / or situation...

I don't give a hoot where they get money from either.

The truth is though, there are plenty of ways to support and care about the troops and wounded vets that don't make a bigoted stand.

wrenrj1
11-12-2012, 09:43
It's not an either / or situation...

I don't give a hoot where they get money from either.

The truth is though, there are plenty of ways to support and care about the troops and wounded vets that don't make a bigoted stand.

I think you need to look up the definition of bigot, here I'll help:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

-Websters Dictionary

I don't see where WWP has exhibited these traits as an organization.

Nutt51
11-12-2012, 10:00
More information needed on the WWP, but if I decide not to give through them, then I'll support out Vet's elsewhere.

Here is another organization that is well worth supporting, which
I do, that helps our Special Forces Warriors.
Please consider them also.

http://www.navysealfoundation.org/

frizz
11-12-2012, 10:07
They refuse to accept help publicly or be associated with firearms companies, groups and media... That is taking a stand.

What if they said they would not publicly accept help from groups/companies/media that were promoting free speech or anit- segregation?

How about because they do not want to get into the political arena or any area that stirs up controversy? If they took a donation from the ACLU, a lot of people would be angry.

Maybe they are interested in providing support for the WW, and want to avoid being the public relations gem of a corporation or other organization, especially one that is associated with a controversial subject.

In short, they help the vets, but stay out of the political arena.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 10:39
I think you need to look up the definition of bigot, here I'll help:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

-Websters Dictionary

I don't see where WWP has exhibited these traits as an organization.

I didn't use the word bigot actually... I used the words bigoted and bigotry. Which refer to an attitude of complete intolerance. Which obviously they are displaying.

Apparently you do do see the right of self defense as a civil right. I and many do. They chose not to accept help publicly or (have any public relationship) with groups that may in any way advance this basic human right. In making this choice to be intolerant their ARE making a political statement.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 10:42
How about because they do not want to get into the political arena or any area that stirs up controversy? If they took a donation from the ACLU, a lot of people would be angry.

Maybe they are interested in providing support for the WW, and want to avoid being the public relations gem of a corporation or other organization, especially one that is associated with a controversial subject.

In short, they help the vets, but stay out of the political arena.

Apparently you do do see the right of self defense as a civil right. I and many do. They chose not to accept help publicly or (have any public relationship) with groups that may in any way advance this basic human right.

In making this choice their ARE making a political statement.

You can only assume their position is not-political if you accept the underlying premise that firearms are bad and firearms folks are something to be shunned.

Additionally, I don't see the ACLU comparison as valid. It's not as if they just said we won't publicly accept help from gun rights groups, they said they won't even publicly accept help from those groups who EXERCISE gun rights.

It's as if they said they won't publicly accept help from any publishing companies because free speech conflicts with their program.

They are basically saying the right of self defense conflicts with their program here..

frizz
11-12-2012, 10:52
I didn't use the word bigot actually... I used the words bigoted and bigotry. Which refer to an attitude of complete intolerance. Which obviously they are displaying.

Apparently you do do see the right of self defense as a civil right. I and many do. They chose not to accept help publicly or (have any public relationship) with groups that may in any way advance this basic human right. In making this choice to be intolerant their ARE making a political statement.

:upeyes: You think that using the adjective form of a word is really different from using the word itself? That is a weak weak weak statement, and it is meaningless.

Even weaker is your unsupported, name-calling strawman. Shifting the topic of your argument to make it about the person with a contrary argument is known as an ad hom. It is used to distract attention from your weak reasoning.

frizz
11-12-2012, 10:55
Apparently you do do see the right of self defense as a civil right.

Apparently, you don't know how to do anything other than cast insults when someone has a different argument.

When you start with the insults, you have admitted defeat. Sad thing is, you don't even know that you have admitted defeat.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 11:04
:upeyes: You think that using the adjective form of a word is really different from using the word itself? That is a weak weak weak statement, and it is meaningless.

Even weaker is your unsupported, name-calling strawman. Shifting the topic of your argument to make it about the person with a contrary argument is known as an ad hom. It is used to distract attention from your weak reasoning.

I wasn't shifting topic but supporting my argument about why their position is political. You don't like that. I understand. Feel free to pick another word for their compete intolerance. I chose bigotry.
However, that doesn't change the fact that:

They refuse to publicly work with or accept help from firearms companies, groups and media. That is complete intolerance. Additionally, that is taking a political stand against a fundamental civil right.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 11:05
Apparently, you don't know how to do anything other than cast insults when someone has a different argument.

When you start with the insults, you have admitted defeat. Sad thing is, you don't even know that you have admitted defeat.

Where exactly did I insult you?


I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I haven't insulted anyone. You seem to take great offense to my position or my words and that I disagree with you..
Rolling eyes, accusation of ad Homs, talking about defeat (I didn't know we were battling), telling me I've insulted you...

frizz
11-12-2012, 11:15
I wasn't shifting topic but supporting my argument about why their position is political. You don't like that. I understand. Feel free to pick another word for their compete intolerance. I chose bigotry.
However, that doesn't change the fact that:

They refuse to publicly work with or accept help from firearms companies, groups and media. That is complete intolerance. Additionally, that is taking a political stand against a fundamental civil right.
Good god. Are you really unable to see that you added an unsupported and irrelevant assertion about wrenerj1's position on self defense? Do you not see how that has nothing to do with the organization?

Also do you really think mixing a factual statement with your argument makes your argument a fact?

frizz
11-12-2012, 11:21
Where exactly did I insult you?


I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I haven't insulted anyone. You seem to take great offense to my position or my words and that I disagree with you..
Rolling eyes, accusation of ad Homs, talking about defeat (I didn't know we were battling), telling me I've insulted you...

Accusing someone of not supporting the right of self defense is an insult in general, and particularly around here.

Not only is your assertion about my views wrong, it has no bearing on the facts or relevance to the argument.


I don't know if you are just playing stupid, but either way, I am done.

TheJ
11-12-2012, 12:13
Good god...
Again, you seem upset.
Good god. Are you really unable to see that you added an unsupported and irrelevant assertion about wrenerj1's position on self defense? Do you not see how that has nothing to do with the organization?

Also do you really think mixing a factual statement with your argument makes your argument a fact?
Wrong. wrenerj1 challenged me on my description of the behavior WWP is displaying as completely intolerant (bigoted).. and I simply was saying that you can only reach that conclusion if you don't see firearms/the right of self defense as a civil right.

Accusing someone of not supporting the right of self defense is an insult in general, and particularly around here.

Not only is your assertion about my views wrong, it has no bearing on the facts or relevance to the argument...

No intent to insult. This is the Internet... You are the only one I've seen in this thread that has been even mildly insulting if not highly condescending.

... but either way, I am done.
Given how easily excitable you have seemed, I doubt this...
but ok.

Gallium
11-12-2012, 13:04
I think you need to look up the definition of bigot, here I'll help:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

-Websters Dictionary

I don't see where WWP has exhibited these traits as an organization.

(IF we are talking about the WWP)

Well, it's not bigotry, but their stated position is certainly based on a position of ignorance and prejudice - which is their right. I cannot fathom a logical reason why they would choose to not affiliate with a firearms manufacturer.

If you go to their home page and look at their mission statement (Title = "Purpose"), they are not following their own mission statement.

TheJ
11-14-2012, 02:51
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8509994&postcount=41

NEOH212
11-14-2012, 03:26
If this is indeed true about WWP, They will NEVER get another dime of my money. There are plenty of other places I can donate money to support our vets and I will gladly do so elsewhere.

Gallium
11-14-2012, 04:20
I did something (tangentially) with them a while back. I support our troops, and it was great meeting those military folks, but I simply cannot support their stand.

They are acting like idiots, to the detriment of our WARRIORS.

SFCSMITH(RET)
11-14-2012, 06:31
Copied the link to my facebook status, I don't have a lot of friends on there.. but they are ALL smart, and many of them do have a lot of friends to link to.

TheJ
11-14-2012, 12:20
http://www.examiner.com/article/wounded-warrior-project-faces-fallout-after-snubbing-gun-talk

Hawkeye16
11-14-2012, 12:55
I can see them not wanting their name on a gun but not doing an interview or taking money??


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Mrs. VR
11-14-2012, 15:12
I saw it on the Thunder Ranch fb page this morning, they are also withdrawing support. The reason they listed was that WWP felt too many Vets take their lives with guns. Oddly, I'm not seeing the post right now, but I know for sure I saw it, as VR commented on it.

Gallium
11-14-2012, 21:01
I saw it on the Thunder Ranch fb page this morning, they are also withdrawing support. The reason they listed was that WWP felt too many Vets take their lives with guns. Oddly, I'm not seeing the post right now, but I know for sure I saw it, as VR commented on it.


I emailed WWP, they sent me a form letter back, requesting donations. I WANT MY TIME I DONATED BACK. :steamed: This is what happen when IDIOT liberals are put in charge of things.

Jackalopes.

fnfalman
11-14-2012, 23:50
You people can get on your high horses all you want.

I'll continue to contribute. I care about the poor GIs who had given their blood, sweat and tears for this country a lot more than I care whether or not Wounded Warrior takes money from gun or gun related companies.

AngryPanda
11-15-2012, 00:04
Pull your heads out of your asses. The WWP does nothing but good. Not wanting a WWP branded AR, or not wanting to throw in with the extremely political NRA does not mean they are the enemy. Politics has no place whatsoever in the work they do and I applaud them for not slapping the WWP label on everything they can. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with gun rights.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 00:27
You people can get on your high horses all you want.

I'll continue to contribute. I care about the poor GIs who had given their blood, sweat and tears for this country a lot more than I care whether or not Wounded Warrior takes money from gun or gun related companies.


Yeah. I lost a relative and a friend "over there" and another relative who simply dropped dead during training on a hot Aug day.


Pull your heads out of your asses. The WWP does nothing but good. Not wanting a WWP branded AR, or not wanting to throw in with the extremely political NRA does not mean they are the enemy. Politics has no place whatsoever in the work they do and I applaud them for not slapping the WWP label on everything they can. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with gun rights.

My head is quite fine. No one so far has asked that they get in bed with the NRA. All it takes is a minute to see EXACTLY what their statement is - it's not like there is any misunderstanding.


Both of you strike me as the type of people who would rationalize making deals with Satan because he's "keeping you warm".

In other words, don't be foolish, and be blinded by the good someone does if it undermines another possibly equally great good.

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 00:33
Both of you strike me as the type of people who would rationalize making deals with Satan because he's "keeping you warm".

In other words, don't be foolish, and be blinded by the good someone does if it undermines another possibly equally great good.

What the hell does the Wounded Warriors program has to do with the Second Amendment?

Do you see their leadership lobbying for anti-gun laws?

"Wounded Warriors", not "Second Amendment Sisters".

Gallium
11-15-2012, 00:39
What the hell does the Wounded Warriors program has to do with the Second Amendment?

Do you see their leadership lobbying for anti-gun laws?

"Wounded Warriors", not "Second Amendment Sisters".


WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 01:24
WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

Gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because they're there for the Wounded Warriors and not for your political beliefs or mine?

NeverMore1701
11-15-2012, 01:56
Good thing there are plenty of other charities out there.

Samboard
11-15-2012, 01:57
Homes for heroes is great.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 05:08
Gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because they're there for the Wounded Warriors and not for your political beliefs or mine?


I understand that some people think that gun ownership is polarizing. There is no basis nor foundation for them to exclude aligning with firearms companies - or even alcohol companies. Yes, booze can be bad for you, but Twinkies also have very little, if not LESS nutritional value (as are a slew of other processed foods) but I don't see them not taking monies or not aligning themselves with those companies. Their statement which lumps sexual, political and religious products or messages with booze and guns is simply ignorant and offensive.

Words have meaning, and if their goal is to truly help wounded military members rehabilitate, they are subtracting and detracting from that said goal. My position on guns has little bearing on the (my) analysis and deciphering of their recent statement(s).

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 05:31
I understand that some people think that gun ownership is polarizing. There is no basis nor foundation for them to exclude aligning with firearms companies - or even alcohol companies. Yes, booze can be bad for you, but Twinkies also have very little, if not LESS nutritional value (as are a slew of other processed foods) but I don't see them not taking monies or not aligning themselves with those companies. Their statement which lumps sexual, political and religious products or messages with booze and guns is simply ignorant and offensive.

Words have meaning, and if their goal is to truly help wounded military members rehabilitate, they are subtracting and detracting from that said goal. My position on guns has little bearing on the (my) analysis and deciphering of their recent statement(s).

You do what you gotta do, cowboy.

TheJ
11-15-2012, 05:53
You people can get on your high horses all you want.

I'll continue to contribute. I care about the poor GIs who had given their blood, sweat and tears for this country a lot more than I care whether or not Wounded Warrior takes money from gun or gun related companies.

They take money from gun companies and groups. They just won't associate with them. Apparently we are undesirable.

I could understand if they didn't want to co-brand or publicly work with NRA, SAF, GOA, etc. or other inherently political organizations but they go much further than that. They won't even associate with ANYTHING firearms related. That sort or complete intolerance can only be acceptable if you accept the false premise that firearms are inherently bad/a net negative on society.

Personally, I am tired of firearm owners/groups being treated as second class citizens somebody to be shunned/marginalized. Perhaps others don't see an issue with this. I do.



I think some here need to get off their elevated Equus Caballus and stop acting as if wwp is the only way to help vets and if you chose to give to another organization you are only hurting vets. That's just bs.

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 05:58
Personally, I am tired of firearm owners/groups being treated as second class citizens somebody to be shunned/marginalized. Perhaps others don't see an issue with this. I do.

Personally I am tired of seeing and hearing gun owners whining and crying and victimizing themselves as though they're a bunch of helpless little girls.

WWP may not want to associate or take money from gun manufacturers or gun related businesses...so how does that affect you as a gun owner? :dunno: Does WWP quantify that they won't take your money if you're a gun owner?

I think some here need to get off their elevated Equus Caballus and stop acting as if wwp is the only way to help vets and if you chose to give to another organization you are only hurting vets.

That's for damn sure. Go down to the VA and hold their hands a bit, read them a book, talk to them like human beings, buy them a beer at American Legion or VFW. Not everything is about donating money.

TheJ
11-15-2012, 06:09
...WWP may not want to associate or take money from gun manufacturers or gun related businesses...so how does that affect you as a gun owner?
..

I understand that their are plenty who don't mind gun owners being marginalized. However, it affects gun owners by continuing the false narrative that guns are inherently bad and/or net negative on society. Just like google not allowing firearms and accessories shopping or any of the other ways that firearms/ owners are discriminated against under the false notion that firearms are a net negative on society like alcohol.

......Does WWP quantify that they won't take your money if you're a gun owner?...


No. They will take money from practically anyone. They just don't want anybody to know if they get it from firearms companies/groups/activities/etc.

It obviously doesn't bother you and thats fine with me. I simply disagree with you.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 06:12
I understand that their are plenty who don't mind gun owners being marginalized. However, it affects gun owners by continuing the false narrative that guns are inherently bad and/or net negative on society. Just like google not allowing firearms and accessories shopping or any of the other ways that firearms/ owners are discriminated against.



No. They will take money from practically anyone. They just don't want anybody to know if they get it from firearms companies/groups/activities/etc.

It obviously doesn't bother you and thats fine with me. I simply disagree with you.


I think your summation is spot on.

I wonder, how do the majority of the people they (claim to) serve feel about their stated positions? :cool:

The Maggy
11-15-2012, 06:31
Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.

This should have been the end of the conversation. Would anyone care to refute their statement or should we continue to make a mountain out of this mole-hill?

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 06:35
I think your summation is spot on.

I wonder, how do the majority of the people they (claim to) serve feel about their stated positions? :cool:

Why don't you go and ask some of the wounded warriors who are receiving their assistance and see if they care?

fnfalman
11-15-2012, 06:39
I understand that their are plenty who don't mind gun owners being marginalized. However, it affects gun owners by continuing the false narrative that guns are inherently bad and/or net negative on society. Just like google not allowing firearms and accessories shopping or any of the other ways that firearms/ owners are discriminated against under the false notion that firearms are a net negative on society like alcohol.

it's a free country. You can always use something else other than Goggle, eBay, and you can definitely support another veteran's organization.



No. They will take money from practically anyone. They just don't want anybody to know if they get it from firearms companies/groups/activities/etc.

It obviously doesn't bother you and thats fine with me. I simply disagree with you.

Nope. It doesn't bother me one wit because I care about the poor GIs who had paid for my freedom with their blood and body parts. I don't expect the WWP or VA or even the Audubon Society to champion the Second Amendment because that's not what those organizations are about. Really, it can't be that difficult of a thing to understand.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 06:48
Why don't you go and ask some of the wounded warriors who are receiving their assistance and see if they care?


You know what? I visited Walter Reed 2x a year when they were open and Bethseda 2x a year, and participate in more stuff for our wounded/returning military personnel than I care to discuss on a public forum.

The short answer is, when I talk with some of those folks are bent and mangled up in hospitals, they are generally very receptive that I am a "gun guy", in the swarm of anti-gun people I work with who are visiting them. I don't go for the photo ops, or to feel better about myself, I go because I care. The majority of recipients of aid, assistance, time, bedside visits, AND THEIR FAMILIES would much prefer if politics, pro-gun/anti-gun were kept entirely out of the mix.

But then I've only had real contact with around 100 service members and their families. Hardly enough of a representative sample size to arrive at any telling conclusions.

You choose what is important in your life, and I do the same with mine. How is it going serial banging chics?


- G

TheJ
11-15-2012, 06:50
..
Nope. It doesn't bother me one wit because I care about the poor GIs who had paid for my freedom with their blood and body parts. I don't expect the WWP or VA or even the Audubon Society to champion the Second Amendment because that's not what those organizations are about. Really, it can't be that difficult of a thing to understand.
Yep. It does bother me though because I care about the poor GIs who had paid for my freedom with their blood and body parts. I don't expect the WWP or VA or even the Audubon Society to discriminate against folks who simply exercise there civil rights because that's not what those organizations are about. Really, it can't be that difficult of a thing to understand.

TheJ
11-15-2012, 06:54
This should have been the end of the conversation. Would anyone care to refute their statement or should we continue to make a mountain out of this mole-hill?

That is only the end of conversation if you believe the false premise that firearms cause or significantly contribute to suicide. They don't and the falsehood that they do, is a common anti-gun refrain.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 07:01
This should have been the end of the conversation. Would anyone care to refute their statement or should we continue to make a mountain out of this mole-hill?

Their statement again (what your quoted).

Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.

We care because they have very subtly tilted the dialogue to reflect their own personal biases. The critical thinker might ask:



What elements play a role in substance abuse and suicide for "many" injured service members?

And




If firearms and alcohol are tied to a root cause of substance abuse and (attempted/actual) suicide of "many" injured service members, would you (or should they) take ANY money from these causes?

If you worked at a rape-crisis center, would you take money from "www.gang-rapes-are-us.com"?


If you worked at a substance abuse facility as a substance abuse counselor (guess what, I am tightly integrated into the substance abuse community locally), would you be taking money AT ALL from Budweiser? From Smirnoff?



The critical thinker would try to ferret out what elements play a role in substance abuse and suicide for our injured service members, and do "triage" (look at causation, exposure and effect on the worst > least) to see how the problem could be addressed.



Here is the rub: Firearms and booze are not a leading factor in substance abuse and suicide for wounded military personnel. The suspected lead factors can be found on their own web pages, if anyone was interested in looking.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 07:06
That is only the end of conversation if you believe the false premise that firearms cause or significantly contribute to suicide. They don't the falsehood that they do is a common anti-gun refrain.


Hey! I did not see this before my most recent post after yours. :cool:

Yes, they are subtly pushing an anti-gun agenda based on ignorance and prejudice. Shooting guns can actually be very therapeutic for injured service members - if done under the right conditions. Will it work for all of them? Certainly not...but if your goal is to "fix" people you don't throw away viable tools and/or techniques that are a clear aid to that process.

But what do you or I know?

TheJ
11-15-2012, 11:41
Precisely. :)


Sent from my iPhone 10 using an super duper app that shall remain nameless because it's Über exclusive and I don't want to you to know about it.

Gallium
11-15-2012, 13:48
Precisely. :)



Well if anyone was interested the # 1 cause of accidental death is attributed to prescription drug abuse. Do those idiots take monies or affiliate themselves with any pharmaceutical companies? Where is their statement distancing themselves from drug makers? After all, drugs are ranked #1 on the accidental death ranking, and also very high for suicide.



The critical thinker would wonder where deaths from GSW are on that list...


From a link on the WWP website - a blurb about a hunting program that helps (helped) wounded military personnel recuperate: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/498d6891381c4bd2ae91722ccd2534ce/IN--Exchange-Wounded-Warrior-Hunt

and another hunting related story from their website: http://www.stripes.com/news/wounded-warriors-honored-with-hunting-1.193087?localLinksEnabled=false

ray9898
11-15-2012, 14:29
Guns are a divisive issue, like it or not. They are not supporting gun advocates or the Brady's. They also abstain from those in the alcohol industry, once again divisive and looks poorly for a group whose goal is to help Vets in crisis who commonly turn into alcoholics due to self medicating.

If I had a non-profit that had a goal of nuetrality the last thing I would do is alienate 40+% of potential donors.

pipedreams
11-15-2012, 14:44
They seem to walk a very fine line when it comes to guns. Our local paper today had a story about a shooting tourney for Wounded Warriors. Their web site tell some details.
http://www.englishriveroutfitters.org/

silversport
11-16-2012, 04:23
they're going to do Greshem's show now and apologized...

Bill

Gallium
11-16-2012, 05:01
Why don't you go and ask some of the wounded warriors who are receiving their assistance and see if they care?


Here is the rub, chances are every single one of those wounded warriors at some point in their lives, fired a rifle, and/or a handgun.

I am betting dollars to donuts if you go and ask

LESLIE A. COLEMAN
public relations director

Office: 904.405.1433
Mobile: 904.654.8138
Fax: 904.296.7347


if she ever fired a handgun and/or rifle, you would find some very unhealthy, un-American like fear of guns there and/or that she's never fired a gun.



In my opinion (notice I carefully delineate my opinion from fact and/or hypothesis) I think their stated policy emanated out of the PR dept, absent much collusion within the other depts in that organization.



I expect to see Ms(?) Coleman separate from the WWP in short order. (again, an opinion).