Wounded Warriors Project doesn't deal with companies involved with Firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sounds like a Zumbo moment coming on....

the attitudes expressed by The WWP certainly sound like bigoted anti rhetoric to my ears.

too bad... it will only make pro 2A guys look like they are anti-vet.
 
Last edited:
Not to sound petty, but after being a sponsor for the Wounded Warrior Project for a few years, meaning I have sent them at least several hundred dollars, I would hope that they are not really some anti-gun, i.e., anti-2nd Amendment organization. Years ago when Sturm Ruger excluded medical coverage for its employees if they suffered a motorcycle accident I vowed to stop buying any Ruger product. When they reversed their position on this medical insurance exclusion, under great pressure from the Americam Motorcyclist Association and riders in general, I again became a customer for them. I'm sure many wounded veterans enjoy hunting, and/or value the owning of a firearm for personal and family protection, and if the WWP treated guns in general negatively I would have to reconsider my ongoing support to that particular organization. BTW, I bet more wounded servicemen and women were wounded/disabled by IED's than by guns.
 
Heard this at HAVA last weekend and just heard about it this morning on the Tom Gresham podcast.

I am totally blown away and researching it for my own peace of mind but i have pulled my donations that were on an automatically monthly donation cycle. Also sent them an Email along with WHY i have pulled my donations and will not return until they repeal their decision to associate with firearms related companies.

Simply unreal how they are against probably their largest sector of donations! The Firearms world. I thought Khar arms donated something like $50,000 a month ago or something? How dare they just keep accepting the money without being "Associated" with us?

JOe
 
So, if an organization wants to remain apolitical in order to advance its apolitical cause, it's automatically supporting the other side of the issue.

This is all about supporting the Wounded Vets, not about who likes guns or not. Not to mention, they accept all sorts of firearms-related activities already for those WOUNDED VETS.

It's all about supporting an organization that supports WOUNDED VETS, people that have sacrificed for a greater cause than themselves. It's not about using that support or those WOUNDED VETS to further a political stance.

I'm pro-2A, pro-Bill of Rights for that matter, all the way. But I won't support an organization or company that places self-centered stipulations on allowing its support to those that have sacrificed of themselves.

What I'm seeing from some of you is screw the organization, and in turn the WOUNDED VETS, for not openly giving you what you want from them.

They chose to avoid getting typecast into a political stance. So what??

If Mr. Gresham got his feathers ruffled, or his ego bruised, because they weren't chomping at the bit for his show, then he can go suck an egg.
 
There's a critical difference between staying apolitical and simply refusing to have any connection with anything firearm-related. You can stay apolitical and still organize hunts, go on various talk shows and coordinate funding drives with gun makers or clubs.

With their apparent position refusing to have anything to do with anything gun related, they are in fact taking a strong political position. When they justify this position by endorsing the anti-gun mantra that firearms lead to suicide, and indeed implying that wounded vets are DANGEROUS, then I think they've gone over the edge completely into partisan hackery.

I hope that WWP changes its position on this. A simple google search shows that the outfit has had many contacts with guns in the past, which makes sense. If they think they're going to get a lot of support for the vets on the anti-gun left, I think they're nuts. And if they think there's major damage associating with us vermin, I'm afraid the damage has already been done!

http://www.historicalarmory.com/national-editions/wounded-warrior.pdf
 
Last edited:
If Mr. Gresham got his feathers ruffled, or his ego bruised, because they weren't chomping at the bit for his show, then he can go suck an egg.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....sounds like mebbe it isn't Mr. Gresham whose feathers are ruffled!

I listen to his podcast every week - I think his stance (after being completely dumbfounded) was (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), that's fine...if you don't want to associate with me, message received and understood....
 
Apachedriver said:
...What I'm seeing from some of you is screw the organization, and in turn the WOUNDED VETS, for not openly giving you what you want from them...
Click to expand...

WWP is not the only way to support wounded veterans. There are many ways and other organizations to support vets that do not take an anti-firearm position.
 
Cosmoline - There's a critical difference between staying apolitical and simply refusing to have any connection with anything firearm-related.
Click to expand...

As far as I've read, WWP refused the invite to Tom Gresham's show, not to anything else you've listed regarding hunts and such. And the only source i've seen as to what they said is Twitter:

Tom Gresham @Guntalk 5d
Wounded Warriors Project just reconfirmed they don't do anything with media or companies involved with firearms.
Click to expand...

That's hardly taking an anti-gun stance.

You can stay apolitical and still organize hunts, go on various talk shows and coordinate funding drives with gun makers or clubs.
Click to expand...

I agree but then again, those with whom you keep company with is how you're judged. I'm guessing that the libs donate as well and why offend them with a falsely assumed perception of being a right-wing pro-gun organization.

With their apparent position refusing to have anything to do with anything gun related, they are in fact taking a strong political position. When they justify this position by endorsing the anti-gun mantra that firearms lead to suicide, and indeed implying that wounded vets are DANGEROUS, then I think they've gone over the edge completely into partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

Holy Shnikees!!...How did you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not seeing it. The only quote I've seen is Mr. Gresham's on Twitter. If you have more on that, I'd surely like to know. Those are serious implications against WWP and they would lose my support as well.

And if they think there's major damage associating with us vermin, I'm afraid the damage has already been done!
Click to expand...

Are you a firearm company? Or any form of media? If not, then you're entirely personalizing their choice to not go on a gun show. That's all they have turned down...a Gun-Related Media venue...they didn't turn you down.

BTW, thanks for that link to the rifle. I like it. I'll have to look into that further.
 
basicblur said:
Hmmmm....sounds like mebbe it isn't Mr. Gresham whose feathers are ruffled!

I listen to his podcast every week - I think his stance (after being completely dumbfounded) was (and I'm paraphrasing a bit), that's fine...if you don't want to associate with me, message received and understood....
Click to expand...

His feathers were ruffled otherwise he wouldn't have even bothered to mention that he had a guest request turned down. He tweeted it and spoke about it on his show. It smacks of "the nerve of them not wanting to associated with me." Typical media response.

And yes, my feathers got ruffled too. Well, my one feather anyways...I'm not a big man in the gun business. But I do associate with gun related activities and visit gun stores often.



TheJ said:
WWP is not the only way to support wounded veterans. There are many ways and other organizations to support vets that do not take an anti-firearm position.
Click to expand...

I agree but I'm must be missing something here. Where did this conclusion of an anti-firearm/anti-2A position come from??

Let me in on it and I'll pull me CFC support for WWP as well.
 
I checked with my buddy about his experiences with WW.

Turns out he goes to Perry with M1s For Vets (which is a great organization, IMO, and in his experiences).
 
Why is not supporting one side, considered supporting the other.
We need not vilify those who are not "with us"
We need to accept most people do not take a position in this "argument"
 
Hi, Guys,

Here's how this came down.

We invited the WWP to be on our Veteran's Day show. They declined, saying they don't do events or media appearances with anything relating to guns.

I was pretty surprised. Like most everyone else, I knew they took money from gun companies, etc. So, I wrote them back and asked them to confirm this policy. The PR director confirmed it.

My take is that they will accept our money, but they don't want to be seen with us. Each person will have to make of that what he or she will.

One person offered that the WWP had gone "mainstream," and that they now don't want to be associated with the extremists. Maybe.

I just know that after decades of watching gun owners being marginalized, demonized, and basically labeled as "undesirables," I'm able to recognize an outfit which doesn't want to be associated with "those people."

Each person can make his or her own call, but it's good to make an informed decision.

The entire email exchange is on our Facebook page. Each person can read it and decide if I "got my feathers ruffled."

I really don't care if WWP comes on the radio show. We have plenty of guests and callers. I do have a problem with their policy regarding firearms, and I don't understand how they can have that policy while participating (?) in fundraising shoots. Something just doesn't add up.

The email exchange is here:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk/wounded-warrior-project-email-exchange/10151354082553313
 
the only source i've seen as to what they said is Twitter:
Click to expand...

This is coming straight from their FAQ:

Are there any fundraisers WWP does not support?

WWP fundraisers can not be sexual, political or religious in nature, and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands or the exchange of firearms. This messaging conflicts with our mind, body, and spirit approach to programs. As everyone is aware, alcohol and substance abuse have been a significant problem with segments of the Wounded Warrior population, often with deadly consequences. WWP would not be honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors if the warrior population perceived partnerships with these types of events as encouraging the use of products that contribute to that problem.
Click to expand...

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/general-wwp-faqs.aspx

Hopefully this is a misunderstanding and will be cleared up.
 
Last edited:
I can think of legitimate reasons they wouldn't want to. PTSD problems, for one of them. There is more to life than guns, gentlemen
Click to expand...
One of the primary treatments for PTSD is CBT with prolonged exposure therapy. Exposure is exactly that...exposure to stimuli that generate a negative response in order to correct that cognitive malfunction.
 
Direct quote by Leslie Coleman of WWP, from Tom Gresham's email exchange:
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.
Click to expand...
When did this start? I know BCM is a corporate sponsor of the WWP. Or maybe it no longer is, because the prominent WWP display is no longer on its website? Hmmm. Time to donate my money elsewhere.
 
One of the primary treatments for PTSD is CBT with prolonged exposure therapy. Exposure is exactly that...exposure to stimuli that generate a negative response in order to correct that cognitive malfunction.
Click to expand...

Wounded Warrior Program supports wounded veterans, it doesn't provide them medical or behavioral health treatment. So whether or not they are interested in gun raffles or whatever else they mean with "exchange of firearms" is unrelated to anyone's treatment for PTSD.

My suspicion is that the exchange of firearms issue is that WWP has PR and/or liability concerns about that. Veterans, and especially wounded warriors, as a population are at elevated risk for suicide, PTSD related or otherwise. (Which is not to say that ever veteran out there is a ticking timebomb for self-harm, before anyone reads too much into that statement.) Nobody wants to be the guy or organization that provided a firearm as a prize or giveaway to someone who then kills themselves with it -- which is an unlikely chain of events, but the numbers favor it more among veterans/wounded warriors than among the population as a whole.

I spent July-October this year as a patient in the WTB at Walter Reed and can tell you from firsthand observation that this is pretty much inline with current military policies concerning wounded warriors who are deemed at higher risk for suicide. Besides making tons of mental health resources available to at-risk personnel, the WTBs (or at least the one at WR) can get pretty invasive and restrictive in their monitoring of those personnel. Some of the other guys I was with in the WTB were restricted to a point where in civilian society people might throw around terms like "house arrest." I don't know that it did anything to help those guys' mental state being under those conditions, but the emphasis was preventing suicides even if it meant curtailing freedoms.
 
I've been following closely several exchanges on both Thunder Ranch and Tom Gresham's Gun Talk pages on FB about the Wounded Warrior Project. It seems that after much digging around, Mr. Gresham had indeed discovered the the WWP has a policy in place that deems it against their values to do business or participate with any entity involving firearms and the related industry.

The hypocritical thing is that WWP routinely accepts donations from the firearms industry, such a very large recent donation from Khar Arms......also, WWP only actually gives about 15% of every dollar donated to use for what it should be used for.



Below is an exchange between Tom Gresham and the WWP as posted on FB:


Wounded Warrior Project Email Exchange
by Gun Talk on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 at 11:56am

After Sunday's show, we've gotten many emails about Tom's remarks after WWP declined an interview request on Gun Talk Radio because it's a firearms-related show. We've also seen the forums that are suggesting many things that are not true. So, I'm going to lay it all out right here.
We thought it would be great to book the WWP on the Veteran's Day show to promote the organization, so I contacted them. I was flabbergasted when their PR contact, Leslie, sent me an email saying they could not participate because our show dealt with firearms. Knowing that WWP has a booth at SHOT show and various gun shows across the US, takes wounded warriors on hunts and range days, raffles guns and accessories as fundraisers, etc., their policy didn't make much sense. I forwarded the email on to Tom to get his take.
-Sarah

The following is the complete email exchange:
====================
Hello, Leslie:
Sarah forwarded me your email after I asked her to invite the Wounded Warriors Project to join me on "Tom Gresham's Gun Talk" radio show.

I'm stunned at your email saying that the WWP doesn't participate in an interview or activity related to firearms. Inasmuch as there are 90 million gun owners and most of them support wounded veterans, I think they would be shocked to hear that they are, by way of their hobbies, somehow not worthy of helping with the Wounded Warriors Project.

Does your policy apply also to police agencies and the military, since they are "related to firearms?"

I'm hoping that we have misunderstood your email. Can you confirm that it is, in fact, an official policy of the Wounded Warriors Project to not do interviews with or participate in any activity related to firearms?

Thank you.
Tom Gresham

============

Good afternoon --

While we appreciate your interest in Wounded Warrior Project® (WWP) you are correct that we decline the media opportunity.

Please note the following notice that appears on our website which also applies to WWP public awareness policy and inquiries from media outlets:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/additional-opportunities.aspx

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.

Thank you for your inquiry.

LESLIE A. COLEMAN
public relations director

O: 904.405.1433
M: 904.654.8138
F: 904.296.7347

Wounded Warrior Project
4899 Belfort Road, Suite 300
Jacksonville, Florida 32256

====================
Thanks for confirming that, Leslie. It was a simple opportunity to promote the WWP on a national program in an effort to send donations your way.
I'll pass along the info that you don't want or need the help of America's gun owners.

Best regards,
Tom Gresham

=====================

Good morning --
This policy is not a judgment on those who own and use firearms – clearly every member of our armed forces has been trained in the use of firearms and then called on to use them in the course of their service to this country.

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.

Thank you.
LESLIE A. COLEMAN
public relations director

=============================

Hello, Leslie:

Thank you for that explanation.

I do think -- and I'm being as kind as possible -- that it's the nuttiest thing I've heard in years. Suicides are not linked to firearms. Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than does the U.S., and they have essentially no firearms. Suicide is a serious issue irrespective of the methodology used.

This explanation doesn't pass even the most simple "does this make sense" test.

Your policy does, in fact, brand firearms and the companies which make them as undesirables, and by association, you are saying that those who own and use firearms for recreation, hunting, self protection, and other safe and legal uses are to be avoided.

It's certainly your option to ostracize the firearms industry, the 90 million gun owners in America, and the media which support firearms safety training.

At this point, I feel an obligation to make sure the millions who listen to my radio show and watch my two national television series know about your policy.

I cannot fully express how much I feel you are doing a disservice to our wounded veterans, and how disappointed I am to discover this bias at the Wounded Warriors Project.

Sincerely,
Tom Gresham

https://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk/wounded-warrior-project-email-exchange/10151354082553313
Click to expand...

And also now from Clint at Thunder Ranch

Official: Thunder Ranch will no longer be doing any fundraising for Wounded Warrior. This due to the main reason is they will do not want support from the guns period because guns are used by our military to kill themselves. What do they save themselves with? Nerf guns? Also the fact that very little of our money is actually getting to the families that need them. We will find charities in the coming months to help us all give but for now all money raised with our current DVD sale will go to our Seal team family... the Reece Petersen Trust fund. Thank you as always for your support. We will continue to do the best job we can to put as much money as we can to helping our military. Clint and Heidi

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Thunder-Ranch/120548841302589
Click to expand...

Here is a site that has info and ratings on different charities:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=531
 
I'm glad Mr. Gresham got involved in this discussion. Comments on what actually transpired are preferable as opposed to forum reactions based on a single tweet.

As a current service member, WWP's initial actions were in line with how the Army approaches these things. They don't like to be associated or mistaken as supporting specific brands. It's always been a policy to require the removal brand names and their markings from our personal equipment.

However, I have to agree that based on the info provided, it does seem that WWP is moving away from simple brand disassociation and into a more issue-based decision to disassociate.

For myself, I intend to watch this ideology they are moving towards and, if needed, to "spend my money elsewhere." My concern is always foremost for my wounded brothers.

I'll add that presently, there is indeed a huge issue going on in the military in regards to suicides. It's larger than I have ever seen in my almost 26 years of service and it's frustrating the leadership as they're unable to "crack the nut", NO PUN INTENDED. Firearms ARE increasingly being used, especially by the younger service members.

Of course the easy answer is always ban everything. But in this case, that's not the solution either so we'll have to see where it goes. I will say, this is the largest concerted effort the Army has ever put forth on one issue and of that I'm glad.

BTW, Mr. Gresham, I'll take my egg back. Thanks.
 
This seems all quirky to me. They distance theirselves from gun companies and guns in general, but are more than willing to accept donations from anyone regardless of their business. Actually, hypocritical is the word that I am lookiing for. I support the WWP, or at least I did, now I will have to rethink my stand on this. I would love to heard from someone within the organization speak on this.

The other thing that bothers me almost as much as this is the quote above that only 15% of every dollar goes to support a wounded veteren. I do not have a lot of expendable income, but I do tithe to my church regularly as well as reputable NPOs. I will have to do some research to verify that 15% number. That seems way ridiculous to me.

Another thought to cionsider - I wonder if they are having internal squabbles over this policy?
 
TheJ wrote:
It isn't their cause but by choosing to not associate or accept help publicly with firearms groups/media they are in effect taking a side... They are taking an anti civil rights position.

They specifically state that firearms (and liquor) conflict with their "mind, body, spirit" approach. They are absolutely free to take this bigoted position but others (like me) are absolutely free to chose to support other groups that will not be so bigoted.
Click to expand...

You could add that it is your right, and Gresham's, to make this known to anyone who will listen. Tom is a good friend of mine. I've hosted his show a couple of times. He's no crank, he's not an extremist.

I think this simply stunned him and he decided to talk about it. That's what he does for a living...talk about stuff related to firearms. And frankly, I think we have a right to know this stuff. Not that we need to boycott WW or anything like that, but we have a right to know "how the management thinks."

This tenor might be construed as tainting vets as being somehow not a good mix with firearms. Gimme a break. Millions of vets came home from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I...they hunt, target shoot, work in LE sometimes, own firearms for personal protection and family protection....and they have been good neighbors, friends and even participate here and on other forums.

Arfin says he doesn't get it. I believe I do... "Hoplophobia" might come into play here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Check this out... "Wounded Warrior Project"
Replies
1
Views
524
Nicolai
N
J
  • Locked
Battle of Little Big Horn River
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
W
  • Locked
Some long overdue common sense for firearm owners.
2 3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
5K
Vern Humphrey
V
P
  • Locked
Warrior Range Report
Replies
5
Views
713
armedcitizen
A
4
  • Locked
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
Replies
1
Views
277
XLMiguel
X
Back
Top