Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by firstater, Nov 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. homatok

    homatok Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    327
    I do not have a dog in this fight but I feel compeled to say that any organization that will take dollar donations (no questions asked) but has a public policy of not associating with anything to do with the basis from which those funds originated is (in my opinion) at the top of the class for being hypocritical!!

    Sort of like the animal rights activist that wears leather and eats meat but won't kill thier own chicken and condems those of us that hunt.
     
  2. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,650
    Location:
    VA
  3. wtr100

    wtr100 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    291
    Oh horse crap - sending them my shreded and cancled WWP branded credit card
     
  4. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Well put. PTSD is not and has never been a reason for losing your right to keep and bear arms. If the DOD is putting soldiers suffering from it in detention to cover its backside, that's horrible. But there's no reason to tolerate a charity which endorses the approach.
     
  5. TheJ

    TheJ Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Georgia
  6. Tom Gresham

    Tom Gresham Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    North Shore, Louisiana
  7. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,362
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Mr. Gresham's explanation tells us that WWP has a huge error in their thinking. Guns are the tool of the suicidal person, not the reason the person is suicidal. Statistics and studies show that firearm may be the preferred method for veterans, but suicidal veterans will do as any other suicidal person, find the means available to end their pain. If guns aren't available then they'll use other means.

    The other thing it shows us that tweets don't provide enough information for people to make decisions. It is debatable whether WWP is intentionally being anti, but perpetrating a recognized myth that guns increase the risk of suicide when we know that suicidal people will find the means regardless of what's available perpetuates the myth that the Antis use.

    The push to get them to explain their position has resulted in their responding in an unclear and self-contraditory manner as Mr. Gresham indicated above. It is important at this point for WWP to make a clear and unequivocal statement.

    There's a lot more going on there than I had thought with an organization simply adopting a neutral position with respect to RKBA. They perpetrate the myth that guns cause suicide, argue they're using hunts to help wounded service members and benefiting from shooting events and then dance around the contradictions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2012
  8. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    600
    Location:
    Central Texas
    I suppose it's a good thing they responded in some manner at last. I had also emailed them right after my initial posts with a list of questions and concerns, as well as referencing the doubts that were arising here due to their incomplete and unclear stance.

    The only answer I received was the automated form reply.
     
  9. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,504
    Either you are pro, anti, or neutral....you can't be some oddball mixture of the three, and that seems to be squarely where WWP seems to fall currently. It seems as though they are more than willing to benefit from guns when its convenient for them to do so, but seemingly put up a public "front" that distances them from the shooting sports and guns in general. The implication that they cannot be associated with guns due to suicide risks and whatnot is flatout insulting to our vets. They are responsible enough to handle a gun on Uncle Sam's time, but suddenly, recreational use will lead to suicides? Is that really the image they want to be putting out there? I respect the mission of the WWP, but certainly have questions as to their stance on things and the hypocrisy it entails.
     
  10. old fart

    old fart Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    kentucky
    I saw a segment of shooting usa on the outdoor channel a few months ago, they were at a shoot for the wwp. they shot trap and targets, so this is confusing to me.
     
  11. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    WWP runs on donated funds. It's people that make donation decisions, and some people simply do not like guns and will do everything they can to distance themselves and their organization from them.

    What do you suppose is the percentage of Americans who will only support organizations that are either in the firearms industry directly or who openly do business with other organizations that are? Pretty small, I'd wager. How about the percentage of Americans who regularly decline to do any sort of business with any organization that they know deals in any way with firearms? Bigger number, I'd bet.

    Looks to me like WWP has decided that it would lose fewer potential donors by avoiding open connection with the firearms trade than it will gain by specifically connecting with it. To view its position on accepting donations from the firearms trade as if it is purely a political stance is narrow-minded at best. Although the policy is poorly articulated and apparently somewhat unevenly applied, it sounds like a rationally made business decision, not a political position. There is still a difference, you know.

    Which of us would come away unscathed from having our lives deconstructed: our every statement broken down into sound bites, our every move analyzed, all our associations scrutinized? If we as 2A supporters set about to ridicule or vilify anyone who doesn't directly support 2A in the ways we would have them support 2A, are we any different from those who vilify us? No, we must take the high road and be the rational minds in the debate. The leadership of WWP has decided to have this policy, and I respect their right to do so. I also respect everyone's right to donate or not donate as each sees fit. If you want to support wounded vets, try to find an organization with whose policies and actions you are 100% agreement. Good luck.
     
  12. vito

    vito Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    655
    Location:
    Northern Illinois
    Well said beatledog7. I don't expect ideaological purity from the polititians I support, since someone I agree with 80% of the time is not my enemy, and I treat organizations the same way. I've contributed to the American Cancer Society, the Heart Association, the Red Cross, etc. and I would not be surprised if some of these organizations are also anti-gun in some way. The good work being done for the wounded veterans is my focus so I continue to support the WWP.
     
  13. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,607
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Watching people's actions to see if they are consistent with their words is a necessary part of life, IMO. If they are not, then that dichotomy can create a trust issue.

    It is, um, nonlinear for WWF to use the firearms community as a major source of income and assistance and then state that open association with such a polarizing industry is simply not in their best interest.
     
  14. brnmw

    brnmw Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    259
    Well if they are or are not for pro 2nd ammendment policy, I also give every month to "Lone Survivor Foundation" started by Marcus Luttrell based in Houston, Texas. If there is one thing I do know is Marcus Luttrell is "Pro- 2nd Ammendment!" :D

    www.lonesurvivorfoundation.org
     
  15. silversport

    silversport Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Chicagoland/USA
    I have been following this for a bit myself...and I find it disturbing...as a LONG time contributor to the WWP since Bill O'Reilly first talked of it many years ago...I won't donate to them any more until I can get an answer from WWP...

    Do they not take money from Automobile manufacturers as cars are sometimes used for suicide???...how about drug manufacturers???...swimming pool manufacturers???...when does it end...

    WWP can certainly take donations from whomever they lioke and exclude whomever they like...and the real people to be hurt here are the Wounded Warriors...I can find other organizations to give my money to like USA Cares or some others mentioned in this thread...

    Bill
     
  16. hardheart

    hardheart Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    I was more than done when I read the response stating that they also did not want to be associated with knives, bows, and swords. The brand simply could not afford to be affixed to something as dangerous as a Leatherman tool or a Case pocket knife. Also, some sort of keepsake like a WWP marked cavalry sword is an obvious choice for gangland executions or a stabbing spree, like has been so prevalent on the news.

    I can't stand the demonizing of tools.
     
  17. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,650
    Location:
    VA
    For myself (and others need to do a little research), this story has gone from WWP's stance on guns etc. and is now a question of exactly how much money donated actually goes to the vets and is not eaten up by exorbitant salaries, marketing, administrative costs, advertising, yadda yadda yadda.

    It looks to me like only around 15% of funds actually make it to the vets?

    O'Reilly made a big flap years ago about the Red Cross, and how an apparent excessively large percentage of donations was eaten up by 'operating costs', much as it appears WWP is doing - wonder why O'Reilly hasn't done a little research on this before supporting them (you'd think he'd have learned with Red Cross).

    WWP is looking more like it was created by a few enterprising folks as a way to pay themselves (and their buddies?) a large salary and provide jobs for themselves - whatever's left will trickle to the vets.

    If I'm not mistaken (I'll have to update my research), the Salvation Army was one of the best charities around - their CEO's salary was around 60K/yr (WWP has two folks pulling in over approx 400K/yr from what I understand), and just about all Salvation Army's workers were volunteers. Last time I checked, I think about 90% or more of money taken in actually went towards the folks they were helping.

    I realize it's probably apples and oranges, but the bottom line is folks need to research a charity BEFORE giving.

    In my research (I'll have to go back and dig deeper), there was an outfit called Wounded Warriors FUND that was more closely tied to the military, and I remember reading on their page that they really didn't care for WWP.
     
  18. wtr100

    wtr100 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    291
    Seems common sense has broken out over at WWP, at least a little

    http://www.examiner.com/node/55389381

     
  19. 12131

    12131 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,541
    Location:
    God's Country (TEXAS)
    My guess is it's only because small time donators like us are starting to drop them like flies. We'll see what the WWP "representative" will respond, when Gresham has a chance to ask face to face about their policy.
     
  20. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,947
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    They've scrubbed their FAQ page...

    Tuesday:
    Today:
    Guns and God are back in!
     
  21. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,783
    Location:
    The Dark Side of the Moon
    that's horrible and ineficient...

    I don't see why the executives of any "charity" should make a $400K haul.

    I guess "charity" is a profitable business to get into.
     
  22. Wangmuf

    Wangmuf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    My guess would be something along the lines of, "I have no knowledge of how WWP operates or their ideology, I'm just a wounded vet that they've done fantastic things to help."
     
  23. TennJed

    TennJed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,454
    Tom thank you for posting the link to the email exchange. It does seem to reflect they associate firearms with suicide which is absurd. I hope they see the light and address the real issues behind suicide. I am 100% behind our vets but I am also ashamed that this orginization would associate a tool as a reason
     
  24. Tom Gresham

    Tom Gresham Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    North Shore, Louisiana
    We just got confirmation -- The CEO of the Wounded Warriors Project will be a guest on "Tom Gresham's Gun Talk" radio show this Sunday.

    More here: http://tinyurl.com/bauc572
     
  25. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page