Starbucks Touchscreen Storefronts (Photo credit: DavidErickson)
The NRA better watch out. There’s a new gun in town and it’s called, well, actually it doesn’t have a name but it’s a combination of two gun control groups - Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense which, according to their merger announcement, will “soon be stronger than any gun lobby.” And who can argue with that claim when you put together Mike Bloomberg’s gazillions with the tireless energy of Shannon Watts and other moms, right?
The Moms claim they have more than 130,000 members and Bloomberg has enrolled more than 1,000 mayors in his club. But who knows what those numbers really mean? Moms also has 130,000 Likes on its Facebook page and when I went to their website it appeared that if I sent them an email with my name and address, that this made me a member. As for Bloomberg’s membership, I took a quick look at the list for Massachusetts, my state, and guess what? I couldn’t find a single Massachuetts Mayor who’s a Republican, but I did find Dominic Sarno, the Mayor of Springfield, where the gun homicide rate this year will probably top out at four times higher than the national average. Way to go, big Dom!
And since this new combination will soon be bigger than any gun lobby, let me tell you a little about that other lobby. There’s been a lot of back and forth over the size of the NRA membership, with the gun organization claiming 4.5 million and various critics scaling this down to 3 million or a bit more. I’m willing to cut both estimates in half and assume that they have somewhere above 3.5 million, even though even they admit that their recent increase was partially due to a one-year cut in dues paid by new members and it remains to be seen whether all these folks will re-enlist when they have to pay a higher price.
But the fact that Moms doesn’t have any dues not only makes me wary of their membership claims, but also raises the more important question of exactly how effective they can be. Because it’s not very hard to use today’s social media to create the image of an organization whether something really exists or not. The Moms group garnered lots of publicity when they showed up at Starbucks and sent a letter to Howard Schultz demanding that the company ban guns from all their stores. But the company sidestepped the issue by issuing a statement ‘asking’ but not requiring gun owners to keep their guns outside, but even as strident (and usually stupid) a pro-gun outlet as the Washington Times covered the issue in very timid terms because it turns out that lots of gun owners didn’t want to risk the possibility that Starbucks might eventually get a little backbone and ban them permanently. After all, would anyone elevate the 2nd Amendment above that steamy latte?
Of course an advocacy organization can play an important role in any public debate regardless of its size. But the trick is to figure out who you’re really talking to and whether or not they will listen to what you have to say. If the Moms want to have a real impact in the argument over guns, why don’t they talk to gun owners and stop wasting their energy on convincing people who don’t need to be convinced? And you don’t talk to gun people by throwing up a website or a Facebook page and just ‘invite’ them to post a comment or engage in a chat. Sometimes that strategy works when you’re selling a product, but it’s rank arrogance or simply stupid to confuse marketing a product with marketing an idea.
Every weekend there are dozens of gun shows all over the United States. Each of these shows, on average, count 10,000 admissions. So do the math: if you went to one gun show every weekend, set up a booth, gave out a flyer and shot your mouth off, by the end of the year you would have talked to 500,000 gun guys (and gals.) And don’t think for one second that nobody would talk to you. Gun folks love to talk - that’s why they go to those shows.
I’d love to walk into a gun show or some other gun-friendly place and see those Moms promoting their point of view. Would they get an argument from gun folks? Sure. Would the argument sometimes get nasty or offensive? It might. But if Moms or any other gun-control group believes they will make a difference by not going out and meeting the other side, they’re barking up the wrong tree.
Related articles
- Former mayors discover membership in Bloomberg’s anti-gun group was kiss of death (bizpacreview.com)
- How the Gun-Rights Lobby Won After Newtown (pbs.org)
Dec 21, 2024 @ 19:33:27
They have ZERO interest in talking to gun owners.
Dec 21, 2024 @ 20:57:53
I agree. That was the point of my blog.
Dec 31, 2024 @ 21:12:51
I’m a MDA member and I think your post is right on…many of us do have an interest in speaking to gun owners and own guns ourselves.
Jan 03, 2025 @ 10:54:58
So how do you guys feel about your patron keeping a private 17 man security detail (all armed with “high capacity” handguns no less!) for himself?
Jan 04, 2025 @ 07:11:27
He’s not my patron and he paid for the security himself. As far as I’m concerned, he could have hired 1,000 private guards. Has nothing to do with anything.
Jan 04, 2025 @ 13:16:14
That was directed at the MDA lady…
Jan 05, 2025 @ 21:33:38
gunsafetypro-
I’m sure he’s not the first mayor to have a security team.
Like any organization that is made up of human beings, you’re going to have differences of opinion among members. Although one of MDA’s stated goals calls for a ban on assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, I am involved in the group because of background checks which is the paramount goal for me.
My own personal belief based on my experience working in the criminal justice system is that most violent crime committed with a firearm involve handguns not rifles with detachable parts. In sum, a rifle is a rifle at the end of the day. I do think there is a plausible argument to make for limiting the size of ammo clips because it would cause the shooter to reload, that is, if the shooter didn’t come prepared with another loaded gun. However, as you know, ammunition clips do not have serial nos., so unless that changes, it would be impossible for law enforcement to decipher if the clip was purchased post-ban.
As long as the rhetoric is shelved, background checks are something both sides of the isle can agree on. Politicians are not going to take the lead on this as real change will only be prompted when gun owners that make up the NRA’s membership base get fed up. That’s my two cents anyway.
Let me know if there are anymore rhetorical questions I can answer for you.