Wounded Warrior Project = Anti-Firearms Industry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've read all of what's posted here and all of the included links, and it seems to me that the WWP is considered to be "anti" only because they refuse to say they are "pro" by "co-branding" and allowing the use of their logo on weapons for sale. They haven't said anything that aligns them with the Brady Bunch, or Handgun Control, or endorsed any anti-gun legislation, or tried to limit CC rights, or anything else that would legitimately earn them the label of "anti". Any objective look at this says that they wish to be left out of the pro-anti gun debate, since their mission requires no interest in its results either way.
Click to expand...

I to have been following this thread . I'm not sure if I completely agree with you or just want to agree .

I can't see how specifically excluding items is "wishing to be left out... of the debate."

If they wanted to be left out of the debate, they wouldn't have inserted themselves into it.

They also chose to include a product in with clearly morality based choices, sex companies, religious organizations and guns.
Click to expand...

I do know that I do agree with this .

Both of you are making compelling arguments however I believe there official written policy trumps there interview hearsay . I personally don't like when they put the sex industry and religion in the same class of products as guns .
 
WWP said:
In the past, we made our logo available to appear on wide variety of products, including guns. As an organization, we owe it to our donors and constituents to maximize the return on investment of our dollars and brand. We are always looking at our business practices and whether we should
continue with them in the future. In the case of cobranding, we've decided that we're not going to offer our logo to appear on weapons anymore - whether they're guns, knives, bows, swords, or any other type of weapon. There are still a few of the guns around for sale that had licensed our logo years ago, but there aren't any new ones being made. This is purely a business decision based on a review of a return on investment, especially when compared with other types of cobranding ventures.
Click to expand...
What's all this talk about "co-branding" and return-on-investment? This is [supposed to be] a non-profit organization, a charity. If the MegaBlaster gun company wants to put out a Wounded Warrior model and offers to donate 'X' percentage of the proceeds to the WWP, where exactly is there any "investment" on the part of the WWP?

Uncle Billy said:
I've read all of what's posted here and all of the included links, and it seems to me that the WWP is considered to be "anti" only because they refuse to say they are "pro" by "co-branding" and allowing the use of their logo on weapons for sale.
Click to expand...
No, their hypocrisy is showing through very clearly. Now they claim their opposition to firearms companies is due to co-branding. Initially, they claimed it was because wounded warriors were wounded by ... guns. And yet the same group who claims that associating with gun-makers might contribute in some way to warrior suicides doesn't have a problem sending those same warriors out on hunting trips, with loaded guns in their hands.

Don't you find that to be at least a tiny bit self-contradictory?
 
Last edited:
"Specifically excluding items" (logos) of participants, that is, not branding with one of the participants in the debate is how they "wish to be left out of the debate". It's that simple.

They inserted themselves in the debate by co-branding, and wished to remove themselves from the debate by not co-branding anymore. How simple can it be?

Sex, guns and religion are hot topic issues that people have passion about and are clearly divided on. Taking on a visibility in those turbid roiling debates when none of them have anything at all to do with their mission is what motivates WWP to eschew any presence therein. Sex, religion and guns are issues that have nada to do with WWP's mission so they chose to be distant from them. How simple is that? Are they against sex? Religion? Or is it that WWP has no part of who it is and what it does being dependent on them and so finds no sensible reason to take a role in them?

If WWP lets its logo appear on a "Wounded Warrior" model of an assault rifle (where it would have the most commercial success, probably), and that causes an anti-gun or anti-assault weapon reaction from a lot of donors actual and potential who withdraw their donations on principle (wouldn't be much of a surprise if it had that effect) then whatever MegaBlaster paid them might not be a net gain for WWP. In short, the money MegaBlaster pays for the WWP logo on their rifle (the investment) might not be enough to cover the loss of donations that it results in (the cost of the investment).

Their opposition to firearms companies is only that they don't want to advertise with them, they don't want to have WWP officially associated with the arms industry. They have said NOTHING that goes any further than that, that shows they are against firearms companies. The firearms industry has no significance whatever in WWP's mission, so why does it need to be a part of WWV's identity? Truth is, it doesn't, and if that puts panties in knots, oh well.
 
Last edited:
A neutral position would accept all parties.

Don't want to take a position on religion? You accept advertising from Muslim, Baptist, Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, Satanist, etc.

Alcohol? You accept advertising from Budweiser and Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Guns? Advertising from Ruger and the Brady Campaign.

THAT is "not taking a position".

Accept advertising from atheists and not Baptists? The Brady Bunch and not Remington?

That's not neutral.
 
Uncle Billy said:
"Specifically excluding items" (logos) of participants, that is, not branding with one of the participants in the debate is how they "wish to be left out of the debate". It's that simple.

They inserted themselves in the debate by co-branding, and wished to remove themselves from the debate by not co-branding anymore. How simple can it be?
Click to expand...
Well, it WOULD be that simple ... if it were that simple. But it isn't.

Because they didn't say they didn't want to co-brand with firearms companies to stay out of the debate. They said they don't want to co-brand with firearms companies because they don't get enough return on investment. How much "investment" can there possibly be in firing off an e-mail saying, "Sure, you have permission to use our logo on your MegaBlaster WWP model, in return for [__] percent of the proceeds from sales thereof. A copy of the artwork is attached for your use. Thanks for your support."

They don't get enough "return" to cover THAT?

Bee Ess.
 
A neutral position requires all parties to an issue to participate, or no parties to the issue participate. Which of these is the most practical and realistic way to remain neutral?

What if only one party to an issue wants to buy advertising or co-brand? Do you give their opposition free access?

Did the WWP take advertising or co-branding from the Brady Campaign, but refused Stevens Arms? If so, then they are "antis" and not neutral. Or did they refuse all reference to guns? That's what they said they were doing. If that's true, then they are neutral on guns. But of course that wouldn't be good enough, because "If you aren't with us, you're against us" no matter how dumb an idea that is.

How come this doesn't apply to any corporation that isn't co-branded with an organization in the arms industry? Why if you want to drive a Ford with a Colt emblem on the door, you'll have to put it there yourself because Ford won't; must be they're anti-guns. How come there isn't a Smith & Wesson emblem on my AAA card? Why doesn't that green lizard from Australia have a quick-draw rig on to show he and his insurance company are pro-gun? Must be they're anti gun, he isn't armed at all.
 
Last edited:
A neutral position would accept all parties.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, or they could reject all parties.

Is there a WWP/Brady Campaign brand? Has the WWP officially associated itself with any gun control organization?

I don't read any citations for that.
 
Should I judge an organization on any other criterion than how well it accomplishes its primary mission?

If it is the only one of its kind that can accomplish that mission, perhaps not.

If it is not, then perhaps yes.

In any event, I donate my money to organizations as I see fit, and if I make that choice based on some other criterion - for instance, stances on private gun ownership - well, it's my money.
 
I will not support any group that is antigun in any form. I deeply respect and support our troops (I am a veteran myself). I will support other pro-military groups but not WWP.
 
Personally, I think we should respect their wishes not to be seen with us. It's just so much less awkward for the poor dears if we keep our money to ourselves, so as not to risk embarrassing them by being seen hanging out with us.

But that's an easy choice for me, since 100% of my income comes from gun related work. They don't want my money in any case.

pax
 
WWP's stance is anti gun, and more important, anti gun supporters. Their inclusion of guns and gun related companies in their list of places/things they don't 'support' speaks fairly clearly on this.

I have talked to them on the phone, and by letter. Never again will I support them with my contributions. There are other organizations that help wounded vets.
 
Brian Pfleuger wrote:

A neutral position would accept all parties.

Don't want to take a position on religion? You accept advertising from Muslim, Baptist, Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, Satanist, etc.

Alcohol? You accept advertising from Budweiser and Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Guns? Advertising from Ruger and the Brady Campaign.

THAT is "not taking a position".

Accept advertising from atheists and not Baptists? The Brady Bunch and not Remington?

That's not neutral.
Click to expand...

Now that is the clearest and most succinct train of thought regarding this whole controversy I have read yet.
 
WWP helps wounded vets. It's an organization like any other that doesn't and won't take gun-related associations (ask the American Cancer Society or the United Way if they will put a gun-related logo, pro or con, on any of their communications), which I wholeheartedly support.

They have expressed nothing that I take to mean they are against me as a gun supporter, they wish to connect with me on another issue which is the entire point of their mission: helping wounded veterans, and that's fine with me. They and I share that issue while we don't share a serious interest in guns; that's me and not them.

IMHO, for an organization to be branded as anti-gun, they have to do more than demonstrate no interest in guns, they need to turn on us with more negative intent than just not joining us. WWP hasn't done that. Like most if not all of the businesses, charities and organizations I am involved with haven't mentioned guns either.

If I see an anti-gun connection on an organization, then I'm gone, but no gun connection of any sort is okay with me. They don't have to like pepperoni on their pizza either, to mention another opinion that has virtually no bearing on whether we connect or we don't.

YMMV
 
Brian Pfleuger wrote:

A neutral position would accept all parties.

Don't want to take a position on religion? You accept advertising from Muslim, Baptist, Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, Satanist, etc.

Alcohol? You accept advertising from Budweiser and Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Guns? Advertising from Ruger and the Brady Campaign.

THAT is "not taking a position".


I disagree, that's taking ALL positions, and that's silly.
If one doesn't want to say anything that constitutes a position, the most sensible and economic way to do so is to say nothing at all. That's what WWV is trying to do. But since the WWV is on everyone's chyt list here, there is nothing they can say and no reasoned analysis of the situation that will convince anyone otherwise.

Along with "If you aren't with me then you're against me" comes "Don't try reason and objectivity to change my mind, it's been made up without them and will remain so, it's immune to them".
 
Uncle Billy said:
If one doesn't want to say anything that constitutes a position, the most sensible and economic way to do so is to say nothing at all.
Click to expand...


Indeed, and that's exactly my point. I never said you'd have to explicitly say you're accepting donations from every group, you just DO. Being neutral means keeping your mouth shut.

That's the definition of "neutral".

You are arguing the exact opposite, that specifically excluding certain groups is somehow neutral.

Taking donations from any group is not "taking all positions", it is taking NO positions.

Their statement says:

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.

By your own words, that is NOT neutral!

My mind is quite open, thank you. Until this blow up, I frequently mentioned, recommended and commended the WWP. Unfortunately, it is clear that I should have looked further than their commercials.
Simply converting to your opinion is not the definition of open minded. Being open minded means being open to considering all the facts. Once those facts are considered and a choice has been made it's not time to be "open minded" anymore, it's time to make a decision.
 
Peetza said: "Indeed, and that's exactly my point. I never said you'd have to explicitly say you're accepting donations from every group, you just DO. Being neutral means keeping your mouth shut."

That requires every participant in a debate to ask to be accepted, and if only one side asks and gets accepted, then you've pinned yourself to their premise even though your intent was to appear to be not taking a side.

"You are arguing the exact opposite, that specifically excluding certain groups is somehow neutral."

'Certain groups' includes the group of all the sides of the gun debate, "guns" being the group. In the case of the WWP since they've never aligned themselves with anti-gun organizations like the Brady Bunch it's reasonable to conclude that they aren't anti-gun either.

"Taking donations from any group is not "taking all positions", it is taking NO positions."

Taking donations from all groups is not the only way to take no position. Taking donations from NO groups has the same effect. But taking NO donations from anyone in a group is the most expedient and practical and the easiest to effect. If rejection is the heartburn here, then Maalox and not argument is the answer.

"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.
By your own words, that is NOT neutral!"

Yes it is. As regards guns, they take no proceeds from any side of the gun debate, not pro or anti as has been said here about a million times, and that makes them neutral as regards guns. What would you have them do that's reasonable that would convince you that they were neutral about guns? Or is being neutral the same as being anti to you?

My mind is quite open, thank you. ..... Once those facts are considered and a choice has been made it's not time to be "open minded" anymore

'Open minded' is not time- or event-dependent, it requires hanging to that all the time. Keeping one's mind open to new info, to new arguments, to a different look at an issue and not clinging to a conclusion when it's been shown to be flawed is called "critical thinking".
 
There's no new info.

They exclude firearms companies. They do not exclude anti-gun companies. That is not neutral.

If I exclude no one, I am neutral. If I exclude women and not men, I am not neutral.

It doesn't matter how many ways you can say it.

If you can choose A and B and you choose both or neither, you are neutral. If you exclude one and not the other, you are not neutral.

That's logic. Exclusion of one party over another is not neutral.

neu·tral
/ˈn(y)o͞otrəl/
Adjective
Not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, esp. countries at war; impartial.
Noun
An impartial and uninvolved country or person.
Synonyms
neuter - indifferent - impartial

Notice how there's no mention that excluding (or accepting) one party and not another is "neutral". It's actually the exact OPPOSITE of neutral.


As regards guns, they take no proceeds from any side of the gun debate, not pro or anti as has been said here about a million times, and that makes them neutral as regards guns. What would you have them do that's reasonable that would convince you that they were neutral about guns? Or is being neutral the same as being anti to you?
Click to expand...

You are inserting intent in their words where there is none. There is NO MENTION of anti-gun companies. The Brady Bunch is not a "firearms company". That's just silly.

It's obvious what they should do. If they want to be neutral, they accept donations from gun companies AND anti-gun companies.

They don't exclude both. They don't accept both. Either of those choices would be neutral. Excluding one without the other is the exact OPPOSITE of neutral.

I have nothing more to say on the matter. There's no winning an argument about neutrality when the plain sense definition of the word is in question.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top