Barreling Down and Fully Loaded: The NRA

Today's underdog: Taking on the NRA

Taking on the NRA feels for many like taking on the "Big Brother" of George Orwell's 1984, a seemingly omnipotent power present in all aspects of life. Whenever opposition to the National Rifle Association, or its views, arises, that opposition is quickly suppressed, through flooding our airwaves and Congress's hallways with money and promises of support. Whether or not you agree with the NRA, and its goals, you can probably agree that as far as organizations and lobbyist groups go, the NRA is one of the strongest and most influential in the country. In this post, I will explore how today's underdog, someone taking on the NRA in favor of gun regulation, can succeed in his goals.

To start, what makes the NRA so strong? Business Insider takes this question on from a business perspective, explaining how the NRA is actually split into four main operating organizations, allowing different groups to concentrate on different goals: from recruiting members to promoting legislation to prosecuting legal cases. Furthermore, these divisions expand the NRA's reach; the organization is so powerful because it is involved in so many different aspects of society. According to the article, in 2010 the National Rifle Association of America, the central group of the four divisions, had over $200 million in revenue. And in the federal elections this year, the legislative group of the NRA (the NRA-ILA), spent $32 million. The NRA can persuade almost anyone to do what it wants because of the wide reach and high spending employed as a finger of its powerful hand.

So then, how does one take on such a powerful organization? For a politician, who has perhaps the greatest potential to take meaningful action, taking on the NRA is essentially political suicide. Or to flip that around, teaming up with the NRA essentially guarantees victory. For an individual, the resources to combat with that $200 million are often lacking. But while complete victory in taking on such a powerful organization may be impossible, a partial victory can be won.

This Washington Post article explores 12 facts about guns, 12 facts that counter what the NRA likes to think, and say. With these 12 facts in your arsenal, the NRA suddenly becomes human, and susceptible. One of those points involves a graphic that shows how all but 10 of US mass shootings in the last 30 years used illegal guns.

In other words, making more guns illegal could indeed decrease the number of mass shootings, since most of those shootings involve legally obtained guns, in stark contrast to the many claiming regulation would do little to curb the number of these shootings. Another point made by the article is that more guns do in fact lead to more homicides, a point once again counter to what some would argue, since it would suggest that decreasing the number of guns people own would indeed decrease violence.




And finally, another graphic shows how states with gun laws have less violence than states without gun laws. While this correlation does not have known causality, it suggests a relation many in the NRA would argue against, for it implies that regulation could actually make a difference. Why does knowing these facts help? Because these facts run against the prevailing philosophy of the NRA itself. With these facts available the underdog suddenly has an advantage, inconvenient truths to challenge the NRA's power.


But perhaps an even better approach to a fight with the NRA is focusing on what can be done with the least congressional support and what could be done that most agree on. The previously mentioned Washington Post article shows widespread support in America for background checks and banning guns for felons and the mentally ill. So why not start there?

Adopt the proposals most agree on, and save the argument for the more controversial issues. And this CNN article explores how Obama, should he choose to, could, without any need for Congressional support, direct the surgeon general to evaluate the health effects of gun ownership and direct the Senate to evaluate the gun industry to make suggestions on standards to be adopted for guns (as done in Massachusetts, along with a few other states). If Congress can't be persuaded, given the NRA's incredible influence, then perhaps Obama can be. And those two directives could lead to further support for gun regulation, the former with the potential to discredit claims of effective use for self-defense, and the latter to help create safer guns, such as ones that don't shoot when dropped and smart guns which only work for certain users. Such directives wouldn't require Congressional support, and thus, would require less from an underdog, while still creating the possibility for significant regulation down the road.

Taking on the NRA is extremely difficult. Its reach is extraordinary, its influence far-reaching. But for those who wish to take on the NRA, there are a few facts and steps that will help ensure at least partial victory. The question is whether this partial victory is enough, and if a complete victory will ever be possible. But at least, if you so choose, you could look down the barrel and give it a shot.