First Monday 2001
First Monday 2001:
Physicians for Irresponsible Socialism
by Ari Armstrong
Colorado Freedom Report
October 9, 2001
"There's no such thing as a Second Amendment right."
That's the opinion of Ted Pascoe, an organizer of this year's "First
Monday" anti-gun (civil disarmament) event. "First Monday,"
described as "a project of Physicians for Social Responsibility and
Alliance for Justice," was held October 1.
A child psychologist, a medical doctor, and Tom Mauser advocate disarmament
on First Monday, October 1.
For being so concerned with the alleged "deception" of the
"gun industry," Pascoe and crew weren't themselves overly concerned
about straying from the truth. For instance, Pascoe repeated the lie that has
been disproved time and again: "A gun in the home is far more likely to be
used in a crime than in self-defense."
The video Pascoe played was a little more specific: it claimed a gun is 22
times more likely to be fired in an assault or in a suicide than to be fired in
self-defense.(1) Of course, in about 98% of instances of self-defense, the gun
is not fired. Instead, the homeowner warns the criminal to leave, and the
criminal almost always does so.
In addition, the video counts suicides, which is wholly inappropriate as no
link has been found between suicide rates and rates of gun ownership.(2) All the
evidence gathered indicates those who want to commit suicide can and do easily
switch to other methods. For instance, in Japan the suicide rate is much higher
than it is in the United States, though in Japan drowning is a more popular
method. One of the speakers noted that "success" rates are higher in
America when a gun is used in suicide, but all this proves is that those who are
intent on killing themselves (as opposed to crying out for help) turn to a
method they know will do the job. Suicide is a great tragedy that should be
addressed, but it should not be used as a propaganda tool by the anti-gun lobby.
The video fails to address two other questions: what information are they
using to determine defensive gun uses, and how many of the homicides were
justifiable? Crime statistics are often based on arrest records, even if the
defendant was found innocent or justified in court.
The four speakers who added their comments to the video presentation said
part of the problem revolves around domestic violence. Again, this is a terrible
problem, but not one that justifies victim disarmament. How many shootings
involving domestic violence were actually cases of self-defense? Women like
Debra Collins used a gun to defend against violent men. (Of course, Debra didn't
"fire" her gun so she doesn't count as far as Ted Pascoe is
concerned.) And it's not as if a gun in the home turns men into violent
lunatics. Unfortunately, some violent men choose to hurt or kill their wives and
girlfriends with whatever tool is in their possession. The absence of a gun
would not usually lessen the violence against women, especially because men are
on average physically larger than women. The way to address the problem of
domestic violence is to put violent men in prison, help women escape dangerous
relationships, and let women defend themselves -- not disarm peaceful citizens.
The vast majority of gun owners are safe, responsible, peaceable citizens.
They make themselves and their families safer by having a defensive gun in the
home. They also make non-gun owners safer by helping to deter criminals. The
anti-gun lobby wrongly conflates normal gun owners with the small minorities of
criminals and suicidal persons, and it wrongly ignores nearly every case of
self-defense with a gun.
If we look at general crime rates, we find guns are used defensively more
often than they are used in the commission of a crime. Additional gun
restriction laws are likely to increase crime by rendering guns less useful for
self-defense. But a reasoned, balanced discussion of the facts was not the aim
of First Monday. The "22 times" claim was just one thread in the
dishonest propaganda presented by Pascoe's group.
The Smoking Gun?
One theme that ran through the anti-gun video was that guns should somehow be
compared to cigarettes. One of the speakers explicitly said that, just as
cigarettes are treated as a public health problem, so guns should be treated.
The video showed numerous tobacco executives testifying that cigarettes aren't
addictive. Therefore, so implied the video, the "gun industry" also
lies about its products. Photos of Joe Camel and other cigarette icons were
shown perhaps as frequently as were photos of guns.
Ted Pascoe and Bob Glass hold a spirited discussion following the First
Of course, "guilt by association" is listed as a logical fallacy in
textbooks. For example, David Kelley writes in The Art of Reasoning
(200), "Another situation in which people often commit the fallacy of the
undistributed middle is the attribution of guilt by association." Here, the
association seems to be, "Cigarette companies market their products, and
gun companies market their products, therefore gun companies must be as bad as
The association seems pretty silly, yet Tom Mauser, who both appeared in the
video and spoke at the Denver event, said, "You have to understand -- this
is an industry." What's more, it's an "unregulated
industry!" (Of course, Mauser never explained how requiring retailers to
get a license from the federal government and letting the BATF rummage through
retailers' records on demand doesn't count as "regulation.") The video
claimed gun advertising is "only a little different" than cigarette
advertising. Speaking live, Mauser said, "I really want to emphasize it --
we're talking about a gun industry -- they're selling weapons."
Apparently if gun makers don't give away their products, their motives are
What evidence did the "First Monday" video, or any of the speakers,
present that the "gun industry's" marketing is in any way deceptive?
No such evidence was presented.(3) In his opening remarks, Pascoe said groups
like the NRA "claim that guns make us safer." The NRA has referred to
a gun as "a woman's best friend." Colt likened a gun to a fire
extinguisher in that both are home safety devices. And Baretta referred to guns
as "homeowners' insurance."
To back up its claims that such marketing is false, all the First Monday
group could muster was a warmed-over Kellerman study that is itself flagrantly
deceptive. Pascoe and crew completely ignored the overwhelming evidence that
guns are used defensively more often than they are used in the commission of a
crime. They completely ignored John Lott's comprehensive survey of concealed
carry laws which show such laws reduce violent crime. They completely ignored
the many concrete cases of self-defense which have been reported (albeit usually
via alternative media outlets). They completely ignored the cross-county
analysis which indicates higher rates of gun ownership are associated with lower
The strategy of the First Monday group was obvious: demonize gun sellers and
the NRA. In his opening remarks, Ted Pascoe said groups like the NRA are
"reprehensible" and they spend "millions [of dollars] promoting
their agenda." Of course, groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews for
the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are never mentioned. The 80 million
American gun owners are never mentioned.
"This is about money," one speaker on the video claimed. It's
obvious that gun manufacturers sell guns for money. It's a more strained
argument but perhaps plausible to the target audience that the NRA is also
motivated by money (even though the NRA is funded by its membership, not gun
manufacturers). Apparently the argument is that any industry which attempts to
make money is inherently corrupt and must be "regulated" by the state.
So by demonizing the "gun industry," Pascoe and crew find it totally
unnecessary to ever explain just what's wrong with the gun industry today.
The Psychology of the Disarmament
A child psychologist who spoke at the event made the shocking and entirely
original suggestion that teenagers desire safety, acceptance among their peers,
and control over their lives. Surprise -- these are the very values offered by
gun manufacturers! In addition, guns are "powerful symbols" to
children! "Guns and kids should not be mixed," the psychologist
concluded. Apparently this implies the gun industry should be more heavily
(Of course, cars are also "powerful symbols" for minors, and car
manufacturers also tout the virtues of their cars in terms of safety, peer
acceptance, and control. And cars are involved in a lot more teen deaths than
The video described a study about the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program.
This program tells children that if they find a gun they are supposed to
"stop, don't touch, leave the area, and tell an adult." After a group
of young children watched an Eddie Eagle video and listened to a speaker talk
about the issue, the children were let loose in a playroom which contained
deactivated guns along with toys. The children often went for the guns first.
I have little doubt that the Eddie Eagle program so administered would not be
very effective, even considering the fact that the children were probably aware
on some level that the environment of the test was an artificial one. However,
the First Monday video completely ignores the fact that children whose parents
teach them responsible gun safety grow up to be very safe around guns and tend
to avoid crime. (Responsible, conscientious parents, whether they own guns or
not, tend to raise responsible, conscientious children.)
But why does the First Monday video even include a section about Eddie Eagle?
One person remarks, "The NRA, I don't think they care if it works." A
few moments later comes the quote, "This is about money." Aha! The NRA
consists of sinister, wicked people who care more about money than the lives of
children. Therefore, their positions on the issues are automatically false, and
obviously guns need to be "regulated" more heavily than they are
Disarmament "For the
After an introduction, the video began by informing us, "Guns kill over
30,000 people every year." Guns have "made America into a killing
field." The video specified domestic violence, "school violence,"
and "kids shooting each other." The clear implication was that gun
violence by and large is represented by such incidents as the shooting at the
Baptist Church in Texas.
That's pure deception.
Yes, America has a high rate of homicide relative to Japan and many European
nations. But the 30,000 figure must be presented with care.
First, justifiable self-defense shootings, including shootings by police
officers, shouldn't be counted. Next, guns don't cause domestic
violence; they are sometimes used in instances of domestic violence. If all the
guns were somehow magically whisked away, domestic violence would continue on
more or less the same trajectory. Further, suicides should not be included
because all the evidence shows those intent on killing themselves can and do
easily switch to other methods.
Finally, America has a high homicide rate because it has an incredibly high
rate of gang violence. It ought to (but doesn't) give the anti-gun lobby pause
to contemplate the statistics showing violent crime is much higher in large
cities -- where gun laws are most severe -- whereas violent crime is much lower
in rural areas where rates of gun ownership are high and gun laws are relatively
Pascoe took written questions from the audience, and to his credit he read
one of mine: "Professor Jeffrey Miron of Boston University found drug
prohibition increases the American homicide rate by 25% to 75%. If you want to
reduce violence, aren't you looking in the wrong place?"
One of the speakers, a doctor who says he discusses guns with his patients,
responded to my question, saying there are "multiple factors" behind
the crime rates. He said if you "take the guns away" there will be
"no gang gun violence."
Apparently, this is what passes for profundity among members of the anti-gun
lobby. If people don't have guns, they won't commit GUN violence! Of course, if
we reduce gun violence but leave over-all rates of violence unchanged, we
haven't really accomplished much. The doctor also neglected to explain how he
intends to take all the guns away from gang members, who are already experts at
manufacturing and distributing illegal items. If simply passing a law would
achieve the desired results, gangs wouldn't have any drugs, either. It's already
illegal for any felon or drug dealer to possess a gun, but those laws don't seem
to have deterred gang violence. Because prohibitions create violent black
markets, Miron wonders if gun prohibitions might actually increase rates of
violent crime in America.
The upshot of this discussion is that disarmament has nothing to do with
saving little kids from gun violence. Nearly all the "children" who
are "shooting each other" are older teenage gang members fighting over
turf or drugs. The reality is that accidental gun deaths have declining over the
last century to record lows today. By focusing on young children and innocent
suburbanites, the First Monday video presents a false picture of the victims of
gun violence, and it uses "the children" as a propaganda tool to
further its disarmament agenda. Obviously, it's a good thing to address problems
of American violence. But the First Monday crowd isn't going to help us do that
by lying about guns.
Back-Door Gun Bans
The anti-gun lobby knows it gets into trouble when it talks about out-right
gun bans. Yet it is attempting to push gun bans through the back door.
Bob Glass challenges Ted Pascoe to a public debate on the issue of civil
arms. Pascoe declined.
Pascoe said he wants to place guns under the regulatory power of the Treasury
Department. Of course, by this he meant the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, created in part to enforce taxes on guns. (Federal gun laws are based
on a tax scheme passed in 1934.) At an opportune pause in Pascoe's remarks, I
threw out, "Would the BATF 'control' guns with the same efficiency it
'controlled' the situation at Waco?"
Just what sort of additional powers does the anti-gun lobby want to grant to
the BATF? A document from the Violence Policy Center fills in some of the
details (Where'd They Get Their Guns? An Analysis of the Firearms Used in
High-Profile Shootings, 1963 to 2001).
Guns are virtually the last unregulated consumer product. Specific firearm
design characteristics -- concealability, high capacity, and large caliber,
among others -- make certain guns more prone to use in multiple shootings.
Today, the gun industry is virtually free of any government oversight
regarding the design, manufacture, and distribution of firearms. The result is
the ready availability of assault weapons; ultra-concealable, high-capacity,
high-caliber "pocket rockets;" and junk guns small and light enough
for six-year-olds to carry and fire. The Firearms Safety and Consumer
Protection Act (H.R. 671 and S. 330) would end the firearms industry's deadly
exemption from health and safety regulations. The bill would empower the
Department of the Treasury to set minimum safety and design standards, issue
recalls, and ban specific firearms in extreme cases when no other remedy is
In other words, the BATF may ban any gun it deems to be too large or too
small, and any semiautomatic gun with a capacity to be determined by the BATF.
What sort of "design standards" might the BATF concoct? What guns
might it "recall?" What methods will the BATF use to enforce its
Note that VPC defines all or nearly all semiautos as "assault
weapons." Of course, semiautos and small handguns are some of the most
effective tools for self-defense, particularly for women whose hands are smaller
Note also that nobody argues that today's guns are inherently dangerous; that
is, the guns are not unsafe to the responsible user. The explicit argument of
the anti-gun lobby is that guns should be banned if they are used for committing
crimes (regardless of whether they are effective for self-defense). But any type
of gun may be used in a crime (just as any type of car may be used in a crime),
so the logic of the position leads to comprehensive bans.
Tom Mauser explicitly said he wants a "registration system" for all
guns. The video claimed that "crime guns" consist of "assault [semiauto]
rifles" and "powerful handguns," including small handguns. Those
are the "favored guns of criminals." Of course, that category is so
broad it includes most guns. The grouping is illegitimate; no specific type of
gun is a "crime gun," and semiautomatic rifles are rarely used in
Pascoe couches his position in terms of "common-sense product
regulations," but skeptics will be concerned about giving the BATF with its
sordid history the power to ban and recall guns at whim.
The Experts Who Would Run Our Lives
F.A. von Hayek warned us of "fatal conceit."
Tom Mauser (speaking live at the event) said he wants to put "bullet
indicators" on "semiautomatic revolvers." This was not a mere
slip of the tongue, as he repeated the phrase several times. There is such a
thing as a "semiautomatic revolver," though I've never seen one
because they're exceedingly rare. (I can't imagine why anyone would want one.)
But clearly, Mauser has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to
Mauser also seems not to realize that "bullet indicators" are
incredibly unsafe on pistols. There's only one safe way to see if there's a
round in the chamber: that's to drop the magazine, pull the slide back and LOOK.
Always treat a firearm as though it's loaded! Never point it in an unsafe
direction! If Mauser would care to learn anything about firearms before he
deigns to write gun laws for America's 80 million gun owners, he would realize
"bullet indicators" are superfluous at best and downright dangerous at
worst. No person is safe who relies on such a device.
Mauser also wants more regulations concerning gun locks. Similar concerns
apply. If young children or irresponsible persons are around, no gun lock is
adequate. There's a reason why a popular joke is to ask children to take off
child-safety caps. Those who live in a home without children or other
irresponsible persons need no gun lock. Indeed, they are made less safe with
such a device, because their gun is made less useful for self-defense against
violent criminal attackers.
Gun safety has been increasing for decades. These gimmicks listed by Mauser
can only make guns less safe. But why is there this conflation of unintentional
gun deaths and homicides? Why does the anti-gun lobby talk about things like
"bullet indicators" in the same breath that it mentions empowering
"Treasury" to "regulate" guns? In short, it's subterfuge.
Things like "bullet indicators" sound great to the ignorant do-gooders
of the world. Statements like, "We want to let the BATF ban and recall any
gun at whim" go over less well.
Guns and September 11
In his opening remarks, Pascoe said there is a "pall over all of us
since September 11." He said our goal is that "all violence is
prevented." He referred to the fact that gun sales are up 30% in Colorado,
following a national trend. He said that fear leads to the power of the NRA.
The introduction to the video also referred to the "tragedy of September
11." The woman on the tape asked us to "use the pain and grief of
September 11 to energize our efforts against all violence." A nice
sentiment. But Mauser added (live) that it is "people living in fear"
that causes them to purchase guns. "Increased sales are going to go on for
a long time," he said.
It is surely true that Americans are more fearful than they were before last
month. However, it's a mistake to characterize the motive to buy a gun as some
sort of irrational paranoia. It's simple preparedness. Similarly, it's healthy
to stock up on groceries if you're expecting a hurricane.
The anti-gun lobby continually attempts to malign the motives of gun owners.
Gun owners don't care if children die, we are told. If people buy a gun, it's
not because they are being prudent, it's because they are "living in
Mauser referred to gun owners as "Rambo wannabes." Mauser referred
to the police officer who was "shot by two twins who liked guns."
Apparently the essential point is not that these were evil men, but that they
"liked guns." In the video, Mauser said he was "shocked by what I
saw at the gunshow" he went to. He saw people buying guns! Mauser saw one
"young man" looking at a gun, and he "couldn't help but think --
what did he have on his mind?" Apparently, Mauser can't conceive of a
person wanting to buy a gun (especially a "high-capacity" gun) for
self-defense or for target practice.
Mauser said armed citizens would have "few opportunities to shoot down
terrorists." True. People have few opportunities to use the fire
extinguisher or cash in on their life-insurance policy, but those are nice
things to have around. If a significant number of Americans carried a concealed
handgun (say, 5%), chances are very good that any attempted terrorist act would
meet with armed resistance.
Referring to September 11, Mauser said, "We're being terrorized by
guns." The doctor who spoke said America is suffering the equivalent of
"4.5 terrorist attacks yearly" in terms of gun violence.
Here again is the fallacy of guilt by association. "Some people are
killed by terrorism. Some people are killed by guns. Therefore, guns are similar
to terrorism." Of course, an armed citizenry is a demonstrated deterrent to
terrorism, as the Israelis know well. The First Monday speakers didn't care to
address the issue of whether they would have armed a passenger or pilot on the
hijacked flights, if it had been in their power to do so.
There is no doubt but that Tom Mauser suffered a horrible tragedy and he
deserves our sympathy. However, his political advocacy is simply off the mark.
Mauser was an anti-gun activist before Columbine for all the wrong reasons, and
he continues on that same path. Some comments he made at the meeting indicate
the problems with his perspective.
Mauser told us that his son "crouched under a table in the library"
of Columbine. "I heard the 911 tape" after the fact, he told us. He
listened as students were murdered "one by one by one. I heard the gunshot
that killed my son." We all feel sorrow and outrage about this horrific
crime, and Mauser's account saddened us all. He has truly gone through what no
father should ever have to suffer.
As I listened to his words, the words of an Israeli rang in my ears: in
Israel, the children are taught to either escape or attack en masse.
Tom Mauser was able to hear the entire 911 tape of his child being murdered.
What good did that 911 tape do? It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase,
"Dial 911 and die." Mauser heard the children being murdered "one
by one by one," and during that time nobody did anything to stop it!
Many Americans have learned to be always passive, to rely on the proper
authorities for protection. That strategy just doesn't work. Self-defense is a
moral imperative. Columbine could have been prevented at so many steps along the
way it makes a person sick. The police were informed about death threats before
the fact! At the time of violence, though, nothing but self-defense is
effective. And armed self-defense is the best recourse. The only gun
laws proven to reduce mass murders and crime generally are liberalized concealed
Pascoe claimed the United States suffers higher rates of violence than other
countries because of our lax gun laws and high gun ownership rates. "To say
there's not a connection is ludicrous," he said.
There's not a connection. What's ludicrous is that Pascoe doesn't bother to
back up any of his claims with serious evidence.
As David Friedman summarizes in the June 2001 Liberty Magazine,
The high U.S. murder rate is frequently attributed to the high rate of gun
ownership in the United States, relative to most comparable nations. One
problem with that explanation is that while it is true that there is a
significant correlation in international comparisons between gun ownership and
murder rates, that correlation is driven by a single observation -- the United
States. Regressions with the United States omitted show much weaker results,
despite the existence of other countries with relatively high gun ownership
rates -- and without anomalously high murder rates. A second problem is that
the behavior of murder rates over time, both in the United States and
elsewhere, does not seem to be closely linked to gun ownership or legal
restrictions thereof. That suggests that U.S. murder rates are due to
something other than gun ownership, and that the gun ownership rate is either
unrelated to the murder rate or a consequence of it.
Friedman agrees with Miron that drug prohibition increases the homicide rate
in the United States.
One of the speakers suggested we get serious about prosecuting straw
purchasers. (Could an NRA membership be next?) While current laws make a mess of
it, in principle it should be illegal to knowingly purchase a gun for somebody
who's going to use the gun to commit a crime. Doing so is akin to driving the
get-away car. If you know somebody is planning to commit a crime, you have a
responsibility to intervene and notify the authorities and/or the intended
victim. People who buy guns knowing they will be used for criminal purposes may
be held criminally or civilly accountable. This does not justify any
sort of registration or tracking scheme.
Mauser lamented the laws which forbid lawsuits against gun manufacturers
"for anything other than direct negligence." In other words, if
somebody commits a crime with a gun (or car), you can't sue the gun (or car)
manufacturer. That's a good thing. What's more, while libertarians are all for
holding negligent manufacturers civilly accountable, we certainly disapprove of
government-initiated law suits.
Mauser also stumbled into the issue of prior restraint. At one point, he
lamented the legal shortcoming that if "they're not in trouble with the law
[we] let them go." He was talking about people with "bad" guns. I
found Mauser's remarks disconcerting, to say the least. However, Mauser soon
backed off from his statement. He admitted we "can't arrest them just
because of that [possessing certain guns]." It's a relief to hear that
Mauser at least pays lip service to the presumption of innocence. Still, I think
Mauser's comments reflects a certain tension in his thinking. On one hand, he
wants to legally prohibit an entire range of peaceful activity; on the other
hand, he senses the problem of sending (armed) enforcers out to capture people
who haven't done anything wrong.
Incidentally, speaking of prior restraint, the video asked, "Who could
argue against" the Brady registration bill? The video suggested the NRA
argued against it, even though gun owners know too well the NRA actually helped
draft the Brady law and campaigned for its passage. Even anti-gun researchers
admit in JAMA that Brady has not reduced homicides. And John Lott has found that
Brady increases rape. The Brady law makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to
purchase a gun for self-defense -- sometimes by outright denying a purchase
illegitimately -- while it does nothing to deter criminals. And Brady has
already registered thousands upon thousands of peaceable gun owners with the
A Disarmament Activist Turns Violent
On at least two occasions in Colorado, an anti-gun activist has attacked a
civil arms activist. On the night of First Monday, a disarmament activist tried
to pick a fight with a TRT member.
This disarmament activist tried to pick a fight with a member of the TRT.
Inside the building the guy told Bob Glass that Glass was "in his
way." Glass bowed and extended his arm signaling the guy to proceed. The
guy told the TRT members present that they should leave because "nobody
cares about you people." He also said, "I can make your lives
miserable." When asked if he worked for the IRS or some other government
agency, he declined to comment further.
Outside the building, the guy exchanged verbal barbs with a couple TRT
members. The guy left the immediate area for a few minutes, then returned and
said, "I told you those were fighting words." He held his keys between
his fingers in a tight fist.
At that point, Bob Glass said to the man, "Let it go. It's not worth
it." Fortunately, other members of Pascoe's party were able to drag the guy
away before he could physically attack anybody.
Fortunately, everybody else was much more civil. After the formal
presentation, Glass stood up and formally challenged Pascoe to a public debate.
Pascoe declined. I held upbeat, positive conversations with several members of
the audience. Most people in the room were well-intentioned, even though many
gun foes hadn't looked deeply into the issue. I learned something interesting
about Ted Pascoe -- he had traveled to Africa in the Peace Corps and was hosting
a teacher he met there. The teacher was friendly and engaging. I had a really
fun time, actually. Yes, these issues are of grave importance. And I believe
that if civil arms advocates continue to approach the issue with passion and
intellectual honesty, others will see that disarmament is a counter-productive
(1) Bruce Tiemann, who reviewed this article, adds, "This is the
Kellerman study, which originally claimed 43 times. Even Kellerman retracted
the 43-to-1 claim, and replaced it with 22. Nevertheless, what you quote
misrepresents the statistic, which is accurately, 'a gun in the home is 22 times
more likely to KILL friend or family than KILL an unknown intruder.'" This
is an important distinction. Even when a gun is fired in self-defense, the
criminal rarely dies. So the sub-set of all defensive gun uses in which the gun
is fired is small, and the number of times the criminal is killed is even
smaller. In other words, Kellerman ignores virtually all instances of defensive
(2) Tiemann adds, "Actually, a 'study' of equal honesty to Kellerman's
is that suicide is 5 times more likely among new buyers of handguns... of course
this study did not attempt to correct for those people who specifically bought a
gun for this purpose.
(3) Tiemann adds, "It is important to mention here that the tobacco
industry lied about the health effects and addictiveness of tobacco products,
not only to Americans but before Congress, under oath. No similar deceit has
been perpetrated by the gun industry. If lying [is] bad and actionable, the
First Monday people need to be hauled into court."
(4) Tiemann relates, "It is important to note that the NRA receives
*100%* of its money from membership fees and donations. The NRA receives ZERO
[dollars] from 'the gun industry' -- all corporate contributions go to the
National Shooting Sports Association, a sporting-only and non-legislative
[organization] legally distinct from the NRA."
(5) Tiemann adds, "I don't know about this particular case, but there
are similar ones where kids were shown Eddie Eagle and then told to go into a
room with 'toys' and that they should 'play with the toys.' Lo and behold, real
guns were mixed in with the toys, and the children played with them. In other
words, these children were lied to about the contents of the room."