Hypothetical Outreach - Firearms For Those Who Volunteer

[MagnumDweeb]

Ok so if you've been on THR lately I've been beating my Trust idea to death like it was dead horse I just expected to get up and giddyup. One of the things I've decided should be a part of the Trust should be a part for public outreach.

One of the setups for public outreach would be giving guns to folks who: could pass a background check, took an NRA safety class in each type of firearm (pistol, shotguns, rifle)(the classes would be paid for by the outreach once the volunteer hours were done), and volunteered one hundred and twenty hours of their time within a year. The purchase would be done by the recipient at an FFL with the outreach operator giving the money to the FFL ahead of time like it was for a store gift card more or less. With a certain amount of money for the actual firearms (I'm thinking one rifle or shotgun and one pistol), then a certain amount for factory ammo, then a certain amount for reloading. Also firearm locks would have to be included as well for public image sake.

The person would have to make less than $30,000 for a year and have a history of volunteer work in their community for at least three years. What other criteria that would be good I can't think of without possibly creating overly onerous barriers.

I figure at least $2,000 to really make a big difference in someone's life. The issue though is it would only be done in California at first. I keep contemplating the idea of what types of firearms should the outreach program being helping otherwise poor but law abiding people get.

Mind you I'm thinking of this in California and the broader public image. In my gut I think AR-15s would be a no, especially not AK variants, as it would just give antis all kinds of ammo to hit the outreach with. But Mini-14s and other similar hunting type semi-auto rifles, lever action rifles, and bolt-action rifles would make it hard for the antis to really have any outcry with the public. Oh I'm sure there would be outcry of some sort but the idea would be to also reach out to those standing in the middle.

If we are providing people with a means to have a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun (that also happens to double as a decent HD gun), and a simple California approved handgun, then the outcry could really only be so great then. The issue would then be, should the outreach also cover the expense of the hunting classes and first year or three of permits/licenses for hunting.

Then throw in the fact that the recipient would be having to donate their time first at old folk homes, suicide prevention hotlines, soup kitchens, animal rehabilitation rescues and sanctuaries. The outreach could appear as the good guys to the public. So no AK or AR rifles, a simple handgun from the California approved roster with a capacity of no more than ten rounds.

But then I'm bothered by the idea of backing off ARs (AKs I'm throwing under the bus for the outreach, sorry), because of the antis. Would it alienate more prospective members of the outreach then invite? Would it be something that would raise the ire of the pro-RKBA community to a point where it would be a bad idea? Then there is the whole "what if" someone other than the recipient or maybe the recipient themselves then used the firearm to go on a rampage. It's highly unlikely but something I think has to be kept in mind.

Taking what I have typed out, tell me your opinions, suggest additional ideas if you have them, etc..

 

[torqem]

uh, minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 120 hours is a lot of money for a gun, for the sort of people who can't buy their own. $900. I'm fairly certain that they'd rather have a
$300 gun, $100 worth (at most) of ammo, and $500 worth of alchohol, tobacco, and junk food.

 

[silicosys4]

I think its a noble thought, but I'm not into subsidies programs. I would rather see them purchase their own firearms after being helped to find a JOB. If someone has the means, the time, and the physical ability to volunteer, they can work, join the economy, earn their own wages, pay taxes, decide what gun they want, save for it, and purchase it themselves. All without costing anything to people who already HAVE jobs. Personally, it would be a slap in the face to watch a volunteer that I subsidized specifically for pro-2a purposes, use their time in a soup kitchen, or on a suicide hotline, neither of which is pro-2a, and in the case of the hotline, is pretty much guaranteed to be Anti. Send them out on specifically pro-2a tasks, for petes sake. If I'm going to donate money for pro-2a purposes, I want it to go directly to that cause.

With a few exceptions such as the elderly or physically disabled, It makes more sense to me to spend your efforts in helping to create work for those people, convincing them that they want to work, or in convincing people that they WANT to spend a portion of their hard earned wages on a firearm. I wouldn't feel right about just giving a firearm to a person who could fulfill all your requirements and still wasn't gainfully employed or too busy trying to find work to do the things you'd ask. At that point they don't need a gun, they need a job.

The old "teach a man to fish" vs. "give a man a fish" thing.

Background checks? Mandatory locks? Mandatory safety training? Doesn't seem like you are really trying to empower anyone here, but rather, reassure the anti's that you are screening those grubby, unwashed poor.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Silicosys4, ok I hear where you are coming from. So what if we made it a point that the person also had to have a full-time job in order to participate?

My thinking is that not just anyone should be allowed to apply for the program. You want folks with a credible history of volunteering in their communities for a few years otherwise you'll face criticism of just giving guns away.

Let me take from a personal experience and work it up. I have a friend who is a single mom. She works full-time and makes $12 an hour, and gets virtually no help in child support (50/50 time-sharing and the father makes the same as her).

The idea would then be for her to spend a few years helping out every other weekend (when she don't have the child for time-sharing) at the local soup kitchen, animal rescue, suicide helpline, etc. etc. So after she does a few years of that she then applies for the program showing she has a history of doing at least 120 hours a year. A total of 480 charity hours if you think about it.

She's fully employed but doesn't make enough to easily move into gun ownership. Expense for her is definently a barrier. So that's where in part the hunting classes might come in. Now she is able to hunt for her food possibly as well.

Not only that but now you have someone who is potentially a lifelong member and supporter of the RKBA movement, and possibly the RKBA Trust as well. All because you removed the barrier to entry.

Part of the reason I like the idea of the program is that gun ownership is starting to become a hobby of the middle class with fewer and fewer people participating from the lower class, that could potentially mean more and more votes for anti-gun politicians.

Also the program would be a good way of getting publicity here and there, I believe.

I agree with your points but still feel the need for the program. Perhaps funding for the outreach program should be limited by direct contributions from members who wish to have the program be done, and leave the rest of the money for activism in sheriffs, mayoral, state legislator, federal legislator, and RKBA lawsuits.

 

[silicosys4]

I was raised with the mindset that if you really want to empower somebody and change their life, you don't just give them things. You give them the ability to work and earn their own things.

I still think you are taking valuable time away from other things such as school, training, etc....things that will actually help a person move up in life.
Your requirements are onerous for a person in a situation such as you are describing.
You are only really going to help them by providing them a means to earn their own higher wages, not by requiring them to do things that takes large chunks of their personal time, and hence take away from their ability to better themselves. A person who has NO MONEY should not have time to VOLUNTEER unless they are disabled. If they do, I do not feel it is a productive use of my personal income to subsidize any of their activities.

A better message to me would be: "if you work hard, you can buy the thins you want. Guns should be one of the things you want. Here is a way that you can work harder and earn more." If providing someone with the means to better themselves doesn't stimulate the desired response, to spend more money and time convincing someone is counterproductive.

Your idea is not good for the person you are trying to help. It only looks good from the outside as publicity for 2a rights. The money would better serve 2a rights being spent on other things.
Your communities' economy would be better served by spending the money on other things within the community.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Your target audience seems to be single moms in California working full time to earn $25K to barely make ends meet who want to spend their kid-free weekends volunteering for 3 years (360 hours) to get $2,000 of gun and hunting stuff to take up a hobby that they can't afford to sustain while they work off another 120 hours of volunteer hours at the equivalent of $4.16/hour of in hopes they will become single issue voters.

That totally seems like a workable plan.

 

[silicosys4]

^^ this.
Three years later if you still can't afford a gun, not owning one should be the least of your issues. BTW, its not "volunteer" work if you are being paid for it, even if its three years later and the wages are really low. You are just paying really poor wages and making people wait a long time for their pay.

 

[Davek1977]

gotta agree with Jorg on this one.....seems completely unreasonable on many levels

 

[MagnumDweeb]

So that idea dies. I figured that was the likely fate but I liked the idea too much just to let it die without some corroboration. The problem is, is that we need poor voters who are ordinarily picked up by antis to start moving in our direction.

I'll admit the idea is mostly a publicity move as the pro-RKBA movement needs all the positive publicity it can get. And helping poor people find entry to firearms and firearm related hobbies, especially if it relates to hunting and providing a healthier form of food for one's self, would just be a good thing all around for the RKBA community. I've seen posts about how we are losing a generation of hunters almost, I thought this was one idea/way of dealing with that and promoting pro-RKBA ideals.

It sounds like though that would just lead a lot of people to just turning off. The idea doesn't have to be totally workable, it just has to get good publicity. I don't think it would empower hundreds of people but if it got the word out that gun owners were supporting volunteer efforts to help communities and such, it would ultimately be a good thing.

Oh well, in the dust bin it does go.

 

[AlexanderA]

The $30,000 income limit kills the idea. A person making that much has more important worries than getting a free gun by volunteering many hours of his precious free time.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

The $30,000 income limit kills the idea. A person making that much has more important worries than getting a free gun by volunteering many hours of his precious free time.

I totally understand that. That is why only the most dedicated would get a chance at getting awards from the outreach program. It's mostly a publicity thing that would make the pro-RKBA movement look good. Because honestly by the time you add up 480 hours and then work a minimum wage job, it's far more than $2,000.

Then you have to consider who is really going to have the time to do such a thing. It would mostly be college students (who potentially already get a benefit from the charity work for other purposes), single mothers with iffy schedules (can't get a second job, can't commit to a set schedule to volunteer), and retirees.

So it might not work to do anything other than provide good publicity, but the concern would be if it turned pro-RKBA members off by having such an outreach program in place.

 

[medalguy]

I know a couple of folks making right around the $30K figure and I can tell you they don't have time to do volunteer work or anything else. They are scraping up whatever funds they can to provide food, gas, and other necessities.

One friend just filled up her propane tank to hopefully last the rest of the winter. Cost $988. We helped her with the cost, otherwise she would have not been able to buy enough to last the winter.

 

[danez71]

Dweeb,

I like the idea but not the details for a lot of the same reason already mentioned.

I'm not suggesting this idea as I haven't thought it though.

I'm thinking more along the lines of single moms that are victims of domestic violence that have left their abuser for good (is living on their own or with friends/family) and is verifiable with friends/family.

No volunteer time. Send her AND the kid(s) through NRA safety courses/Eddie Eagle program that INCLUDE alternate means of SD such taser/pepperspray etc. Range time/Pepper time/Taser time.

Something along those lines. Teach her how to defend herself and also plant the seed with the next generation being her kid(s).

 

[barnbwt]

More effective outreach would be a gun range amassing an assortment of weapons for rental, then having a "free range night" or some such explicitly reserved for non-members that supplies guns, a nominal amount of ammo, and good safety demo/seminar beforehand. Dedicate one RO to running the group of freebie shooters so they aren't left to their own devices. Add to that even a modest attempt to get the word out among desired groups in the area (women, minorities, low income folks, people in hoity-toity neighborhoods the anti's hail from, etc.), and allow their curiosity to prey upon their cheapskate-ness . Either make a note of names, or simply try to remember faces to prevent cheap SOBs from gaming the system by taking repeat freebies --or don't, either way they're still embracing the hobby and will lose their hatred of guns and gun owners. "First taste is always free"

Fifty bucks a week toward this end would probably get several people through a magazine, and that's assuming they don't purchase any additional ammo or ever show up again. If the local NRA or whatever chapter chipped in some more, it could go even farther. This concept would obviously make the most sense for indoor ranges in or near urban areas with substantial population density, so the freebies could reach as many different folks as possible in the immediate area.

At the very least, a way for a range to build goodwill in the city so it won't be zoned out of existence at the next city council meeting by anti's.

TCB

 

[danez71]

^^^^^^ Good idea.

Free Fire Arms Safety class with NRA Eddie Eagle program for the kids and then.... some additional safety instructions and range time for the adults and/or kids if they choose.

The Eddie Eagle program is very gun neutral. Mostly "Don't touch. Tell an Adult".

IMO, teaching kids the basics about guns is as important as teaching them to swim. There are more guns in America than pools.

 

[TJ AK-74]

How about just buying few cheap revolvers or shotguns and find people locally that might need a gun but not have the time/money/knowledge /whatever needed to acquire a gun? Give them some training, take them to a range, and sell cheaply/let them borrow/give them the gun when you and they are comfortable in their ability to use it to defend themselves. No need for any programs and would be more of a personal connection. We don't need "programs" for everything... Individuals can make decisions for how they want to hand out their own funds on a case-by-case basis, which is much simpler than having a few people administrate a program that nobody agrees on.

 

[mbt2001]

+1 Jorg

Why don't we stop mobbing women at the firing range... I have a feeling that would be a fantastic start.

 

[Field Tester]

How about a raffle ticket type situation?
Set number of tickets for any price range $5 - $20 and tickets from 100 to 1,000 depending on the cost of the firearms.

Then give the proceeds to Women On Target, Boy Scouts etc...

I don't make much, in fact I was just laid off. But when I was working I still volunteered my time with the Boy Scouts, worked every Women On Target event and Wounded Patriot Project. I'm not too sure how many hours, but 150 a year seems excessive.

At least this way the funds go to a good cause, you make more money than the firearms are worth and some lucky person gets a new to them firearm on the cheap.

Also don't count out Domestic Violence shelters. My club has an excellent relationship with a local one and we hold a memorial shoot every year for a club member who lost her life to DV. The proceeds go to the shelter to help battered women and children.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Been there, done that...
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rep4/guns-for-the-poor.html