Wounded Warrior Project - Anti-Gun?

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

You decide - here is an editorial written by Tom Gresham...

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/robert-farago/tom-gresham-dont-support-wounded-warrior-project/

 

There are enough other charities that help our wounded veterans, that I think I'll pass on the WWP.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Yep, read about this elsewhere and I'm disappointed in WWP.

 

I've competed in a bunch of events (Tough Mudder, Spartan Race, Crossfit) that had WWP as their primary beneficiary. Next year I'll have to decide whether to continue to participate in events that benefit WWP or not.

 

By the way, WWP scores on the low side for expenses as a % of revenues on the "charity meter": http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842. $320K salary for their exec. director seems excessive as well.

[ruger9 0]

Damn shame. Why can't charities just APPRECIATE THE MONEY WE GIVE and not turn political? The people it hurts in the end are the people they are trying to help. jackasses.

[LorenzoS 100]

I am very torn by this. I have two close friends who are veterans disabled in Iraq. WWP has really helped them in many ways.

[siderman 1,140]

Crap. I typically scan any charities before I give any substantial $ but did not so with WWP for obviuos reasons. Silly me.....I really HATE these insanely paid charity execs! Very conflicting emos now.

[liquidskin 3]

Curious what gunforhire's Anthony has to say about this. I remember one of his recent radio shows covered raising money for the WWP.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Parker 213]

Good post Bob. I didn't know this.

 

I was surprised to find that the WWP was listed as the #1 non-profit charity to work for in the U.S. last year -

http://www.prnewswir...-119267714.html

 

 

A lot of reading on the other front.

 

http://www.newjersey...ticle137583.htm

 

http://www.northjers...ded_heroes.html

 

http://www.pica.army...ICE10192012.pdf

 

http://huntershelpin.../Donations.html

[mikeyboyeee 66]

I donate every month and now have to re-evaluate that ;(

[MidwestPX 172]

They wouldn't accept Magpul products from me when I had an extra $570 in my charitable contributions account a couple years ago. Wrote off WWP after that.

[njpilot 671]

I donate every month and now have to re-evaluate that ;(

 

Same here.

[JimmyAGR 54]

Man that sucks. They were my favorite charity...

[bhunted 887]

Our HOG Group donates much to the WWP. We have fund raisers and more and while I can't control what my chapter does, I also know I don't have to be part of those events any more. I doubt this will deter our dealer rep and director as they may not be gun enthusiasts, but as bikers, I know most of us are not biased about these types of scenarios. And he's right, there are plenty of other orgs that support our vets besides the WWP. The WWP will not be on my list any longer. Blah!

[FisherDan 0]

I read the link. I am not so sure they are "anti gun" as they are "anti politics." Note they also refuse to co-brand with alcohol or sex-related items, either. As an alternative point of view, perhaps what they are doing is trying to be neutral in order to not offend anyone. After all, the NRA has its haters as well. If WWP came out as supportive of gun rights and appearing on firearm-related radio shows or events, that might alienate donors who have the opposite position that we do.

 

Just a thought...maybe their position is to avoid having a position (or even give someone the perception of a position), and thereby choose to avoid co-branding with items that somebody might find objectionable (sex, alcohol, and guns all tend to rile up somebody).

[Damjan 73]

I read the link. I am not so sure they are "anti gun" as they are "anti politics." Note they also refuse to co-brand with alcohol or sex-related items, either. As an alternative point of view, perhaps what they are doing is trying to be neutral in order to not offend anyone. After all, the NRA has its haters as well. If WWP came out as supportive of gun rights and appearing on firearm-related radio shows or events, that might alienate donors who have the opposite position that we do.

 

Just a thought...maybe their position is to avoid having a position (or even give someone the perception of a position), and thereby choose to avoid co-branding with items that somebody might find objectionable (sex, alcohol, and guns all tend to rile up somebody).

 

Their CEO did make an appearance on Gun Talk after declining , most probably due to the ramifications of his PR Director.

If his position was to avoid a position they could have said it before she sent the letter.

 

 

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=3467

 

You can listen to him here : http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2012-11-18-part-a

 

 

 

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Just a thought...maybe their position is to avoid having a position (or even give someone the perception of a position), and thereby choose to avoid co-branding with items that somebody might find objectionable (sex, alcohol, and guns all tend to rile up somebody).

 

Heaven forbid that someone be offended. I find it offensive that they equate guns with sex & booze. It would be interesting to know what percentage of their donations came from the firearms community. There is a special place in hell for fence sitters.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[JackDaWack 2,895]

When i purchased my bike it had a WWP sticker on the wind deflector. i don't feel bad that i took it off anymore...

 

To be honest, isnt this slap in the face to our troops? these guys go out and fight for our freedoms, and this particular organization feels that they are fighting for freedoms they don't support.

[O-gre 7]

I'm curious how this works. Did the CEO start this charity? If yes and he pays himself that kind of salary it is a bit absurd. I love making money and as much as I deserve I just see that more as a give and not a take.

[TanJovi 5]

That sucks. I just don't get the refusal to go on the show. Just because you go on the show doesn't mean a thing. Go on there and thank a community for their support and solicit more $$. I fail to see how going on the show would have hurt them, especially after taking money from shooting / hunting fund raisers.

 

I usually don't give to these mega-charities because of their inefficiencies and huge director pay.

 

Bang-for-buck you are almost always better off donating to a local charity. They run on nothing and help your community directly.

[KpdPipes 388]

I read the link. I am not so sure they are "anti gun" as they are "anti politics." Note they also refuse to co-brand with alcohol or sex-related items, either. As an alternative point of view, perhaps what they are doing is trying to be neutral in order to not offend anyone. After all, the NRA has its haters as well. If WWP came out as supportive of gun rights and appearing on firearm-related radio shows or events, that might alienate donors who have the opposite position that we do.

 

Just a thought...maybe their position is to avoid having a position (or even give someone the perception of a position), and thereby choose to avoid co-branding with items that somebody might find objectionable (sex, alcohol, and guns all tend to rile up somebody).

 

There are an awful lot of gun clubs that have donated money for and run matches in support of WWP

[Damjan 73]

I'm curious how this works. Did the CEO start this charity? If yes and he pays himself that kind of salary it is a bit absurd. I love making money and as much as I deserve I just see that more as a give and not a take.

 

The CEO didnt start the charity , this guy did

 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnnymelia

 

They do,have a lot of financial info online as well as teh pay of the current CEO and. Mr Melia s salary while CEO of the WWP

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Warrior_Project

 

Either way..........a charity like this will have to do some rethinking aftter this outing.

 

[Wojo 98]

Over on another SPECOPS website I belong to, this conversation became quite active and heated. The majority of the members felt their non-stance could be viewed in a negative 2A way, while a smaller minority viewed it differently neutral to somewhat negativly. There were many stories of them not taking donations from industry heavy hitters andfrom events / products who are pro-gun. Lots of money was lost that could've benefitted people.

 

The biggest bone of contention were the finacials. How they broke down and were allocated created a firestorm. For a charity, they aren't the worst, by any means. But, they can work a lot leaner to get more money down to people that needed. It seems that as they have grown, and revenue has increased, they aren't being as smart as they could be with thier fiduciary responsibilities. Let's hope these are short lived growing pains. Bottom line is that they have helped a lot of people and maybe this incident will make them regroup and retool the organization's organization chart and expenditures. Lots of people have them under the microscope now and they know it. The can change or disappear real fast. There are no shortages of good / better organizations out there supporting our veterans.