Wounded Warriors and organizational hypocrisy

By now, thanks to the wonders of the interwebs, everyone has heard about the Wounded Warrior Project's clumsy policy of ostracizing gun owners. More details have now emerged including the emails straight from the source of the controversy, pro-gun activist Tom Gresham:

From Tom Gresham via Citizens4Freedom
The Emails in Question

I find the following passage especially illustrative:

“While we appreciate the interest in having a WWP representative on your show on Veterans Day we are not able to participate in interviews or activities with media/organizations that are related to firearms,” said Ms. Coleman in her email.
That really rocked us because we knew of all the firearms-related activities used to raise money for WWP. I asked for clarification, and Coleman reconfirmed their position. That Sunday I talked about it on the air and sent out a tweet (@guntalk) with the information. Some doubted that I had reported it correctly, so we posted the entire email exchange on our Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/notes/gun-talk/wounded-warrior-project-email-exchange/10151354082553313
That lit the fuse, and hundreds (if not thousands) of gun rights supporters contacted WWP for clarification. The response was . . . a bit bland. Mostly it was along the lines of “We support the Second Amendment . . .,” but the WWP web site specifically called out the firearms industry as one it would not “co-brand” with. That is, it would not allow the use of its logo on guns (and it turns out, on knives, either.)

The other industries it won’t co-brand with? Alcohol and sex.

Coleman’s explanation that guns are used in suicides, and suicide is a big issue for returning vets, set off a firestorm of response. WWP quietly started making changes to its web site, removing mention of firearms, or changing it to “weapons.” Online firearms boards documented the changes, posting the before and after. The pressure mounted on WWP.

Things that one can deduce from this whole exchange:

• There are roughly 90 million legal gun owners in the US.  A sizeable majority of these shooters are vets, some of whom carry the scars of tough service.  Probably half of that number do not own guns for hunting or shooting trap/skeet AKA "sporting purpose."

• By the logic of their PR deparment, that 45 million, need not bother trying to befriend the WWP, because our filthy habit is enabling veterans suicide.

• While it is ok for the WWP to partner with, and solicit donations through the UFC (blood/violence), whose other major advertisers include the USMC (violence and PTSD) and Budweiser (drug abuse) and Harley Davidson (Hell's Angels), it is NOT ok for them to appear a show related to firearms ownership and related news (erm, responsible behavior?).

 I find it especially galling that an organization that draws so much revenue from donations from rifle and pistol clubs, firearms enthusiasts, and from firearms related activities such as shooting competitions and taking wounded vets hunting would essentially tell those same vets that they cant actually partner or be seen to condone their dirty habit of shooting sports, collection, or self defense.  I find myself reminded of the apple pie lady from Blazing Saddles... "We can totally take your money.  Of course, you'll have the good taste not to mention that I spoke to you," seems to be the order of the day.