Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE for short) is a nonprofit Wisconsin group that claims to be about reducing violence in our society, specifically "Dedicated to Preventing Gun Violence". In addition, they claim to be a grassroots organization and their mission is creating a safe state and working to stop preventable deaths. They have a website as well as a Facebook page to help their organization reach out to people. I'd like to show you more about this organization, as what's on the surface is misleading.
To start, what is a grassroots movement? It's defined as a natural and spontaneous organization that forms from the politics of a community. WAVE is funded primarily by the Joyce Foundation, a well known anti-gun group. The Joyce Foundation is not listed as a nonprofit, but WAVE is. What's interesting about that, is that there are restrictions on the amount of political activity a non-profit group can do. The IRS site states:
"... it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."
However, WAVE is very politically active. Jeri Bonavia, the executive director of WAVE, is often found in politics, pushing gun control on behalf of her and the WAVE organization. For just a few of many examples, see here, here and here.
Notice the recurring theme? It's always somehow related to gun control. In addition, WAVE itself is a registered lobbying group in the state of Wisconsin. And all of their lobbying has to do with gun control, lobbying on 4 separate bills in the last legislative year. In addition, their facebook page often has politically active posts with topics arguing for more gun control, pushing people to contact legislators about gun control, and even advocating against politicians who don't follow their gun control agenda. They pushed for their facebook fans to vote for Barrett in the recall election. For a nonprofit organization who claims to be about stopping violence, they sure participate in a lot of political activism. And none of their activism actually does anything to reduce violence. There are many variables that determine violent crime rates, and very little (if any) of those variables have to do with gun control. Put more simply, there is no evidence gun control reduces violent crime rates. For every study you hear that argues otherwise, it is generally easily debunked.
In fact, let's look at a few of WAVE's claims. First is the claim from WAVE that:
"People are five to seven times more likely to be murdered in workplaces that allow firearms than in those that prohibit it."
Politifact rated it half true, but that's because politifact didn't go far enough. The information actually comes from the Brady Campaign. The study itself took place from 1994 through 1998. However, North Carolina didn't even implement CCW until 1995, so almost 2 years worth of the study is flawed in that no employers even allowed CCW since it wasn't legal. In addition, they cherry picked the area to obtain their data. And for a very thorough debunking, see this article here.
How about a few more WAVE claims? On their site, they urge their members to present these cards to businesses who do not post no weapons allowed signs. The cards make 3 claims, one of which was already debunked above. So, let's take a closer look at the other two. The first claim:
"By a huge 3 to 1 margin, state residents say they will feel less safe, not safer, in public places that allow guns."
The card offers no citation, but it appears the poll was conducted by WAVE. Looking at their methodology, the "random" voters were selected primarily from heavily democratic areas. And that's not surprising, considering the poll was provided by an apparently left-leaning "Third Eye Strategies". It's not surprising most of their political clients are liberal or democratic groups.
As for the second claim on the WAVE card:
"Nationwide, 80% of businesses prohibit guns on the premises."
This also has no citation, and with all of my searching I have been unable to find one. When asked for a source, WAVE never responded to my inquiry. Upon researching this myself, I was unable to even find such a study, and it appears no one has even collected this kind of data. According to another article, there are estimates on this number that don't even go near 30% much less 80%, and in reality it's more likely 15%.
WAVE is nothing more than a gun control political front, and is run by anti-gun Jeri Bonavia, who makes about $98,000 a year just in salary (doesn't include benefits) as the director, according to WAVE's 2010 990 form. And sadly, their actions do nothing to actually reduce violence. There is even an "anti WAVE" page on facebook whose goal is to expose the truth about WAVE's agenda, and debunk the lies. In my opinion, based upon the amount of political activity they do, there should be some scrutiny by the IRS about their non-profit status. The lesson here is that far too often in politics today, good intentions are used as a ruse for a political agenda. And WAVE is no exception.
******************* Yeah I do but I'm not the person you need to be concerned about. You need to be concerned about those who look beyond hunters and people who legitimately carry because they travel into dangerous parts to those they can classify as "gun nuts" and use that to promote the kind of changes you wouldn't find acceptable. Within that "gun nut" category is going to be that group of people who make claims about stockpiling weaponry in the event of some sort of disaster, man-made or natural, with the belief that they're going to be holding off the hordes bent on taking what they have. What you've got to understand is that the vast majority of people don't live like that, don't believe it's necessary (or think doing so is pointless) and, frankly, believe survivalists to be significant distance of the center mark. Those are the people you need to convince that the current gun laws are reasonable. You're not going to do that by highlighting what makes you different. You have to appeal to what you have in common with them. The majority of folks are going to be more able to relate to hunting and self-protection in crime ridden areas than they are doomsday scenarios. Don't be your own worst enemy.
You seem to believe that criminals follow laws. You may think it's idiotic and unacceptable, but that is the reality. " Whatever mythical use guns may have served in warding off crime has been far outweighed by their miss-use." 100% incorrect. The statistics are the exact opposite.
What an interesting and quit misinformed view of the constitution you have...
"{HOLY CRAP}" ... Hints to some deep seated “BELIEFS”. Are you sure you want to go there? I, will await your desires. Asked Ma if she wants an assault rifle for X-Mass. She declined. Says her trusty old Colt is all she requires. Thank You very much…
Thank you for those intelligent elegant words to GREG. Oh did you get to pick up all that trash last night?
Does it include in its perimeters the atrocities of war, gang violence, organized crime, accidentals, deliberate, and so on and so on. Luke: Getting back to you. Had to go back into my library to find the book that would introduce you to the world as it used to be through the salvation of ancient manuscripts. One that condenses and highlights some of our early forefathers thoughts. From early Greek through Romans and a variety of cultures’ along the way to our present scenario. Note as violent as that may be ascertained, the final analyst one comes to the progress towards a productive free liberal evolution. Do not be afraid of the word “Liberal” as many with opinionated news tabloids suggest it is a bad word. After all you promote the “Liberalism” of gun control. Let me see where did I put that book? Ahh yes here it is. {“ THE SWERVE”} by Stephen Greenblatt. That should keep you entertained for a few hours. Get through Amazon for a good discount.. Then let your Pa read it and see if stirs up some memories for him…
What an opinionated cop out. Little wonder, when he has exposed his inability to face facts when they are produced. Example; He claims to have been with many returning vets. Discovers their revulsion for guns. This he discounts as IRRELEVANT??? When called out to produce his sources he at best sends you to a site that has no relation to what was asked for. Accuses an organization of “Possible IRS complications and provides sites that do not support those accusations. Rants on about they being a Charity/ Corporation. LOL either or they have a right to a political OPINION and investment. Fails to remember Supreme Court riling of Jan. 2010 that makes corporations equivalent to a “ person” entitled to the same rights for donations and OPINIONS. Charities were also exempt from restrictions to funding political candidates’ as they have been. That is one of the avenues that republicans use to fund their super pacs! Well its been fun having you here. Enjoy your self imposed retreat into exile from this issue even if it is for false rational. Here is something for you to entertain yourself with while in Exile. Its on Media control. http://youtu.be/KYlyb1Bx9Ic MITT has left the podium.
Brian Carlson also commented on Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE) — It's About Politics, Not Violence. "Does the lack of gun control "work?" What does "work" mean Matt?"
I don't believe in futuristic chaos any more than I believe my house and your house will burn down on the same day. Btw, I have insurance, and I hope you do too.
Let us hope that Yellowstone’s super volcano does not fulfill your analogy of the future. SPACE THE FINAL FRONTIER !
You can take your Harry Reid inspired attack about me not paying taxes and shove it. You have no idea how much I pay in taxes. As to my last comment, it just proves how f'n stupid you are. You keep saying the same thing over and over and the only conclusion that can be had, is that you do not own a gun, so you are just a dick-less wonder.
I consider that one factor that would help suppress violent out burst would be to have increased care facilities for the mentally handicap. Another would be to regulate the Gun shops to a cap for sales of weapons and ammunition that is in proportion to their immediate locality markets. Restrict weapons to non military weapons available for sale to the citizens of that community. Exceptions for professional organizations could file for an application to purchase with the oversight of the Tobacco and Arms division. Audits at random and or when flagged. Gun Shops are to be the only available means of obtain a legal weapon. Foreign weapons would be subject to license and conforming to the restricted codes applying to Gun shop sales to the public. ALL Gun shops to access a private Network web. Every sale to be reported within the hour to the web site. Tobacco and Arms to monitor. Rough draft but I like it.
My plan for ammunition would be to regulate all handgun ammunition except for .22 shorts and longs. Ammunition for long guns such as .556 x 45mm and 7.62 x 39 mm would be regulated. Ammunition for handguns and certain long guns would be rationed and their would be a cartridge case exchange program where you could only buy as many rounds as the number of cartridge cases that are turned in. I would also place a high tax on this ammunition. Instead of allowing gun shops to sell the regulated ammunition, it would have to be purchased from government owned and operated distribution centers and point of sale facilities. Penalties for the illegal purchase and sale of regulated ammunition would be a federal crime with severe penalties. In my world we would replace drug dealers with ammunition dealers in the prisons.
I note that Mr. Ruble's comment was directed specifically at another poster who has been launching more than a few stinkers of his own. Your namecalling ("morons") was directed at everyone who doesn't agree with you. Also, in the interests of objectivity, Mr. Ruble displays a formidable intellect and knowledge/experience base. You display, in nearly every viewable instance, unsourced opinions and/or negative reactive comments. You have every right to present yourself as you choose, of course.
Posed question my rear-end! It was a rhetorical question meant to postulate an anti-conservative conspiracy theory and you know it! All one needs to do is read your post, as it is quite apparent from the overall context. By the way - "...yet another example of an antisocial extremist in the grip of political rhetoric taking action (domestic terrorism)." Could you please provide some examples from the last 100 years of US history where major party "political rhetoric" caused an "antisocial extremist" to "tak[e] action (domestic terrorism)" and what exactly the rhetoric was that set the extremist(s) off?
Nope, Hoffa didn't need to be at the trial to tell you that there is NO way in hell that a prosecutor wouldn't have prosecuted a felony-murder charge against the suspected robber in your story. Which makes the credibility of your story highly suspicious. It makes one wonder if this story wasn't just made up in an attempt to humanize a partisan political/ideological position. Do the ends justify the means Bren? What exactly is an "unsourced opinion?" Are you saying that one's opinion is not valid unless it derives from someone else, preferably someone who "displays a formidable intellect and knowledge/experience base?" You really are against individuality, aren't you?
You are wrong, as usual. The first responding officer was giving medical attention to victims when the shooter snuck up on him and shot him. Being an experienced tactical guy, Murphy could easily have shot Page if it was a simple one-on-one. But Murphy was more concerned with helping the wounded than with his own safety, and that is how Page was able to sneak up on him and shoot him, not because Page was some superman crazed gunman. Concealed carry saves lives every day in this country, and it could have saved lives at that Sikh temple if they had been carrying. Why are you so terrified of these inanimate objects that you have to demonize them, rather than the people who commit these acts? Liberalism truly is a mental disorder...