How Much More Fucking Useless Can The NRA Get?

So following up on my anti-NRA screed from last week, here's another illustrative example to shore up what I was getting at.

Police in Arizona responded to a noise complaint back in May, then shot and killed the apartment owner who opened the door with a gun. There's body-cam footage.

Ryan Whitaker had heard a stranger knock on his Ahwatukee apartment door in the middle of the night earlier in May. So when he heard a similar knock on a Thursday after 10 p.m. later that same week, he answered the door holding his 9 mm gun. [...]

Moments later, Ferragamo knocks on the door, identifying himself as Phoenix police. The officers stand to either side of the door, making it impossible for anyone looking out of the peephole to see who was there. 

Whitaker opens the door, with the gun in hand and rapidly takes a couple of steps out of the apartment as Ferragamo flashes a light in his face. Ferragamo greets Whitaker and then repeatedly yells, "Hands," according to the footage.

Whitaker is seen in the video starting to get on his knees, putting his left hand up and putting the gun behind his back when Cooke fires into Whitaker's back.

I carry a gun, and the biggest threat that I can identify that is a result of me carrying a gun is definitely getting killed by law enforcement. What I'm focusing on specifically is the marginal increase from deciding to carry a gun. If I get robbed at gunpoint, I do, in some ways, raise the chance that I will get shot if I decide to draw a weapon instead of just comply. But the chance of getting robbed or otherwise being a victim where your own firearm possession turns into a liability seems limited. What seems more likely is that you will encounter law enforcement, either as a bystander, or as the focal point.

I want to be clear on this though, the overall chance that this will happen is extremely low, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic about the risk of homicide by police. But, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the primary risk of carrying a firearm is that your chances of getting killed by police increase. See for example, the Illinois security guard who stopped a shooting and then got shot himself by police. See also, of course, the case of Breonna Taylor where the fact that her boyfriend thought he was defending himself against home intruders almost undoubtedly got Taylor killed.

So we have what I think is a very real risk of choosing to exercise your second amendment rights. You risk getting yourself or others killed by police. This seems to be 100% within the wheelhouse of the NRA. Their members, as a result of choosing to carry a firearm as encouraged by the NRA, are burdening a liability as a result of actions by the State. It's not clear what the NRA is doing to address this issue because the first step would be acknowledging it as a problem, and that's not going to sit well with its membership which has a significant LEO portion.

I'm not the first one to notice this. Radley Balko wrote about the dichotomy back in 2017 between catering to police and advocating for gun rights:

But while the NRA has occasionally spoken out over the years about federal abuses, the group has always been reluctant to criticize local police. As has now been well documented — first by the work of criminologist Peter Kraska, and later by surveys from groups like the ACLU — we’ve seen a massive rise in the use of “dynamic entry” tactics, in which cops break into houses, often at night, in an effort to take the occupants by surprise: whether by the ever-growing number of SWAT teams, or by narcotics units, gang units, drug task forces and other specialized units. Most of these raids are to serve drug warrants, although they’ve been justified for an ever-growing list of infractions, some incredibly petty. Drug warrants often rely on dirty information. Cops often face pressure to nab suspected drug dealers quickly or to seize a drug stash before it’s moved. That can make shortcuts tempting. This is where we get the wrong-house raids that are particularly dangerous for gun owners. These raids are designed to distract, confuse and disorient. So it’s of no surprise that when they go wrong, innocent people (or even people guilty of drug crimes, for that matter), might confuse the raiding cops for criminals.

To make matters worse, some police agencies consider legal gun ownership a reason to use these tactics. We covered one such incident here at The Watch. In 2014, police in Iowa conducted a violent dynamic-entry raid on a man suspected of credit card fraud. Their justification for the heavy-handed tactics? The suspect’s roommate had a legal gun permit. Imagine if the roommate — who had done nothing wrong — had been home. He likely would have reached for his gun. He might well be dead.

I wish I could use this opportunity to point to a gun rights organization that is actually worthwhile, but there’s nothing but disappointment elsewhere in this field. I used to have generally positive views of other gun rights organizations, such as Gun Owners of America. This was true, until I saw them submit an amicus brief in favor of the Muslim travel ban. What the fuck does a gun rights organization have anything to do with immigration policy? I'll let them explain it:

Each entity is dedicated, inter alia, to the correct construction, interpretation, and application of law. Their interest also includes protecting the our nation’s borders, enforcement of immigration laws, separation of powers, and related issues.

You see, the GOA just cares about interpreting and following the law properly. That's it. It just happens to interpret this in favor of Trump and against Muslim immigration. Nothing is safe from the culture war.