Be careful what you sign...

I got an email from the Fifty Caliber Institute today. It contained a call to action concerning a shooting facility being constructed in Nevada; apparantly some of the local folks weren't too happy with the idea of having a shooting range nearby. Just a typical sort of call-to-action to protect a shooting facility, right? I got some alarm bells when I saw the paragraph below...

We ask that all 50 caliber target shooters go to the website listed below and sign the petition that is online. Be very careful how you sign the petition, because it can be construed as a vote to close the range. Read the instructions attached below.

So I went to look at the petition itself. It's short, so I'll reproduce it here:

We the undersigned homeowners in Northwest Las Vegas object to the Clark County Shooting Park and were never informed of the shooting park prior to purchasing our homes. Our concerns include health issues and the long term effect from the accumulation of lead and lead dust from ammunition blowing into our yards, pools and the upper Las Vegas Wash, how disturbing firearms generating as much as 170 decibles of repetitive noise from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. will be, and the congestion from the projected 300,000 visitors per year this park will bring to our quiet rural community along with the potential for untoward incidents. We are also deeply concerned about the safety of the students at Shadow Ridge High School(4000 feet away)and the disruption of instruction that may be caused by the Shooting Park.

We feel this Shooting Park should be moved to a more suitable location far from residential dwellings and schools.

Without going into any of the actual issues, it's clear that this is a petition to stop the range, not protect it. Shooters are being encouraged by this email to sign the petition and leave positive comments about the range. Clicking on the signatures page shows over 300 signatures, almost all of the recent ones pro-gun based on the comments left. Great, right?

Wrong.

The only thing the petition organizers are going to do with this is ignore the comments and publish the total number of signatures on the petition.

Regardless of the comments left with the signature, each person signing can be (and undoubtedly WILL be) counted as opposing the shooting range. Because that's what the petition says, and they signed it. The comments left are irrelevant; what matters is how big the printed stacks of signatures are when shown to local officials, or whatever other acts of political theater are planned. I would be surprised if anyone bothers to read the comments at all.

As a result, I would be very surprised if this particular call to action generates anything positive for the shooting community. In fact, I would expect it to make matters worse. Be careful what you sign, folks, even if you get the word from a trusted source. They may have the best of intentions but still be making a tactical mistake.

Am I sure it's a mistake? No, of course not; I'm too far away from the issue. I did let the organization know about my concerns:

I haven't looked at this petition specifically [ed- I have since writing this email], but based on what you have said, I would be very surprised if the organizers are doing ANYTHING more than counting the total number of people signing -- with or without comments -- and reporting that as the total number of signatures on the petition. At most I would expect the organizers to troll through the posted comments looking for one or two they could use for publicity purposes.
I would urge you to carefully consider what people are "signing" when they leave comments, even positive ones, in light of how the organizers are likely to construe the results.

I got a response back that didn't reassure me much; not that the motives were questionable but there seemed to be a lot of room for a miscommunication or just not thinking through the appropriate response. Surely another petition could be set up that is explicitly positive, so that the signature counts for and against could be compared directly?

I wasn't going to post anything about it since I raised my concerns directly, but I saw the post on Keyboard and a .45 on the same alert, and figured maybe a little damage control was necessary.

UPDATE: David Codrea has his own post on the issue, and suggests keeping a printout of the positive comments. That could work. I still think it's a risky tactic, but I have been informed that the people involved are on top of the issue. IF YOU WANT TO SIGN THE PETITION AS A PRO-GUN VOICE YOU MUST LEAVE A COMMENT SUPPORTING THE RANGE.

Posted on 2008-03-13 00:41:59.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7266

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.