Follow this blog:
RSS

The NRA - a social media case study in action?

By | December 17, 2012, 8:10 PM PST

While it has chosen not to participate in the conversation, the NRA has been trending on Twitter for several days now

While it has chosen not to participate in the conversation, the NRA has been trending on Twitter for several days now

The ordinarily vociferous National Rifle Association has remained noticeably silent on social media in the wake of last Friday’s gun massacre at a school in the United States and other recent deadly shootings in Alabama and Las Vegas. Its behavior could be fueling its opposition, says a prominent social media analyst.

#NRA was a trending topic on Twitter for several days following the school shooting, as a nation mourned the deaths of children and teachers in the suburb of Newtown, Connecticut. Tweets responded to the tragedy with a fusion of anger, disbelief, and grief - much of which was directed squarely at the gun rights advocacy group.

“Social media is just that, it’s social. If the NRA was to make a statement, it would by default beget responses, which would in the spirit of social media, result in the need for ongoing dialogue. This is an incredibly charged conversation and the NRA believes that silence is the best response. This way of thinking however is outdated in a connected society. In social media, silence also speaks volumes,” said Brian Solis an author and principal analyst with Altimeter Group.

The NRA’s last tweets were touting a gun giveaway contest, permits for 1 million concealed weapons in Florida, and the number of Facebook Likes reaching 1.7 million, Solis noted. “What’s worse is that the NRA hid its Facebook Page to avoid the conversation as if doing so would silence anti-NRA sentiment.”

“In aggregate, by not responding and intentionally hiding its page on Facebook, the group is saying that they chose not to be part of the conversation, which in of itself is telling. This behavior only fuels its opponents rather than silencing them and conveys insensitivity to the friends and family of those who lost their lives to this tragic accident and to Americans in general. However, any statement is likely to be taking out of context at this point and the group likely weighed the short and long term outcomes of silence versus empathy. At some point however, the NRA will have to make a statement as its opposition is using social media to build a case against gun laws as they stand today,” he added.

Whether you are for, against, or indifferent toward the NRA - the silence of this powerful national organization speaks volumes and is an example of how much social media can influence the national dialog.

(image credit: David Worthington)

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of his employers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
180
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+15 Votes
+ -
NRA Silence
Or perhaps unlike every other media machine, the NRA realizes now is NOT the time to be engaging in politics. Too bad the gun grabbers aren't as considerate of the families pain. There's plenty of time in the coming year to debate the wisdom or effectiveness of gun "control".
Posted by kb2504@...
18th Dec
+19 Votes
+ -
Precisely
Overreaction and snap decisions regarding 'safety concerns' is what got us the TSA.
Posted by Havokmon
18th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
I agree
The US government (and Americans in general, if you blindly believe what the media tells us) strongly subscribes to the adage "a pound of prevention for an ounce of cure". They will throw money they don't have at it and just make things worse. Can anyone give an instance where the Government stepping in actually made things better for everyone?
Posted by Dark Force
20th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
@dark force
ending jim crow.child labor laws.regulating meat industry.fire safety codes for factories.police.fire dept. etc etc.w/o the gov we wld have vigilante justice.and unless we start seriously regulating fire arms i for one might have to take matters in my own hands and start strangling asswhipes like u.
Posted by andrmar1
20th Dec
-6
???
Posted by RobSlack  |  Below your threshold
+6 Votes
+ -
restrictions on gun ownership
You mean "[more] restrictions on gun ownership", don't you? Because there are quite a few on the books now. Maybe we should enforce the current ones??
Posted by trent1
18th Dec
-6
Rubbish
Posted by TotallyDaft  |  Below your threshold
+16 Votes
+ -
NRA in damned if you do, damned if you don't situation
If the NRA spoke up, they would be labeled as playing politics with tragedy, grossly insensitive or worse. They gain nothing by speaking out at this point. Only the other side gains by preying on the fears and emotions brought out by the tragedy.
Posted by sullivanjc
18th Dec
+13 Votes
+ -
NRA don't handle mental health issues.
Since it isn't a gun problem but rather a mental health issue, the NRA really have nothing to do with issue.

Time to take the psycho's off the street and actually solve the problem instead of pretending to try and just ban weapons. Psycho's will always find a way to murder.
Posted by Reality Bites
18th Dec
-6
Absurd
Posted by RobSlack  |  Below your threshold
+11 Votes
+ -
Maybe
If someone at Sandy Hook had a defensive weapon they could have stopped the killer sooner.

Speaking of gun control, Morton Grove, Illionois was the first city in the US to outlaw private ownership of guns. Their crime rate increased by 15.7% immediately after the gun ban, and in 2007 their crime rate was 2,268 per 100,000

Shortly after Morton Grove banned guns, in 1982 Kennesaw, Georgia required each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, there has been only one firearm-related murder, and it was purpetrated by an outsider- not a single resident has been involved in any way in a fatal shooting. Even though the population of Kennesaw has doubled in 25 years, their crime rate in 2007 was 1,792 per 100,000, (far below that of Morton Grove), the same year that the greater Atlanta area saw a dramatic increase in the crime rate.

The easiest target for a mass killer is a "Gun-Free Zone": Virginai Tech University, Sandy Hook Elementary, etc.

BTW, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association, or any other firearm related group.
Posted by bb_apptix
18th Dec
-6
Missing the point
Posted by RobSlack  |  Below your threshold
-7
Daily Mail not always accurate
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...  |  Below your threshold
+6 Votes
+ -
Stupid!
I wonder how you would feel waking up in your own house with armed intruders bent on robbing and maybe killing you and your's? How long do you think it would take the police to respond and help you and your family? I wonder how many people lost their lives when Hitler and others throughout history invaded them and they only had broomsticks to protect themselves? An armed country is a free country!
Posted by Rovanton
18th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
UK - No real chance
Well in the UK, because of Gun Control, the chances of being burgled , whilst there combined with them being armed are approaching zero.

Armed burglars have guns, because of no gun control.

As mentioned in the comments on the article, I proposed that military and civilian law enforcement have arm, so i don't see how you are misinterpreting this with historical references to Hitler, and I'm pretty positive Poland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Egypt, Lybia etc and their respective armies were armed in the 1930's and 1940's They were just overwhelmed by superior forces. Your arguments make no sense, and are inaccurate and only serve your entrenched position.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 18th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Police timetable
"When SECONDS count, police are only MINUTES away!"

Police are only a "clean-up" squad. They have NO DUTY to protect any individual. This has been stated by several court decrees. Each person needs to be able to be their OWN "first line of defense". Otherwise, the police will be "cleaning up" your remains.
Posted by JTF243@...
18th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
US Oriented Opinion
This is a US oriented opinion, but I'm sure many have a strapline of "To Serve, and Protect" on their Squad cars happy Obviously they are misrepresenting what they do.

"First line of defence", is only an issue if your assailants have guns. If they do, you stand a reasonable chance of being shot. If they don;t, like much of the rest of the enlightened Civilised Westernised World, your chances of being shot are approaching nil - probably getting roughed up or beaten up worst case.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 18th Dec
+6 Votes
+ -
Actually, that link proves the inneffectives of gun control laws,
since, in England:

"Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning private ownership of handguns almost completely."

Which proves that, no matter how much a government and society wishes to control or ban gun ownership, the bad guys always find a way around the laws, and only the good guys and the innocent people will be unarmed and unable to protect themselves.
Posted by adornoe
18th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
False Conclusion
Your conclusion is self serving. there are occasional gun issues in the UK, but they are few and far between. Dunblane was in 1996, almost 20 years ago. Obama only yesterday was saying this was the fourth or fifth time in his presidency of 4 years he has done the mass massacre site visit

Gun related deaths in the US are about 30-40 times greater than in the UK. The correlation to gun availability is nigh on impossible to refute.

--
BTW Dunblane is also in Scotland, not England, so you can;t even get the geography right.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 18th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
The conclusion is 100% spot on!!!
The conclusion, which has been proved time and time again, is that, gun laws only deter law-abiding citizens from owing guns, and the criminal mind will find ways to get their hands on those guns.

The link mentioned above does indicate that, despite of gun laws to prevent ownership or the proliferation of them, there will be a criminal element that will take advantage of those gun laws, to get their hands on the guns, and to inflict more crime on a defenseless citizenry.

No other conclusion would make sense. Gun laws only deter the law-abiding. Gun laws give the advantage to the criminal mind. Gun laws tend to increase the number of gun related crimes where the gun laws are the strictest.
Posted by adornoe
18th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
criminals with guns
our red blooded american mass murderers were only criminals after the killings.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
18th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
affordablecomputerguy: Oh, that was so deep! NOT!!!
You dimwit!
Posted by adornoe
19th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
BTW, isn't Scotland part of the UK, just like England?
Whatever laws apply in the UK also apply in Scotland. Am I right???
Posted by adornoe
18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
UK law in Scotland
I am taken to believe that Scotland has its own 'Parliament/Assembly' and can and does make it's own decisions as to which laws it wishes to enact and they can also lay down their own (with UK parliament acceptance!!!)
Posted by Bertie174
18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Bertie174: However, it would be UK law, and the national law would take
precedence, just like a law in the U.S. which is national in scope would take precedence over a local or state law.
Posted by adornoe
18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Devolved Assembly
Scotland has a devolved assembly, which covers much legislation, (transport, health, infrastructure etc) but not all (defence, Taxes, Gun laws). For UK wide legislation, there is always parallel Blah-Blah (Scotland Act), as Scotland, has a separate and distinct legal system, though much of the Common Law is pretty has much the same accepted interpretation UK wide.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 18th Dec
-6
Dumbass!
Posted by Rovanton  |  Below your threshold
-6
Gun Free Zones
Posted by Gafflation  |  Below your threshold
+14 Votes
+ -
Don't let the facts stand in the way
I wish the NRA would speak on the topic. The facts are 86 people were killed by mass murderers in the US in the last year. Statistically, this is insignificant. These people had a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of mass murder.

As is evident by my statement above, I am not a politician. I say shame on those who seek political gain with the blood of innocent children.
Posted by chriskoob
18th Dec
-6
Try the US National Academy of Sciences Review
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...  |  Below your threshold
+3 Votes
+ -
Comprehensive, peer reviewed, credible, and quality fact-based, AND, biased
because, it's one sided and seeking to achieve a predefined goal by picking and choosing the facts, and even making up their own facts.

Not too much from a liberal organization can ever be taken at face value.
Posted by adornoe
18th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
By definition...
Comprehensive... means it's not one-sided
Peer-reviewed... means they cannot pick and choose facts
Credible... means they are not making up their own facts

...all of which are true with respect to a publication of the NAS such as was linked...

Biased is your term, and completely unsupported by actual facts about research done by and for the NAS...

However, you are correct that bias is defined as a predisposition toward an idea or goal... which could be said to best describe your comment.

SmartPlanet is supposed to be a science-based site and publication. Appreciation of facts over opinion should be the basis of discussion here... The converse is available at a famous British-controlled American news site found elsewhere.
Posted by EverythingsConnected
Updated - 18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
There is no such thing as "comprehensive" or "peer-reviewed" or "credible"
when it comes to studies done by liberal organizations, because, they'll always use the right kind of terminology in order to give themselves credibility, even when there are other studies which contradict their conclusions.

It's like the "global warming" "science" which liberals like to claim is indisputable and "settled", meaning that, they've determined on their own that, they've done "comprehensive and credible and 'peer-reviewed" research. But, that's NEVER the case with ANY liberal study, and the only thing that is true about any liberal research or study, is that, it's completely bogus or laced with so many untruths that, they can't ever allow those studies to be "peer reviewed", unless the peers are of the same mindset as the researchers and share the same agenda.
Posted by adornoe
Updated - 18th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
"peer review" et al
ask yourself why the nra has gotten it's pals in congress to DISALLOW any public health study of guns and gun ownership by the CDC? Ooops!
Would the CDC be too liberal? Or too objective.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Baloney! The CDC is about diseases and health matters,
and not about gun control or the 2nd amendment.
Therefore, they'd be out of bounds in doing any kind of study regarding the NRA or guns or criminals who commit murders (unless those criminals had some sort of disease which took control of their minds and bodies). Ooops!

It doesn't matter whether the CDC is liberal or anything else, their function is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. So, getting objectivity from them or any kind of relevant argument from them, on an issue which is completely foreign to them, is like expecting Apple to tell Toyota how to build cars.

Apparently, logic is not something you've ever heard about.
Posted by adornoe
19th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
NAS Incorporated by Abe Lincoln
The National Academy of Sciences is hardly a lefty/liberal organisation, it was created by an Act of Incorporation by Abraham Lincoln - It's not tainted by left, right, gun toting or commercial interests, as with many of the rest of the lobby groups contaminating politics in Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
18th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Just because the name Abe Lincoln was associated with an organization
eons ago, does not mean that it's the same organization today, and that they hold the same principles as they did back then. The democrats, in the past, were about democracy, but, they haven't been about democracy for decades.

BTW, never quote from Wikipedia, because, they're not a credible source for anything which has even the slightest bit of politics associated with it. Wikipedia can be a good source for non-political issues and other non-controversial issues. As an example, they can't be trusted with climate change/global warming, because, the issue will be hijacked by anyone with a political and personal agenda.
Posted by adornoe
19th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
like you?
be real please.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
18th Dec
-6
BAN THE NRA
Posted by wildwolf93446  |  Below your threshold
+9 Votes
+ -
So...
You're in favor of limiting Second and First Amendment rights? Any thought on quartering troops in private homes?
Posted by jtdavies
18th Dec
+14 Votes
+ -
I agree with KB2504
It seems the left is never one to waste a tragedy. Within hours there were people saying that they could use this to forward gun control. Silence by the right should not be interpreted as embarassment, or shame or anything else. It may be simply respect for the fallen.

Something the left doesn't seem to understand: automatic weapons are already restricted by Federal law. You have to show need, pay a hefty fee, and undergo a background check by local police and the ATF. Anyone can veto the permit process for the simple reason of being uncomfortable with it. Also NONE of the mass murders in the last year have been committed with automatic weapons.

Personally, am for our 2nd Ammendment rights. I am a gun owner with a concealed carry permit, I have taught my children safe handling practices, and we go shooting at a range. That being said, I also feel there is room for more restrictions on high powered semi-automatic rifles.

What we really need to discuss rather than firearm control, is the danger posed by nut cases allowed to 'be part of society' by doctors and parents that are too PC to recognize the danger. In every one of the recent cases, the culprit was someone that had 'emotional issues'. Let's stop putting a happy face on this kind of crap and let's get help for these people. If the can't be helped or refuse help, then they need to be removed from society (read institutionalized). Even if all guns are outlawed, if this latest nut case went in that school with a butcher knife or a meat cleaver, he would have been tough to stop.
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
18th Dec
+7 Votes
+ -
As Rahm Emanuel educated us...
..."You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
18th Dec
+6 Votes
+ -
The mass murders at Columbine were committed while there was a ban of
automatic weapons.

So, what is there to indicate that another Columbine or another Sandy Hook will be prevented by re-instituting the ban of automatic weapons?

NOTHING!!!!

A determined criminal, or someone with a deranged mind, wont be able to be stopped before their evil deeds are completed.

The other choice for democrats is to completely ban all weapons, But, the only people who will be unarmed, will be the law-abiding citizens, and the criminals will be left with a much easier public to commit their crimes against.

Then, there is the matter of the 2nd amendment, which would make any gun ban unconstitutional. But, I guess that, to liberals, the constitution is just a barrier that could easily be ignored. Any gun ban would have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court for approval or disapproval.

In the end, the democrats feel they need to do something, but that something is just to show that they are the party of "concern" and they'll play with the emotions of the families of the victims and the part of the population which is always blaming guns for crimes. But, the guns didn't go to the crime scene by themselves.

A
Posted by adornoe
Updated - 18th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
Were not "goth" culture and violent video games factors at Columbine?
Seems to me it might be more practical to regulate "goths" and video games. I mean, if we're going to toss the 2nd Amendment, why should the 1st and 4th be so sacrosanct?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 19th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
If they could, the democrats would toss the whole constitution down
the toilet, and Obama has indicated as much, except not with the same exact words. The constitution is a barrier to the democrats' agenda, and an obstacle which needs to be torn down.
Posted by adornoe
19th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
if this latest nut case went in that school with a butcher knife or a .....
actually, your dead wrong. a recent knife attack in a Chinese elementary school injured 20 or so kids, only one died. the two adults in connecticut who tried to physically restrain the killer might have more successful if he couldn't blow their heads off.
Posted by affordablecomputerguy@...
18th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Bee Ess!!!
A crazed killer with a butcher knife, going up against a bunch of 6 and 7 years olds, and a defenseless group of school teachers, would have killed a lot of those kids before anyone could have or would have tried to stop him. Perhaps he would not have been able to kill 20, but, you can be certain that it would have been many more than just one.

But, why would murdering just a few, as opposed to 20, be that much less horrendous to you?
Posted by adornoe
19th Dec
+7 Votes
+ -
NRA, here to stay
NRA members don't think about crimes and don't actualize crimes.
New Yorkers pay a lot of taxes for many Tax Consumer gun people (cops) in their gun-free safe zone city. None of the cops worry about NRA members.
Posted by CoderVBA
18th Dec
+12 Votes
+ -
Let's think about it
Too bad God, prayer and the 10 commandments cant shoot their way back into every school in America. It is great to talk about our culture of violence but instead of blaming it on hand guns and assault rifles, lets talk about the blood and guts video games our children are playing. Lets talk about all the violent movies produced by Hollywood. Lets talk about two parent families and parental involvement. Lets talk about the decline in church attendance and the rise of secularism in America. Lets talk about the disappearance of moral and ethical behavior at all levels of society (and Government). Lets talk about the role models our kids look up to. Lets talk about the Gangsta rap lyrics that spew all kinds of trash and vulgarity.

Violence has indeed become a part of our American culture but it isnt because of guns, it is because of the sad state of societal evolution. It is because we have allowed the secularists to remove God and prayer from our schools and even our public institutions. Its because parents are not teaching their children about right and wrong, about responsibility and consequences. Its because our sick society is producing sick individuals.

Guns dont kill people. Spoons dont make people fat. Banning guns and stomping on the Second Amendment wont change the nature of our society.
Posted by foolmeonce
18th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!