Originally Posted by WWP
In the past, we made our logo available to appear on wide variety of products, including guns. As an organization, we owe it to our donors and constituents to maximize the return on investment of our dollars and brand. We are always looking at our business practices and whether we should
continue with them in the future. In the case of cobranding, we've decided that we're not going to offer our logo to appear on weapons anymore - whether they're guns, knives, bows, swords, or any other type of weapon. There are still a few of the guns around for sale that had licensed our logo years ago, but there aren't any new ones being made. This is purely a business decision based on a review of a return on investment, especially when compared with other types of cobranding ventures.
What's all this talk about "co-branding" and return-on-investment? This is [supposed to be] a non-profit organization, a charity. If the MegaBlaster gun company wants to put out a Wounded Warrior model and offers to donate 'X' percentage of the proceeds to the WWP, where exactly is there any "investment" on the part of the WWP?
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
I've read all of what's posted here and all of the included links, and it seems to me that the WWP is considered to be "anti" only because they refuse to say they are "pro" by "co-branding" and allowing the use of their logo on weapons for sale.
No, their hypocrisy is showing through very clearly. Now they claim their opposition to firearms companies is due to co-branding. Initially, they claimed it was because wounded warriors were wounded by ... guns. And yet the same group who claims that associating with gun-makers might contribute in some way to warrior suicides doesn't have a problem sending those same warriors out on hunting trips, with loaded guns in their hands.
Don't you find that to be at least a tiny bit self-contradictory?