I had to write the NRA today after seeing what Wayne LaPierre did on CNN yesterday. He may have been right, but if you had never seen a gun before, and didn't know any gun owners, seeing Mr. LaPierre act like a crazed person would have certainly added fuel to the fire that the NRA and gun owners are fanatical. Please reply if you agree with me or not. I'd like to know if anyone else felt the way I did, or if I'm just not thinking about this right.
To Whom it May Concern,
I watched Mr. LaPierre's interview on CNN yesterday, and felt I had to write. While what Mr. LaPierre said was true, his manner of delivery hurt our cause. Going on one of the Nation's most esteeemed news networks (while we may not agree with that, face it), and accusing them of false reporting was not the way to do it. As a gun owner, member, and an owner of "post ban" weapons, I would love the ban not to be renewed, but even I was turned off by Mr. LaPierre. Starting off an interview by arguing with a news anchor, rather violently also, just cements in anti-gun people's beliefs that we are fanatics! Mr. LaPierre was telling the truth, his point was valid, but all was negated by his lack of tact. That segment would have been much more effective if Mr. LaPierre wnet down a list comparing the performance characteristics (graphics maybe?), and then showing examples of pre and post ban weapons to show what the little differences are. Then at the end, he could challenge viewers to think hard about what they saw on Thursday, comparing it to the real evidence he produced on this segment. Perhaps he should have accused the guests of the reporters for making false statements, not the reporter. This would make Mr. LaPierre's comments more effective, and also show that gun owners aren't represented by fanatical nuts!