Why can't LaPierre talk like Larry Pratt?

[Zak Smith]

I was just watching a show ("Both Sides") hosted by Jesse Jackson, with Larry Pratt of GOA, vs. Naomi -- from HCI. Larry was calm, genial, full of facts, and good arguments like "criminals will always be able to get guns, we need to make it easy to defend ourselves."

Why can't the NRA spokes-people take his lead? The place we are going to win is the segment of the population who hasn't given the issue much thought, and isn't decided either way yet. We aren't going to convince them by giving sound-bites that make "us" sound like a bunch of wackos, when quoted by the press.

To get converts, we have to make simple, direct, and convincing statements that show them why having less gun control is in their selfish best-interest. I thought Pratt did this reasonably well - letting people defend themselves. He even mentioned the other side as being "anti-self-defence."

-z


[This message has been edited by smithz (edited March 19, 2000).]

 

[Victor Romen]

Just caught the tail end of that debate as well. It was 'Both Sides with Jesse Jackson.' Larry Pratt did very well under the circumstances (host and guest arguing against him with bad facts). Here's a link for the transcripts to the show. When I checked it they hadn't post the latest one yet, but it will probably be up there soon. http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/bs.html

 

[Bud Helms]

I think it's mainly a difference in personalities, but also LaPierre is spoiled by representing the NRA ... the BIG BAD GUN LOBBY doncha know! He can be pretty arrogant!

Our "spokesmen" need to be able to shift from arguing with people like Naomi Paiss (sp?) of HCI in committee or closed meetings and doing it on television. LaPierre doesn't seem to be able to shift gears as well as Pratt.

 

[StephenT]

The NRA doesn't do well in televised debates, but having a few effective individuals represent the organization on TV would make a world of difference. In the short term, the ads and attacks on Clinton are boosting NRA membership, but it would more constructive for the NRA to polish its image while attacking. After all, lobbying goes only so far, and the public will be voting in November. The democrats are going to push gun control like never before, and the NRA needs to portray itself as part of the solution. Defending itself against attacks is not enough, and LaPierre is doing poorly at that. Still, I commend him for facing the interviewers and opponents day after day. I don't think the public cares as much about gun control as much as the democrats would have us believe, but who knows if the shooting sprees continue. It shouldn't be too difficult for the NRA to find an articulate PR rep, so why don't they do it? Gun control is evolving rapidly, and the NRA, like all large organizations, is too slow to adapt.

 

[Monkeyleg]

After watching Heston on Sunday morning with
Katie Courek and Sam Donaldson, I have mixed emotions. Heston is not the guy we need speaking to the media. On the other hand, did the producers invite Heston or just somebody from the NRA? Was it planned that Heston would come on first, and then later in the segment, Chuckles Schumer would get the last words (many words)?

A journalist I do admire, George Will, said that LaPierre was appealing to the NRA base when he made his comments, trying to rally the troops. I believe he's right. All we need look at is the pace of membership sign-ups.

LaPierre's comments enabled the NRA to get some equal time on the news shows, which is a big plus. What is sad is that our spokespeople do not make better use of that infrequent opportunity.

Dick

 

[Brett Bellmore]

SmithZ: The problem with saying that we need soundbites that don't make us sound like wackos, is that if we don't sound like wackos, the media won't permit us to be heard. What we REALLY need is an outlet to the public which ISN'T controlled by people who hate our guts!