The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Perhaps it is the "national" bit that leads to that misunderstanding.

To be a national organisation one assumes that there is enough scale and resource to have a truly national presence, but as you say the NRA is only a small organisation of which we should have small expectations.

the running man wrote:I've been pmd by both current and former nra staff confirming the incident as being accurate....funny how nobody from the NRA has commented....

I think it might be a good idea for mercer to make a statement before the sun news desk gets ahold of this...

Don't be a moron and tell them, for the love of the gods below. The absolute last thing the shooting sports need in the middle of silly season is a magnetic hard news story like "head of gun organisation accused of violence". You'd have the entirety of Fleet Street and the closed-minded bigots of the liberal broadcasters queueing up to deploy every last tired gun nut/redneck cliche about us.

I don't often say this but STFU, right now, unless you've got concrete proof something happened which you'd be happy to defend if someone lawyered up against you.

Die Mauer haben Ohren.

I don't think the sun would be Intrested,besides I've better things to do than grass.....and let's be clear gaz,I'm accusing nobody,just asking for clarification and indeed are the rumours true.....

The lack of comment by NRA staff is a very sensible choice. If there is some truth to the story then there is no benefit and a lot of potential harm to probing deeper at this juncture -- harm to the NRA, harm to Mr Mercer and harm to our sport.

Charlie Muggins wrote:The lack of comment by NRA staff is a very sensible choice. If there is some truth to the story then there is no benefit and a lot of potential harm to probing deeper at this juncture -- harm to the NRA, harm to Mr Mercer and harm to our sport.

I'd argue exactly the opposite, for the reason you listed. A short, concise release from the NRA or Mr Mercer either confirming that police did attend and "have words" etc. or categorically stating that no incident and/or police attendance happened would a) clear up rumours like on here and b) prevent journalists digging around, "finding" and/or inventing a story and presenting accusations about a cover up.

The longer this is allowed to rumble on, the worse it (potentially) becomes.

I thought the "lack of comment" strategy was fairly conclusively shown not to work in 1997.

This reminds me of a story that circulated in a local town some years ago about Rosie the wife of Rob the local barber. She had allegedly broke a mirror over the head of a customer whose hair she was cutting and who had been fiddling suspiciously under the cover of the barbers cape/gown while having his hair cut. The story went that he was actually cleaning his spectacles and that Rosie had jumped to the wrong conclusion. The story went the rounds for weeks on end and Rob kept denying that the incident ever happened. In the end Rob had to ask the local paper to run his denial that the incident ever happened. I have since heard similar stories in many other towns.

Mountain and molehill comes to mind.