The reason they don't do this is because it's disrespectful and it smells like political pandering. The bradyites do it all the time and get away with it, which is why they get people like this kid's dad to "suck" for anti rhetoric. The NRA, as much as I loathe it most of the time, tries to take the high road on these kinds of things. I think the reason is because the mostly libtard press in this country would spin it badly if the NRA did it, but they let brady/vpc/etc get away with it all the time.
Good point.
It's not much different from the media coverage where moonbat pols only get mild scrutiny for running gay brothels or whatever it is they do, but when a republican cheats on his wife, the media will burn him at the stake in comparison....
Isn't that mostly because the said politician has usually taken a much more holier than thou attitude? John Edwards and Spitzer got burnt as well as an example.
The other problem with your idea is the NRA even responding to things like wackjobs shooting up malls or whatever in that fashion, is that the act of them responding to the victims or whatever, implies this notional that they were somehow responsible, in some way or another... and that's just bad juju. The NRA and other advocacy groups should not, in any way shape or form, conflate their responses with the actions of violent criminals.
-Mike
Good points again. Maybe there should be a funded but separate org. Basically it is frustrating to not have some balance here. I know the political landscape today is such that additional gun control isn't likely, but that can change with one election...