USA Shooting Link to NRANews Cam & Co. Sportsman Channel

[Brian Lafferty]

I sent the follow as an email to Kevin Neuendorf at USA Shooting. No response, but I would not expect one with the holiday weekend upon us. And, enjoy the three day weekend!

Good shooting,
Brian
_________________________________

Dear Kevin,

I am a member of USA Shooting and the NRA, the latter membership being problematic at best given the propensity of those living in Wayne's
World not helping the interests of gun owners throughout the US.
Approximately 75% of us in the NRA oppose NRA political/gun advocacy
positions, are embarrassed by them and are hurt by the stupidity
routinely spouted by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. Our
struggle as competitive shooters is only hurt by these characters who
alienate the majority of gun owners and non-shooting Americans.
Today's NRA is not the organization that taught me smallbore
competitive shooting in the 1960s.

By going on this NRA show, USA Shooting will not be expanding its
nationwide visibility by enough to outweigh the embarrassment of
linking itself with that association led by right wing nut cases--what
we gun owners in the middle call Wingnuts. I hope you rethink this
association and do so quickly.

Regards,
Brian Lafferty

[conradin]

Dear Brian.

I do not have any opinion concerning the situation, as I am not familiar with the details.

USA Shooting was created because the IOC could no longer accept USOC letting NRA, an increasing political entity that has more and more commercial interests ties, being the official sanctioning body for international competition and also the organization that is responsible for USOC's shooting arm. NRA, however, preempted IOC and USOC by giving up its official capacity, thus USA Shooting was built from the ground up during the mid 90s.

The NRA's stance has kept changing over the past hundred and fifty or so years. At one point, Karl Federick, the 1920 Olympic free pistol champion and NRA president, actually advocated the idea of banning all civilian from owning guns, citing that only trained professional were capable of handling them (LEO, military and veterans) and testified in front of the government's committee (I could not recall whether it is a Senate hearing or not).

So today's NRA may not be the NRA in ten years time.

[mbradley]

Yes, because a dying sport like International Shooting should have even less exposure to insure its survival.

As a card carrying right wing nut, I can understand if Ted Nugent is not your cup of tea. But do you need to start an internecine war in order to prove your higher level of sophistication over us knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, right wing-nut haters and bushhitler lovers? Who knows, some camouflage wearing, turkey calling hate hater may see it, think it is cool and by an air rifle from Pilkguns.

I for one would love to see International Shooting showcased at open pole night at my local strip club, so a national show would be even better. Hell, Billy Bob, Aunt May, Jimbo and I may even go down to the local Beef -O-Bradys and watch the darn thing if we don't get caught smuggling in our moonshine again.

I have many sources of entertainment in my narrow minded hate filled bushhitler mind. Number 2 on the list is imitating the nasal toned metro sexual voices on NPR, but Number 1 on the list is cataloging the numerous ways in which people get their vig in life by conjuring up scenarios of cosmic justice and moral indignation. Congratulations on making the show.

[bdutton]

I sent the follow as an email to Kevin Neuendorf at USA Shooting. No response, but I would not expect one with the holiday weekend upon us. And, enjoy the three day weekend!

Good shooting,
Brian
_________________________________

Dear Kevin,

I am a member of USA Shooting and the NRA, the latter membership being problematic at best given the propensity of those living in Wayne's
World not helping the interests of gun owners throughout the US.
Approximately 75% of us in the NRA oppose NRA political/gun advocacy
positions, are embarrassed by them and are hurt by the stupidity
routinely spouted by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. Our
struggle as competitive shooters is only hurt by these characters who
alienate the majority of gun owners and non-shooting Americans.
Today's NRA is not the organization that taught me smallbore
competitive shooting in the 1960s.

By going on this NRA show, USA Shooting will not be expanding its
nationwide visibility by enough to outweigh the embarrassment of
linking itself with that association led by right wing nut cases--what
we gun owners in the middle call Wingnuts. I hope you rethink this
association and do so quickly.

Regards,
Brian Lafferty

Uhm... where do you get that 75% number. I disagree with very few of the NRA stances on gun control legislation initiatives and I definitely do not consider myself a knuckle-dragging right-wing gun nut.

[bpscCheney]

I too agree with many of the NRAs positions despite my more moderate stance, however I read about the NRA wanting to remove the restrictions on minors owning handguns somewhere (can't recall it at the moment) which is ridiculous to me.

[Brian Lafferty]

I sent the follow as an email to Kevin Neuendorf at USA Shooting. No response, but I would not expect one with the holiday weekend upon us. And, enjoy the three day weekend!

Good shooting,
Brian
_________________________________

Dear Kevin,

I am a member of USA Shooting and the NRA, the latter membership being problematic at best given the propensity of those living in Wayne's
World not helping the interests of gun owners throughout the US.
Approximately 75% of us in the NRA oppose NRA political/gun advocacy
positions, are embarrassed by them and are hurt by the stupidity
routinely spouted by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. Our
struggle as competitive shooters is only hurt by these characters who
alienate the majority of gun owners and non-shooting Americans.
Today's NRA is not the organization that taught me smallbore
competitive shooting in the 1960s.

By going on this NRA show, USA Shooting will not be expanding its
nationwide visibility by enough to outweigh the embarrassment of
linking itself with that association led by right wing nut cases--what
we gun owners in the middle call Wingnuts. I hope you rethink this
association and do so quickly.

Regards,
Brian Lafferty

Uhm... where do you get that 75% number. I disagree with very few of the NRA stances on gun control legislation initiatives and I definitely do not consider myself a knuckle-dragging right-wing gun nut.

Poll conducted in April 2012 of NRA members, former members and non-members by theRepublican polling firm, The Lutz Organization. Whilst the poll was conducted for Bloombugger's national anti- firearms organization, the polling statistics clearly show that the NRA membership is at odds with those living in Wayne's World running the NRA. I'll comment more on that at the end of this post.

See: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org ... 6-12.shtml
NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

Among the survey’s key findings:

87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA members and gun owners:
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
NRA members strongly support allowing states – not the Federal government – to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places, with 91 percent of NRA members stating states should decide.

By contrast, the NRA leadership’s top Federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit. NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.

74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.

63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA’s Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

The Luntz findings are in line with previous research showing that Americans are nearly unanimous in their support for closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy firearms without a background check. A January 2011 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns by the bipartisan polling team of Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy a gun or who they but it from.

See Also: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... un-control

Considering that polls show the NRA membership tends to be conservative and supportive of the Republican Party, the utter ineffectiveness of the NRA's political activity and monetary contributions to candidates in the last election combined with the drubbing the Republican Party suffered nationally in the last election due to a shift in the electorate away from dominance by conservative white males, and toward a more pluralistic America (one that I am increasingly proud of as an American, BTW) tells me that the NRA brand is increasingly toxic to the general public.

I'd like to see competitive shooting, particularly Olympic events, become totally mainstream in America. That isn't going to happen by USA Shooting linking itself with an increasingly toxic brand; an organization whose leadership spouts inane stupidity at the drop of a shell casing.

The NRA long ago, in the 1990s ceased to be a membership organization. It is now an industry organization playing the tune of the manufacturers who fund it for the quid pro quo of the NRA in its political hayday having managed to help get Federal legislation passed shielding the gun manufacturers from the liability suits that put the tobacco industry's head on the law suit chopping block

Question: why are there millions more gun owners nationally than there are NRA members? Let's save that one for another thread.

[Brian Lafferty]

Dear Brian.

I do not have any opinion concerning the situation, as I am not familiar with the details.

USA Shooting was created because the IOC could no longer accept USOC letting NRA, an increasing political entity that has more and more commercial interests ties, being the official sanctioning body for international competition and also the organization that is responsible for USOC's shooting arm. NRA, however, preempted IOC and USOC by giving up its official capacity, thus USA Shooting was built from the ground up during the mid 90s.

The NRA's stance has kept changing over the past hundred and fifty or so years. At one point, Karl Federick, the 1920 Olympic free pistol champion and NRA president, actually advocated the idea of banning all civilian from owning guns, citing that only trained professional were capable of handling them (LEO, military and veterans) and testified in front of the government's committee (I could not recall whether it is a Senate hearing or not).

So today's NRA may not be the NRA in ten years time.

You are absolutely correct as to why the US Olympic Committee dumped the NRA as its representative for Olympic shooting sports. I touch on this in a post made below. I had to do with the gun industry soiling itself after seeing huge judgments rendered against tobacco companies and knowing that several state Attorney Generals now had them in their legal sights.

[conradin]

Poll conducted in April 2012 of NRA members.......
Whilst the poll was conducted for Bloombugger's national anti- firearms organization.......
the polling statistics...

[dschaller]

I too agree with many of the NRAs positions despite my more moderate stance, however I read about the NRA wanting to remove the restrictions on minors owning handguns somewhere (can't recall it at the moment) which is ridiculous to me.

If you mean the NRA support of changing the law so those that are required to serve in the military (draft at 18) should also be able to own a handgun, then does that mean that you feel the draft age should be raised to 21 since those 18-20 are not mature enough to serve in the military?

[FredB]

Brian,

First a couple of disclaimers. 1) There are a number of NRA positions I disagree with. 2) I really dislike the tone of the pronouncements by the NRA leadership. 3) And I understand that the presentation of facts rarely changes a person's mind; usually people use facts to support their preconceived beliefs.

However....if you are basing any of your thinking on the poll you cite above, you really should think again. That poll was a classic "push poll", which is an allegedly impartial poll that distorts the information in the questions (and may even tell untruths) in order to achieve a certain result.

Here are just a few of the problems with the poll (as it was reported):
- they had no way of knowing who was really an NRA member - only the NRA has that list.
- both "NRA membership" and "gun ownership" are self-reported in this poll - very unreliable data.
- asking if someone is in favor of universal background checks without also asking if they are in favor of gun owner registration AND gun registration, is misleading and biased.
- asking if someone is in favor of barring gun ownership from people on the "terror list" without also informing them that the terror list has over 1/2 million names on it, many of them mistaken identities, is misleading and biased.
- calling the terror list "terror suspects" is highly misleading and biased.
- calling any policy a "loophole" is highly misleading and biased.
- etc., etc., etc. - just about every statement you quoted above is either distorted or misleading.

I don't know for a fact if the poll itself was as biased as the above report, but I strongly suspect it must have been. AFAIK, Bloomberg has not released the original questions or the raw data. We only have his word about the results. He has been known to lie.

I started by saying I don't always agree with the NRA. However at this point, in order to be able to keep on target shooting in some of the deep blue states (such as yours and mine), we desperately need the NRA and ought to support it, even if we are not 100% true believers. In California we are seeing at this moment how the "common sense" laws that Bloomberg advocates for the whole country can lead to truly insane laws in the future. The "common sense" laws do not solve any problems or have any effect, so they become mere stepping stones on the path to Britain world. If I must choose, I prefer Wayne world.

FredB

[dronning]

Brian,
I couldn't disagree more with what you have said. This country exists because of marksmanship skills and the founding fathers made certain with the 2nd Amendment that our govt. wouldn't try what the British tried back on April 19, 1775.

I never agree 100% with any organization I belong to and that includes the NRA. I hope and pray the NRA continues to stand firm against these creeping laws that have no real impact on what people really want which is less violence.

You can't fix the violence by going after the tools they use you need to address the reason these violent offenders have no regard for life. It's not the tools it's the attitude. Great example the Deltona massacre: 6 people and their dog killed with baseball bats - because of an Xbox.

[Brian Lafferty]

Brian,
I couldn't disagree more with what you have said. This country exists because of marksmanship skills and the founding fathers made certain h the 2nd Amendment that our govt. wouldn't try what the British tried back on April 19, 1775.

I never agree 100% with any organization I belong to and that includes the NRA. I hope and pray the NRA continues to stand firm against these creeping laws that have no real impact on what people really want which is less violence.

You can't fix the violence by going after the tools they use you need to address the reason these violent offenders have no regard for life. It's not the tools it's the attitude. Great example the Deltona massacre: 6 people and their dog killed with baseball bats - because of an Xbox.

IMO, this country exists because of theintellectual brilliance and political understanding of two men in particular, Madison and Jefferson. Marksmanship alone is not enough as the Continental Army learned early on. It took much more sacrifice and work ( think Franklin and international alliances) from many people to prevail.

The Second Amendment is but one of the first ten amendments. It alone has never guaranteed the survival of this nation. Indeed, it has rarely, if ever, had much influence in the actual defense of this nation. Congress' power to tax has probably done more to strengthen and defend the country from within and without.

The NRA is a very small organization when one considers the total number of gun owners living in the USA. It's ability to produce election results based on single issue politics is almost non-existent from November's results throughout the nation. We would all be better served as sportspeople if they canned their current leadership and went back to what they did and do best--teach fire and air arms skills and safety. That's the useful NRA I remember as a junior member in the early to middle 1960s. Instead, we get the Wayne and Ted Clown Hour every time tragedy hits the news outlets. Shame on them.

[Pat McCoy]

Brian Lafferty wrote:

Today's NRA is not the organization that taught me smallbore
competitive shooting in the 1960s.

Yes, thank God. If the NRA was still the 1960's NRA in 1993, when Bill Clinton took office, we would have few, if any privately owned firearms today.

The NRA has changed to first address the needs of the membership to be able to maintain their firearms ownership, rather than promote shooting sports. But without that change we would have no shooting sports.

[Brian Lafferty]

Brian,
I couldn't disagree more with what you have said. This country exists because of marksmanship skills and the founding fathers made certain with the 2nd Amendment that our govt. wouldn't try what the British tried back on April 19, 1775.

I never agree 100% with any organization I belong to and that includes the NRA. I hope and pray the NRA continues to stand firm against these creeping laws that have no real impact on what people really want which is less violence.

You can't fix the violence by going after the tools they use you need to address the reason these violent offenders have no regard for life. It's not the tools it's the attitude. Great example the Deltona massacre: 6 people and their dog killed with baseball bats - because of an Xbox.

IMO, this country exists because of theintellectual brilliance and political understanding of two men in particular, Madison and Jefferson. Marksmanship alone is not enough as the Continental Army learned early on. It took much more sacrifice and work ( think Franking and international alliances) from many people to prevail.

The Second Amendment is but one of the first ten amendments. It alone has never guaranteed the survival of this nation. Indeed, it has rarely, if ever, had much influence in the actual defense of this nation. Congress' power to tax has probably done more to strengthen and defend the country from within and without.

The NRA is a very small organization when one considers the total number of gun owners living in the USA. It's ability to produce election results based on single issue politics is almost non-existent from November's results throughout the nation. We would all be better served as sportspeople if they canned their current leadership and went back to what they did and do best--teach fire and air arms skills and safety. That's the useful NRA I remember as a junior member in the early to middle 1960s. Instead, we get the Wayne and Ted Clown Hour every time tragedy hits the news outlets. Shame on them.

[Brian Lafferty]

Brian Lafferty wrote:

Today's NRA is not the organization that taught me smallbore
competitive shooting in the 1960s.

Yes, thank God. If the NRA was still the 1960's NRA in 1993, when Bill Clinton took office, we would have few, if any privately owned firearms today.

The NRA has changed to first address the needs of the membership to be able to maintain their firearms ownership, rather than promote shooting sports. But without that change we would have no shooting sports.

The NRA changed because of the civil liability verdicts against big tobacco. The firearms manufacturers saw the hand writing on the wall for themselves and poured money into the NRA to do a job getting legislation limiting the liability of gun manufacturers for death and injury caused by their products in commerce. That money came with strings that allowed the governing structure of the organization to be changed which in turn allowed it to morph into a right wing political organization that was embarrassing enough to the US Olympic Committee that they dumped the NRA as shooting's Olympic governing body. That embarrassing situation is still with us and does not help USA Shooting's stature in the American mainstream. The general public I often come in contact consider the NRA a bunch of nutters, but when they see a USA Shooting logo it starts a meaningful conversation that I usually direct toward what I call the Zen of shooting. I even ask some folks to consider joining or making a donation.

Clinton was too busy having his gun serviced in the White house to take your firearms away. Taking everyone's guns was never a real issue, my friend. The Supreme Courts most conservative justice, Scalia has said the 2d Amendment is not absolute. It's a regulatory fight and a very real one at times. The guns are here to stay now as they were back then.

[Brian Lafferty]

Brian,

First a couple of disclaimers. 1) There are a number of NRA positions I disagree with. 2) I really dislike the tone of the pronouncements by the NRA leadership. 3) And I understand that the presentation of facts rarely changes a person's mind; usually people use facts to support their preconceived beliefs.

However....if you are basing any of your thinking on the poll you cite above, you really should think again. That poll was a classic "push poll", which is an allegedly impartial poll that distorts the information in the questions (and may even tell untruths) in order to achieve a certain result.

Here are just a few of the problems with the poll (as it was reported):
- they had no way of knowing who was really an NRA member - only the NRA has that list.
- both "NRA membership" and "gun ownership" are self-reported in this poll - very unreliable data.
- asking if someone is in favor of universal background checks without also asking if they are in favor of gun owner registration AND gun registration, is misleading and biased.
- asking if someone is in favor of barring gun ownership from people on the "terror list" without also informing them that the terror list has over 1/2 million names on it, many of them mistaken identities, is misleading and biased.
- calling the terror list "terror suspects" is highly misleading and biased.
- calling any policy a "loophole" is highly misleading and biased.
- etc., etc., etc. - just about every statement you quoted above is either distorted or misleading.

I don't know for a fact if the poll itself was as biased as the above report, but I strongly suspect it must have been. AFAIK, Bloomberg has not released the original questions or the raw data. We only have his word about the results. He has been known to lie.

I started by saying I don't always agree with the NRA. However at this point, in order to be able to keep on target shooting in some of the deep blue states (such as yours and mine), we desperately need the NRA and ought to support it, even if we are not 100% true believers. In California we are seeing at this moment how the "common sense" laws that Bloomberg advocates for the whole country can lead to truly insane laws in the future. The "common sense" laws do not solve any problems or have any effect, so they become mere stepping stones on the path to Britain world. If I must choose, I prefer Wayne world.

FredB

I don't recall the NRA ever disputing the validity of the poll nor do I recall them ever surveying the membership themselves. If I' mwrong on either of those point please let me know.

[Brian Lafferty]

I too agree with many of the NRAs positions despite my more moderate stance, however I read about the NRA wanting to remove the restrictions on minors owning handguns somewhere (can't recall it at the moment) which is ridiculous to me.

If you mean the NRA support of changing the law so those that are required to serve in the military (draft at 18) should also be able to own a handgun, then does that mean that you feel the draft age should be raised to 21 since those 18-20 are not mature enough to serve in the military?

And we all know that those under 21 in the military never drink. IMO, when you hit 18 you should be a full legal adult in all ways.

[FredB]

I don't recall the NRA ever disputing the validity of the poll nor do I recall them ever surveying the membership themselves. If I' mwrong on either of those point please let me know.

You're wrong. Of course the NRA disputed the poll on many occasions. However anti-gun politicians and the "mainstream media" kept repeating the BS claims from the poll until they began to take on the aura of truth. BTW, it was interesting to note how the percentage figures from the original quote ("74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun") kept growing every time a politician mentioned them. After a month or two, they were talking about 95% of NRA members' support.

As far as NRA polls, I've been polled by the NRA many times. Unfortunately those are push polls as well. If you want real facts and figures, read anything on the topic by Don Kates.

And, not that you asked, but you're also wrong about this: that the NRA became "a right wing political organization that was embarrassing enough to the US Olympic Committee that they dumped the NRA as shooting's Olympic governing body." The USOC was required by the ISSF to divorce from the NRA because the Olympics are not meant to be associated with politics. The same would have occurred if the NRA had started politicking in any direction, "embarrassing" or not.

[bpscCheney]

I too agree with many of the NRAs positions despite my more moderate stance, however I read about the NRA wanting to remove the restrictions on minors owning handguns somewhere (can't recall it at the moment) which is ridiculous to me.

If you mean the NRA support of changing the law so those that are required to serve in the military (draft at 18) should also be able to own a handgun, then does that mean that you feel the draft age should be raised to 21 since those 18-20 are not mature enough to serve in the military?

Ah, the original article I'd seen said just teens in general, so I had assumed they were referring to 14-18. I wholeheartedly agree that at 18 you should have the right to do everything being 21 allows you to do.

[bdutton]

Here are just a few of the problems with the poll (as it was reported):
- they had no way of knowing who was really an NRA member - only the NRA has that list.
- both "NRA membership" and "gun ownership" are self-reported in this poll - very unreliable data.
- asking if someone is in favor of universal background checks without also asking if they are in favor of gun owner registration AND gun registration, is misleading and biased.
- asking if someone is in favor of barring gun ownership from people on the "terror list" without also informing them that the terror list has over 1/2 million names on it, many of them mistaken identities, is misleading and biased.
- calling the terror list "terror suspects" is highly misleading and biased.
- calling any policy a "loophole" is highly misleading and biased.
- etc., etc., etc. - just about every statement you quoted above is either distorted or misleading.

I don't know for a fact if the poll itself was as biased as the above report, but I strongly suspect it must have been. AFAIK, Bloomberg has not released the original questions or the raw data. We only have his word about the results. He has been known to lie.

FredB

I don't recall the NRA ever disputing the validity of the poll nor do I recall them ever surveying the membership themselves. If I' mwrong on either of those point please let me know.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... mbers.aspx

On Dec. 11, 2009, we noted that a poll paid for by anti-gun politician-activist Michael Bloomberg, claiming to show that NRA members support gun control, was conducted by a pollster who has been reprimanded and censured by two professional polling organizations, and who (of course) doesn’t have access to NRA’s confidential member list.


Since then, gun control supporters have cited the poll in numerous newspaper editorials, opinion columns, and letters to editors, all attacking NRA’s opposition to gun control. Recently, however, Bloomberg’s pollster, Frank Luntz, admitted how he gets polls to turn out the way his employers want. In a “Penn and Teller” interview posted on YouTube, Luntz says, “The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers [sic], and to ask the question in a way that you get the right answer.” He added, “[W]ith just a single change of wording, you’ll get a very different reaction in terms of how they think and how they feel.”