I'm sure you had a valuable point to make but the blatant inaccuracy in your comment distracts from any effectiveness your point may have had.
* It was a game killing random robots, not people.
* It wasn't an NRA event, it was CPAC where the NRA was one of many presenters.
* It was not the day after, it was a week after.
You could argue that these are minor errors, but that's not the point. You've already tarnished your credibility so it's hard to take anything else you retort with at face value.
It's unfortunate because I think you had a decent point about optics.
The "person" in "first person shooter" refers to the narrative perspective of the player (ie. first person, third person) and not the species that is being "shot at"
* It was a game killing random robots, not people.
* It wasn't an NRA event, it was CPAC where the NRA was one of many presenters.
* It was not the day after, it was a week after.
You could argue that these are minor errors, but that's not the point. You've already tarnished your credibility so it's hard to take anything else you retort with at face value.
It's unfortunate because I think you had a decent point about optics.