If WWP was the only charity, or even the best, that does what they do, I could understand contributing.
They're not the only or the best. Even without the gun issue, why contribute?
I see no controversy around The Fisher House, they have an A rating every place I've checked and they report 4% administrative costs.
Just the difference between WWPs approximately 15% and Fisher House's 4% would change my donation.
I certainly agree that if you prefer one charity over the other then go with the one you like. But Fisher House has a different mission than does the Wounded Warrior Project.
Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury.
To raise awareness and enlist the public's aid for the needs of injured service members.
To help injured service members aid and assist each other.
To provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members.
Fisher supplies a valuable service but it is a single static mission. WWP has a more dynamic open ended mission. I'd suggest that the difference in administrative cost has more to do with the type of mission than assuming that WWP is run by feckless grifters.
So yes there are many worthy charities that serve the veteran community, but they are not interchangeable. If you support the mission of the WWP but don't like the organization, then find an organization with a similar mission.
In the end though private charities dealing with veteran's issues are a bandage on a hemorrhage. We should be demanding that the VA should cover the damages caused by sending young women and men into harms way.
Veterans shouldn't be pawns in political games as this thread shows.