Who told Dave Dolbee that WWF was against the firearms industry? All the WWF said was that it didn't want to be associated with it, not that it was against it. The "Be with me as fervent as I am or be my enemy" syndrome, which he reaffirms with "…Quite honestly, I do not care if it takes money from the anti-gun crowd as well as the pro-gun groups. Apolitical is just fine with me. My priority is to help our wounded veterans any way I can, but I will not deal with those organizations bent on taking a stance firmly against organizations, groups or beliefs that I strongly relate with." That's a contradiction on its face since all the WWF wishes is to be apolitical (that is, non-aligned) on weapons issues.
What Steve Nardizzi had to say about "COI" might have this explanation: The money donated by arms related donors wouldn't cover the cost of the loss of donations from those who would not donate because of the WWP's endorsement of arms-related entities. Maybe someone did some market research and found this to be the case
What to guns have to do with helping wounded veterans, other than it's not impossible that the vet was wounded by one which might be a big discouragement for anyone who would make substantial donations to an organization that helps those veterans, an organization that's separate from arms-related entities. I'll bet there's a legion of people and organizations that are so persuaded.
People whose first priority is guns and is convinced that any who aren't as devoted to guns as they are is their enemy won't donate to WWP, but WWP is not their enemy, WWP doesn't have a dog in the gun-rights fight. Blaming them for that doesn't make a lot of sense.
P.S. If high-paid executives of donation-supported organizations are the cause of a heartburn, then don't look at what the NRA pays Wayne LaPierre, it'll give you ulcers.
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?