Just some general guidelines for media interaction:
-Most reporters, especially at the local level, are not out to paint you into a corner. They are out to convey a story via interviews. Discounting any obvious red flakes, if the conversation is friendly, keep it that way.
-Keep in mind that you are a primary source for the story they are trying to tell. Your interview will ultimately be chopped into a piece that will likely be no more than 4 minutes long on a nightly broadcast. Of that, you may get 30 seconds. This means your answers must be concise, and topical while conveying the information you want the viewing audience to know.
-The way it usually works is that the camera will be rolling, and the reporter will go through their list of questions. From this long reel will come the soundbites that you get edited down to. If you make the entirely human error of tripping over your words, simply tell them you wish to start your answer again, take a breath, and then proceed. This can even apply if a question has been answered and then moved on; at an opportune time you can pause the interview, tell the interviewer that you thought of a better or more concise way to state your previous point, and they should be cool with letting you go over it once more.
-The final question is usually "Do you have anything else to add?" Having gone over your talking points, consider this a good place to put your information into a few sentences.
-The whole process from rolling to wrapping an interview for a local newscast usually takes less than 10 minutes. So again, concise, topical, and focused.
I have a personal catch too... I am a graduate degree alumni of this very university and have many friends there among the staff... I KNOW that they will not be made to believe that we NEED a 30 round mag for defense...
Don't worry about how agreeable others may be. Rather, just state your thoughts in a polite and truthful matter. As long as you're not unprofessional, it should not impede those professional relationships.
Some general thoughts on 30-round magazines: 'What many gun owners are concerned about is the incremental nature of gun control. In 1994, a 10-round restriction was considered reasonable. Recently in New York State, the legislature has decided that 7 rounds represents a reasonable number. And in Connecticut, a bill has been proposed limiting all guns to 1 round.'
You could mention the recent case of the woman who defended her home with a 6-shot revolver. She struck the home invader 5 times, and then fortunately chose to stop his attack and fled. Had he not chosen at that moment to flee, or had their been more than 1 attacker, those 6 shots may not have been enough to provide protection.
Look up the FBI crime statistics on so-called "assault weapons" and be ready to quote them accurately. 'We're talking about a class of firearms that are used in __% of crimes, and are obviously not the weapon of choice among criminals. Since most of their owners are law abiding citizens, it makes little sense to demonize this type of gun.'