For the First Time, Majority of NYT Readers Oppose Assault Weapon Ban

[5.56NATO]

Shortly after the San Bernardino shooting, the New York Times made a big deal out of posting an editorial on the front page for the first time in nearly a hundred years. The article was a scathing condemnation of our nation’s gun laws, as well as America’s gun culture. However, their impassioned plea for more gun legislation hasn’t had its intended effect.

For 20 years the New York Times has periodically surveyed their readers, asking them if they would support an assault weapons ban. For the first time since 1995, a majority of their readers opposed the ban. In January of 1995, 67% of readers supported the ban, and 27% opposed. By 2011 there was a slight shift, with 63% in favor and 34% opposed. By 2015 there was a dramatic change with only 44% in favor of a ban, and 50% opposed.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/for-t...pon-ban_122015


What amazes me is they didn't alter the poll to favor their agenda.

[alismith]

What amazes me is they didn't alter the poll to favor their agenda.

They might have altered it to show that 50% opposed IF those opposed were really around 78%.

You never know...

[imanaknut]

They probably didn't alter the poll because their readership is so low that they are just happy to have anyone buying their paper, even the dreaded "assault" weapon owner.

[Krupski]

Shortly after the San Bernardino shooting, the New York Times made a big deal out of posting an editorial on the front page for the first time in nearly a hundred years. The article was a scathing condemnation of our nation’s gun laws, as well as America’s gun culture. However, their impassioned plea for more gun legislation hasn’t had its intended effect.

For 20 years the New York Times has periodically surveyed their readers, asking them if they would support an assault weapons ban. For the first time since 1995, a majority of their readers opposed the ban. In January of 1995, 67% of readers supported the ban, and 27% opposed. By 2011 there was a slight shift, with 63% in favor and 34% opposed. By 2015 there was a dramatic change with only 44% in favor of a ban, and 50% opposed.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/for-t...pon-ban_122015


What amazes me is they didn't alter the poll to favor their agenda.

I'll bet quite a bit of the "opposition" came from the concept of forcible door-to-door confiscation rather than a ban itself.

Even dumb sheeple can figure out that if one kind of thing can be forcibly confiscated, then anything can.

I sincerely hope nobody is stupid enough to try it. The holidays are not the time for people to die.

[Krupski]

They probably didn't alter the poll because their readership is so low that they are just happy to have anyone buying their paper, even the dreaded "assault" weapon owner.

I'm amazed that when people talk about "gun laws" in public, why nobody brings up the simple and irrefutable fact that ASSAULT and MURDER have always been illegal and if someone is willing to violate the "ultimate law", how anyone can possibly imagine that a mere "gun law" will have the force to stop them.

IF... I say IF it were hypothetically possible to make some "law" that would really, actually stop violent crime committed using firearms, I would be 100% in agreement with it, even if it infringed on my personal use of guns.

But nobody in their right mind can imagine that a penny-ant "gun law" will stop (or even slow down) someone bent on violence, assault and murder.

Anyone who thinks a "gun law" CAN work obviously needs to be locked up in the loony bin... for their safety and ours.

[imanaknut]

When someone asks me or starts talking about "reasonable restrictions" I always come back with; "When they make murder illegal, and everyone abides by that law, then we can talk about reasonable restrictions". Shuts them up every time.