Sunday, January 17, 2016

Poll at the Boston Globe: Should the US ban assault weapons?

Poll: Ban Assault Weapons?
No 8 votes

Yes 3 votes

The Boston Globe has a pair of articles, Pro-Con style on the question: Should the U.S. ban assault weapons?

There are few respondents at present, with No having 8 votes and Yes having 3 votes.

This is in the range that we usually expect in Second Amendment related polls, with Second Amendment supporters usually outnumbering disarmists by three to ten times as many.

The link to the poll is here, near the bottom.

This is an unusually small number of votes on a Second Amendment related issue.

Update: To get to the poll, you have to click on "continue reading" at the end of the article.  A limiter is in place that only allows one vote per device, which may explain the lopsided numbers.   As of a few minutes ago:

No  47 votes, 94%  (the Pro Second Amendment position)

Yes   3 votes,   6%  (the disarmist position) 

Now at:

No    72  votes   96%

Yes     3 votes       4%

Definition of  disarmist

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think I am one of those 8 no votes.. there is nothing in the constitution that allows the government the authority to ban any weapons or magazines or any kind of weapons of any style for any purpose. this is the very definition of Shall Not Infringe. Cross bows are made to shoot one bolt at a time but it would be easy to make one that shoots three bolts or a dozen bolts at the same time. A throwing knife could be pointed on both ends. three or more points is usually referred to as a star. You can easily shoot two arrows from a long bow at the same time. standard use is one arrow at a time. It destroys the question why would you need to fire more than one round at a time because the answer is I may want to. and you do not have the right to tell me I can not. No one gets to choose how many dangers that may face them at the same time. A ten round magazine is fine if there are no more rounds needed. It is useless if you need 20 rounds. the government owns machine guns that are belt fed, the ammo comes in 100 round belts with two belts in a box. why does the government need those belt fed guns if not for the same reasons as 10 rounds may not be enough?