Poll Shows NRA Lost Favor After Armed Guards Proposal

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

The National Rifle Association lost favor with voters after its pre-Christmas press conference addressing the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, according to a new poll from the Public Policy Polling center.

A national poll conducted before the press conference found that 48 percent of voters surveyed had a favorable image of the NRA and 41 percent had an unfavorable view. Afterward, the numbers were 42 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable, the polling center found.

“The NRA\’s focus on putting more guns in schools is likely what\’s driving the decline in the organization\’s image,” PPP said in a statement accompanying the release of its poll numbers Wednesday. “Only 41% of voters support the organization\’s proposal to put armed police officers in schools across the country, with 50% opposed.”

On Dec. 14, a gunman fatally shot 20 first-graders and six adults at the Sandy Hook school, in Newtown, and then killed himself. Earlier, he had killed his mother at the home they shared.

At a press conference Dec. 21, NRA lobbyist Wayne LaPierre proposed posting armed police officers in all the country’s schools.  \”The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,\” LaPierre said.

The PPP survey was conducted from Jan. 3 to 6 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.0 percentage points.  The poll results are available on the PPP website.

 

\"NRApoll011013\"

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

22 thoughts on “Poll Shows NRA Lost Favor After Armed Guards Proposal

  1. Andria

    This paper is so politically biased, I don’t believe this poll. Not in the state of Connecticut, too many gun owners! The NRA did not lose favor, you would like to think so! Even Newtown wants their schools policed in house. If there was a concealed carry person in that school, that shooter would not have been able to do the mass killing. Maybe 1 or 2, maybe, but then he would have been shot!

    1. Mike Robinson

      It is a poll by (PPP) Public Policy Polling center, not the newspaper. It was a national poll, not just Connecticut. See link above for full report. Is it that hard to believe there has been a public outcry to do something and that might reduce NRA popularity? The change is only about 5% and Newtown is still fresh in peoples’ minds. In a few months you might expect some drift back to historical norms.

    1. Hypocrite detector

      I think some people distrust PPP polls due to the fact that they only accept Democrat and Progressive candidates and causes as private clients.

      That might lead a reasonable person to believe they have an outcome they strongly desire, making some of the polls they run either intentionally or unintentionally skewed.

      They cannot do this while polling elections, or other events where accuracy can be measured, or they would be discredited. Thus, they establish themselves as accurate during elections, then publish nonsense like 58% of people approving of Obamacare right before the 2010 election, or asking poll questions like “Do you think Romney or Obama deserves more credit for killing Bin Laden?”

      1. Mike Robinson

        Thanks for the comment. I was just trying to set the facts straight after some said it was the fault of the newspaper or the state of Connecticut. Whether this poll outfit is biased is a separate question not mentioned until now.

        You are probably right that PPP has some Democratic bias. I’ll add that the gun question does not break cleanly along partisan lines.

        The NRA has proudly proclaimed that they are getting many new applications. Only they know for sure. As far as I know, they have not mentioned how many cancellation letters they received.

  2. Midwesterner

    @andria, you ignorantly assume someone at the school would have had a gun. Arizona has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country and none of the people at the grocery store was armed when Gabby Giffords and those other people were shot. Your comments are an insult to the Newtown dead and their surviving relatives.

    1. Professor Poop

      Midwesterner; Although I agree that Andria is ignorant, one person did have a gun during the Gifford shooting and he almost shot the wrong person. It is on the news.

      To believe that more guns will make us safer is the biggest fallacy that anyone can say. The result will be full breakdown of social order. Incredible that anyone would actually propose this and anyone would believe it.

      1. hypocrite detector

        Professor,

        I have some news for you: The ship has sailed on maintaining social order.

        We have a black male high school graduation rate of less than 50%, and over 70% of black chldren are born to unwed mothers. On top of that, we have an entire political party that successfully bases their existence and surival on ignoring these simple facts and convincing the victims of these statistics that their struggles in life are due to the fact that rich white people exist.

        We have such utter disregard for life that well over 1 million abortions occur each year. Regarless of anyone’s position on Roe vs. Wade, this is indicative of a society in decay.

        Our top television shows, viewed by tens of millions of people every day, are based in murderous violence, unmitigated ignorance, and glorifying baby mamas and uneducated hillbillies.

        We have a President who detests the US Constitution he swore to uphold. And his party seems to hold the Constitution and equal disregard.

        We have homocide as the leading cause of death among black men between the ages of 15 and 35, and homocide is in the top 10 on average for all ages of black men.

        We have 2 political parties, with no imput from anyone else, that are so completely opposed to each other’s visions that there is no hope for compromise

        More importantly, we have a central governent growing in power, that is dictating to States where the overwhelming majority of those States’ citizens disagree with what is being dictated to them. Throughout history, this has led to Civil War, and it is impossible for me to see how we are not moving towards that misery.

        We have such tremendous debt, that the interest on that debt accounts for almost 15% of our budget, and this is going to climb rapidly in the coming years. We will then get to choose between default and not providing our citizens with services that have been promised to them, or defending them from foreign invaders.

        I’d say guns are significantly less likely than any of these things to cause a “full breakdown of social order”.

          1. Kim

            is your address in la la land, Mike? You funnel vision seems to imply as much. Either that or your objectivity is quite questionable. I’m guessing a lot of both.

            Love those who scream for honest discussions while displaying nothing like honesty. Ignorance is killing this country

          2. hypocrite detector

            Mike,

            You live there too. Do you view any of the things I mentioned as a problem?

            I didn’t come close to covering everything.

            I left out the revocation of multiple levels of personal liberty by government officials who violate the Constitution to remove that liberty.

            I left out the excessive spending on a policing military force that involves itself in many matters which have no benefit to the United States.

            I left out the mockery that the media makes of the First Amendment through actively campaigning for one candidate while lying about the opposing candidate.

            I left out the utter lies about history our school children are taught on a daily basis.

            I left out that our electorate is so incredibly uniformed that when Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and all the other leftist propagandists give speeches about how semi-automatic weapons are unecessary for hunting, the audience cheers up and down, completely blind to the fact that the word hunting is neither mentioned nor inferred anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

            I could go on for days, but I get a strong feeling you and the people you vote for hold the same disregard for The Constitution.

        1. Da Troof

          Very well stated. Banning these guns pales in comparison to the serious problems this country faces. Liberals are much more comfortable demagoguing this issue than having the courage to deal with other issues of their making.

        2. Kim

          hypocrite detector: well said – your argument is the perfect explanation and validation of the second amendment. Our forefathers banished royalty from this country years ago and created an amendment to help us keep it that way.

          To add to your points: let’s not forget that this ‘government’ sponsors and forces us to pay for indoctrination centers they call public schools that spend more time teaching children to sing praises to our glorious leaders than actually teaching them anyting of value – like our own history for example. We herd our children into their designated pens and leave them unprotected from the slaughter, while they themselves have the highest levels of security at their disposal.

          How about letting us pick our own schools, and let those centers compete for educational quality, competence, and yes, safety. I think my money would be better spent on something like this than supported bloated teachers’/administrators’ pensions and salaries

          1. Kim

            perhaps this issue is the hot-button issue that will awaken the lethargic who have been content to simply sit back and see where the country goes. Didn’t some well-respected forefather say something about refreshing the tree of liberty?

            I’d hate to see this happen but the way our so-called leaders are handling their responsibilities, it becomes more likely by the day.

            The first step of a tyrannical government is to disarm the population. Any wannabe dictator would LOVE a list of all gun owners to start them off on this disarming project. WAIT – they DO have lists! Are you still wondering where the average citizen stands? If you think the current threats to publish these lists is the closing salvo in this debate, think again.

            The citizens of Egypt and Syrai would love to be on a ‘list’ at this point – it would mean that they have the opportunity and means to fight back against their murderous regimes and save their own lives and the lives of their families. Remember this when you choose to give up your liberties.

            And the ignorant shall lead the way to slavery. So much for the great American experiment – it’s on track to fail sooner than virtually any other major civilization in history. What a waste of a great opportunity for the freedom of individuals, and the limiting of government power.

      2. Kim

        the facts prove you wrong, poopster. Gun ownership has increase some 10-fold over the past 2 decades while violent has decreased by almost 50%. Also, most of the places where guns are the most restricted have shown reductions in crime

        Making up your own facts does nothing to help the conversation

      3. Kim

        wrong poopster. The biggest fallacy is that we can count on our educators and ‘professors’ to impart accurate, critical, relevant, objective and historical information to the students under their care to help them remain free and productive. Instead, there is an agenda that must be pushed towards changing society to fit whatever mold they think is appropriate.

        Thomas Sowell is absolutely right in this regard – I for one have been saying something similar for years and it’s refreshing to see such a respected educator (a real one, not your pseudo-type) and intellectual have the courage to flat-out say so.

        Some rebellious societies and their leaders eliminate the intelligentsia during their upheavals. Pol Pot was an absolute barbarian when – among other things – he took steps to eliminate this group. He wasn’t interested in a free society. But he was fully aware of how this group could shape and guide public opinion through their government-sanctioned access to young minds.

        Educators need to take their responsibilities – and their positions – much more seriously than they currently do.

Comments are closed.