Is this evidence the Overton window has shifted? I wonder if the NYT is going through the three stages of acceptance:

Three Stages of Acceptance: (1) It Is Not True. (2) It Is Contrary To Religion. (3) Everyone Knew It Before.

But I suspect Grok has it closer to correct when asked about their history of opposition to private gun ownership and if the article above indicates a change in stance:

In short, documented opposition to unrestricted private carrying and easy civilian access to firearms dates to at least 1866. Stronger, more categorical language against private ownership of particular classes of guns appears in later decades, especially after high-profile mass shootings. The paper’s editorial stance has consistently favored regulation over an unfettered individual right to private ownership and carry.

…

This is a news feature, not an editorial, and it does not signal any shift in The New York Times’ longstanding institutional position favoring stricter gun regulation over unrestricted private ownership and carry.

The August 7, 2026, article (“He Trained to Stop a Mass Shooting. When the Moment Came, He Was Ready”) is a reported human-interest piece about Jordan Salinas, the armed civilian who returned fire during the August 1 Twin Falls, Idaho, In-N-Out Burger attack (three killed, seven wounded). It describes his prior training, the community’s embrace of him as a reluctant hero, and local sentiment that the actions of Salinas and an off-duty trooper helped limit the toll by forcing the gunman to retreat before he killed himself. The framing is factual and focuses on the individuals and local response rather than broader policy advocacy.

…

In short, positive or neutral news coverage of one incident in which a trained, armed civilian intervened is consistent with standard reporting practice and does not indicate a change in the paper’s overall stance on private gun ownership.

It is possible the editorial leadership has softened their opposition to gun ownership, but 160 years of institution commitment is a lot to overcome. I expect they will eventually get there. We have momentum on our side and a growing list of SCOTUS decisions and practical evidence to support the utility of our claims.

I will believe the Overton Window has moved when they publish a favorable editorial opinion rather than a just a mostly factual news article.