Belief in another deadly terrorist attack nearly unanimous Brooklyn patrols not deemed necessary

ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL ^

[abigailb]

LINK

Americans unanimously believe another deadly terrorist attack within U.S. borders is imminent, latest Zogby America poll results reveal. At the same time, a majority of Americans do not believe private citizens need to take action, such as citizen patrols in Brooklyn, to protect themselves.

The latest Zogby America poll of 1,008 likely voters nationwide reveals that nine in ten (90%) Americans believe a terrorist attack in the near future resulting in the loss of U.S. lives is likely. Only 7% believe that such an attack is unlikely, while 2% are unsure. The poll, conducted June 17-19 has a margin of sampling error of +/-3.2%.

Click For Complete Cross Tabulation Results

Results show 18-24 year-olds are slightly less apprehensive (82%) than 25-34 year-olds (92%) and 35-54 year-olds (91%), of a near future terrorist attack. At the same time, African Americans (95%) are slightly more convinced than whites (89%) and Hispanics (86%) that another attack is soon pending. Private Actions

Despite a near unanimous resignation by Americans of an imminent terrorist attack, a majority of Americans do not believe it is necessary for private citizens to begin civilian patrols to protect themselves.

In June, citizens of various religious faiths began considering arming themselves with shotguns and cell phones to patrol the streets of Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn. They claim local police departments are not providing adequate protection from terrorist attacks.

When presented the scenario, more than half of the poll respondents (51%) do not believe it is necessary for private citizens to take such self-protection actions. In contrast, a significant 35% say private citizens should take such actions to guard against a potential terrorist attack, while another 14% are not sure.

Results show opposition to private acts of protection declines with age. Almost seven in ten (68%) of 18-24 year-olds say protection by private citizens is not necessary, compared to 59% of 25-34 year-olds, 51% of 35-54 year-olds, 49% of 55-69 year-olds, and 41% of those over 70.

Hispanic Americans are in slightly more opposition (59%) than whites (51%) and African American (49%) to citizen protection patrols.

Click For Complete Cross Tabulation Results

[harpseal]

The only question is how many dead bodies will we as a nation need to see before we become a nation in arms. One of these days we will take this information seriously until then we will ose people when the terrorists decide to strike.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Still Using Air]

As much as I am FOR the right of self preservation, I can see a few issues possibly with 'armed patrols'.
One: This is NOT the Middle East, it is the US. When we start behaving as if we are afraid, BEFORE anything happens, they have won in a small way.
Two: I can see possible vigilante action when people with high emotions are brandishing weapons in a crowd situation. You can see what happens when crowds become unruly WITHOUT weapons.

That said, it WILL take a few 'bodies' (I prefer 'needless deaths') before we, as a UNITED country, rise up and show what Americans are REALLY made of. Foreigners, raised in totally different cultures, have no basis for understanding the American way of life. On the outside, we appear soft, accustomed to luxury. Yet, IF we still have some true Americans left, that soft, outside shell only hides the true wrath that can be unleashed upon those who wish to destroy us.

[toddst]

more than half of the poll respondents (51%) do not believe it is necessary for private citizens to take such self-protection actions. In contrast, a significant 35% say private citizens should take such actions to guard against a potential terrorist attack, while another 14% are not sure.

Well, if the 35% who see private patrols as appropriate are willing to act, our defensive civilian force would be mighty indeed!

[B4Ranch]

Now you are talking about an entirely different subject! What me participate? "You have got to be kidding", he said. "I can't endanger myself like that!"

[Triple]

"When we start behaving as if we are afraid, BEFORE anything happens..."

What planet have you been on? (Before?)

Further, since when does taking resopnsible actions to ensure for your own safety equate to fear?

[Still Using Air]

Armed Patrols would have had absolutely NO effect on 9/11. But what WOULD have had an immense effect, would be if passengers had still been allowed to carry firearms on flights.
I'm not agreeable to vigilantism as a deterrent prior to the 'supposed' need.
We're not even allowed to patrol our own borders here in the southwest. This happens to be MY immediate concern, and this is ongoing, not some future possible event.
Rather than armed patrols, I personally would rather see everyone armed, as it makes for a 'polite society' as has once been said. I carry sometimes. It's my right, I exercise it. If there were a concrete NEED to carry all the time, I would, no problem.
I personally wouldn't feel quite right about having to prove my identity to an armed patrol, it's bad enough going through Border Patrol checks down here, and I'm blonde/blue-eyed from the Midwest.

[Travis McGee]

"Stand still and die like good Jews!"

[glc1173@aol.com]

"Results show opposition to private acts of protection declines with age. Almost seven in ten (68%) of 18-24 year-olds say protection by private citizens is not necessary, compared to 59% of 25-34 year-olds, 51% of 35-54 year-olds, 49% of 55-69 year-olds, and 41% of those over 70." (Zogby)

And how does it vary by region? Notice that Zogby doesn't even touch that issue!

Anyone else get the feeling that public feelings on that issue vary drastically once outside of the Northeast Corridor, the urban Midwest, and coastal Kalifornia's big cities?

GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money bias - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!

[Triple]

Your view seems internally contradictory to me.

One the one hand, you recognize citizens right to bear arms, and on the other you equate bearing arms to "vigilantism," which you are against.

Which is it?

[Still Using Air]

Not being contradictory at all.
Armed Patrols are the keywords, not RKTKBA.

[Triple]

They curently patrol un-armed, and that is ok with you.

Why object to them taking 'ole' trusty' along with them?
Since they do have the RKBA.

[weikel]

The economy will not recover until we destroy Saudi Arabia and all other terrorist states. Saudi Arabia should be dealt with in a way consistent with Ghenghis Khan's methods.