CNN gun control poll

[Robinhood4x4]

http://edition.cnn.com/
It's on the bottom right.

Do you believe gun-control laws are an effective way to curb violence?
Yes 45%

No 55%

77385 votes
Total: 139489 votes

[mastacox]

I'm actually kind of surprised that the poll isn't showing a bias for more gun control.

Maybe there's hope for society after all...

[fustercluck]

I bellieve that gun control will curb the ability of the law abiding to violently answer the violence of the lawless.

[localmotion]

The only thing that gun control does is hurt citizens who obey the law. Criminals are called just that, criminals. They will break the law and do what they want to do because they are....all together now...criminals.

[Robinhood4x4]

You guys were supposed to vote and help swing the results our way!

:roll: Newbs.

[fustercluck]

You guys were supposed to vote and help swing the results our way!

:roll: Newbs.


:D

It wants me to vote about Alec Baldwin's tirade to his 11 or 12 yr daughter.

[Tanto]

Pennsylvanians are threatened with a bill that would require a $10 fee for each gun in the household PER YEAR and all unregistered guns would be subject to immediate confiscation.

An armed populace means a controlled government.

[zuppy51]

No, gun control only stops us up standing citizens from keeping our 2'nd amendment.
Also, it's a slippery slope! Remember the what happened in Germany during the WWII. Don't want to be a victim!

[arjan]

WWII showed quite the opposite: weapons are useless against a ruthless occupier.
The Dutch put up a good fight with the weapons they had in 1940, but the Germans then proceeded to bomb the city core of Rotterdam.
A lot of civilians got killed, and the story was simple: Stop fighting or the other major cities are next.
After the dust settled there where weapons around, but if you'd kill a German then they would just randomly go to some houses close by and shoot the men, women and children on the spot. Not something I would want to be responsible for.
We cannot imagine how it really is, but I know my Grandfather was in the underground resistance and still didn't want to talk about it in the 1980's.
Solutions seem simple until you are really dealing with such a situation.

If there ever is a hostile ruthless power which can overpower the US military, then I am convinced you won't think about using your weapons.

[fustercluck]

I'd rather go down fighting than on my knees.

[rocket]

Everyone that voted "yes" should be shipped out of our country. Seriously. Did they forget we have a Constitution!? It's people like them that make our Constitution almost seem like it doesn't exist.

[rocket]

Wow just wow! Have a look at this... http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2007/280507NRA.htm

[Bob98SR5]

WWII showed quite the opposite: weapons are useless against a ruthless occupier.
The Dutch put up a good fight with the weapons they had in 1940, but the Germans then proceeded to bomb the city core of Rotterdam.
A lot of civilians got killed, and the story was simple: Stop fighting or the other major cities are next.
After the dust settled there where weapons around, but if you'd kill a German then they would just randomly go to some houses close by and shoot the men, women and children on the spot. Not something I would want to be responsible for.
We cannot imagine how it really is, but I know my Grandfather was in the underground resistance and still didn't want to talk about it in the 1980's.
Solutions seem simple until you are really dealing with such a situation.

If there ever is a hostile ruthless power which can overpower the US military, then I am convinced you won't think about using your weapons.



Arjan,

I believe we are not talking about a fanatical government but of rational countries with established laws.

THat said, I think your grandpa had the same idea as most of us do---go down fighting for what you believe in. Sounds like you are a student of history, so you know that similarly, the Germans systematically began to take away the rights of the people they thought were underclass. The jews, of course, were the first. But the Germans took ownership of firearms away from the entire populace and henceforth, eliminated the *ability* of anyone who was against the Nazis (in Germany and in other countries) from fighting back.

I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but during the LA riots, Korean merchants were pulled out of their stores and off the rooftops of their businesses. Guess what happened soon afterwards? Yup, their businesses got looted and burned to the ground.

People should have the right to defend themselves with guns if they choose to.

Bob

[Texas Jim]

I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but during the LA riots, Korean merchants were pulled out of their stores and off the rooftops of their businesses. Guess what happened soon afterwards? Yup, their businesses got looted and burned to the ground.

People should have the right to defend themselves with guns if they choose to.

Bob




[/quote]


You should be able to defend yourself with deadly force only in the protection of your or someone else's potentially danger or loss of life. Not to protect just property. TJ

[Bob98SR5]

TJ,

agreed, but thats easier said than done. the police did nothing but to let those korean shop owners fend for themselves. how were they supposed to get out? most if not all of them paid their dues through hard work and years of savings---to what? have it burned down to the ground by a bunch of pieces of sh##? i dont blame them. oh and as a side note, a vast majority of those store owners did not receive full compensation for the loss as many insurance companies folded up and left town. so more salt to the wounds.

so yes, i do understand that pulling out your gun is a very, very serious thing, but the scope of what i consider reasonable is a little broader than yours based on my life experiences

bob

[Texas Jim]

Bob, Please do not get me wrong, I do totally agree with what you are saying. Trust me I would love to shoot dead a few people who are what are commonly referred to as pieces of crap!! I wouldn't feel one bit of remorse or regret of doing so, However a lawful society cannot go around and just shoot who we deem as not worthy of life.

Sadly, the law was unable to protect the citizens of a decent society during the LA riot's all caused by the law enforcement beating another piece of society's crap!

Also, and I hate to point this out but the civil court system of law as well as state regulatory commisions, (ie the state's insurance commissioner,) is there to protect the very citizens that were ripped off by their insurance carrier. I do realize that you cannot collect any money from something that doesn't exist any more. Thus the whole tragedy of a riot, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, or any other natural or man made disaster. I am not disagreeing with you I think that in certain civil emergency situations a person should be able to protect property as well as life. TJ

[Bob98SR5]

TJ,

no, no worries. just a friendly debate and pointing out another side of the story. i can understand your point of view as well.

bob