Sarkozy: I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

Unfortunately, the police and judiciary in France are inefficient. Moreover, through disastrous immigration, multicultural and political correctness policies and programmes, the French government is reverting its public to a 'state of nature'. And in a state of nature, where struggle is endemic, not owning a gun can be a veritable death sentence.

The mere posession of a weapon can be a major crime deterrent. Delaware County New York, U.S.A. (population 47,000 - men, women & children) has the lowest crime rate in the nation!
Residing among the law abiding citizens are 44,000 handguns and 220,000 long guns.

Paladin

That Sarkozy wants to keep guns restricted in France is, no doubt, a sane position, but his belief that one ruins one's own life by defending oneself is nuts.

If we are to believe the daily media reports, Mr. Sarkozy does not even believe in self defense for the French police.

It is indeed sad to view the demise of a once proud and valiant France, and of the western Europe quagmire as a whole.

With all our faults, I thank G_D everyday I am an American.

@ jari

Surely, if anyone is in any "bushes" it certainly is you rather than me.  Attaching immorality to inanimate objects, rather than to human intentions, is a form of idol worship or of 'primitive religion'. 

And asking silly rethorical questions is a sign of stupidity.  One could just as well ask: do you know any knife that can ONLY be used for defense, or do you know any car that can ONLY be used for driving, etc....?  If you think that people can only be killed by guns then you are not very smart.  And if you think that ALL killing is unjustified or immoral, then you are extremely naive and ideologically-blinded.   Human morality is much 'harder' and much more complicated than your primitive religion. Now, if we were talking about the 'morality' of a dog, or an elephant...... then, perhaps, you might have a point.

@ Jari

I am FOR gun 'control', as I explained earlier. But I am also AGAINST the 'primitive religion' that you seem to espouse. 

Of course, "inanimate objects" have no "moral bearing" IN THEMSELVES.   Human morality is always a matter of human INTENTIONS.   It depends on what the human involved wants to achieve.  A gun, just like any other object, can be used for 'good' purposes and for 'bad' purposes.   

The determination of good and bad purposes is where the difficulty lies.  It can only rest on an honest conscientious analysis of purposes or intentions, taking into account ALL consequences of both action and of INaction. 

It follows that being "moral" is difficult and often 'uncertain'.  You seem to be taking the easy way out by attaching 'morality' (or immorality) to physical things.  That is the way of 'primitive religion' and of 'children'.

and what the framers of the US constitution DID understand very well was that all freedoms must be continually fought for by those that desire them. That is why the second amendment (the right to own guns) is second only to the first amendment (the right to free speech). Had the framers known it would become such a problem hundreds of years later they might have reconsidered it and put it first instead of second.

What did Hitler do before he exterminated the Jews? He took away their guns. Only a true idiot/totalitarian wannabe with no regard for the facts can honestly advocate that any government should prevent law abiding citizens from carrying guns. America has, in the past, always had higher crime rates than Europe. In the 19th Century, when neither New York or London had any gun control laws New York still had more murders than London. America, to the extent that it is violent it is violent because it has violent people. Guns are inanimate objects with no moral bearing. They are not a cause of violence anymore than bats or bottles or rocks or cars or knives or metal pipes are. There are countries with higher gun ownership rates than the that US have less violence(Switzerland, Israel, Canada). Britain saw its murder and crime rates INCREASE after its gun bans were passed. Do some research before advocating a policy which can only lead to a totalitarian state.

My local newspaper publishes AP news about it, using euphemism "youths" but did mention "muslims".

If the French police continues to let themselves ambushed and stoned, it's their poor (and stupid) choice and they have to suffer from the consequences.  They do carry guns, don't they?  Or do they only carry whistles and batons?

Muslim youths tested them enough times to know French police is spineless, therefore they act bolder and bolder.  What else is new? 

Another point I couldn't really get is to allow immigrants in under the idea of adding them to the workforce.  Employers are not stupid.   Therefore those immigrants end up on welfare roll.  Isn't that a dumb labor policy  or what?

If you look at the murder rate in the Tx and NJ vs the UK, the UK is a safer place, but if you look at the figure for assualt, which is WAY more common (53x), than murder.  Both Texas and New Jersey are much safer than the UK

Sources:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/njcrimn.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm 

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&all=...

I see some people who argue against guns arguing that the Muslims are not using guns, but bottles, bats, and other deadly instruments. But not guns!!!!

Well that is NOT a good argument to therefore say law abiding citizens should therefore not have guns.

If surrounded by a GANG with bottles, bats, and other deadly instruments, a gun becomes a great equalizer. Otherwise, what do you propose the soon to be victim do? Ask for a bat too to be Even? Do law abiding citizens therefore have to travel in GROUPS?

A gun in the hand of a 65 year old woman is a GREAT equalizer against a gang of 22 year olds bent on beating her to death with bats or robbing her.

This idea that since the GANGS don't have guns, then people can't protect themselves with guns is ludicrous. I guess descent people will just have to travel in groups and carry bats too!

By the way, guns in the hands of the citizens can keep a government at bay too. The best defense against tyranny or gangs is an ARMED CITIZENRY.

I read (maybe at Brussels Journal) that the average number of torched vehicles per day in France is 112.  So far this year, that makes some 33,000 car-be-ques.  Round up the youths and have them write, in proper French, penmanship graded, "I'm sorry for burning cars", 33,000 times, followed by a strict accounting of resume submissions and job seeking activities.  If a job is not found within 30 days, then the youths get to complete the written apology exercise again.  If nothing else, the youths will see an improvement in their writing skills, which should translate into better job opportunities down the line.

Another example of vive la' difference, wouldn't you say? Oh, and if I misspelled any of those French words, so what? It stopped being a major language a long time ago, about the time the French stopped winning wars and instead embraced defeat as the most logical policy.

Eurosocialism, statism and multiculturalism have been the norms for so long now, that even conservatives are defending them as the status quo. So it's time to acknowledge that the notion of individual freedom is now become a radical concept, at least in the EU.  

Bumper sticker suggestion: "True Progressives Love Individual Freedom".

The argument is not about guns! "It is about the right to defend ones self" They are and have been trying to take this away from us, "The People". If you do not have the right to defend your self in your home or on the street, then we will not need weapons.
If a man can go to jail for protecting his family in his own home, no matter the force used, then he can not protect what is his, no matter the situation. Once we lose the right of self defense, the story is over and the government will no longer be for the people or by the people.

If every citizen with a conscience had a gun in 1942, WWII may have ended in 1943. This is the same self-hating ideology that went into Chamberlin's policy of appeasement and led the world into the fangs of one of the worst barbarians in human history. Wake up, Europe.

America is almost as bad, except that here people just walk around so afraid, they're numb.

I just saw a book about viral fear and the national US media called THE NEXT OSAMA (J. Acosta) that you all gotta read. It's just about what fear without any reasonable response does to ordinary people. I started reading it and it looked like it was right on.

Wake up Europe. Before you find yourself in the grips of a nightmare from which you can no longer be extricated.

D

It sems rather odd, in Switzerland all fit and able men over 18 are armed to the teeth, they are all members of the military and ALL have their AUTOMATIC weapons at home. The instances of home invasions are virtually non existant.
My uncle works for the DEA. The number of weapons smuggled into the US and into the hands of criminals is staggering. Does Mr. Sarkozy think for a second that weapons are not at this very moment being smuggled into France? Truly when guns are outlawed ONLY the outlaws will have guns, and they will be far better than anything the police will have. If the US border patrol is no match for the Mexican drug runners what chance will the Paris police have against the Islamic terrorist? When the terrorist go door to door killing unarmed Frenchmen will Mr. Sarkozy say he is sorry? Or will his sorry butt be on the first jet out of Dodge?

Your position Sir, is not a republican conservative stance; but, by all means, is a socialist totalitarian position. Which is incompatible with liberty and indeed, even true security if individual freedom is to be guaranteed. What, pray-tell is your remedy for tyranny? What is the check against a military coup or a power hungry politician? Mere Words?
Kind Sir you are a fool! The truth for private ownership of weaponry is not merely self defense from a predator criminal; but the defense of self and like minded masses from a predatory government. You Sir, are a fraud. It is time for the populace of France to shed the bonds of tyranny and the fear of criminality. You may send my Uncle's remains back to my country if France has become what I fear it has; for he gave his life in vain, June 1944 United States Army, Cherbourg, France.

Everything he said was wrong.  How does he know someone breaking into your house is only a thief?  What the hell is he talking about when he says a criminal will use his gun better than a homeowner...WTF?

He just surrenders.

"I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home."

What the hell is this?  His wife and daughter will call him a coward and hate him while they get rape tests done at the hospital, and while they are either bearing or aborting the childrern immigrant youths.

   Almost by definition, there are no police or judiciary present when crime happens.  It is a fundamental God-given right to defend yourself.

No government can ensure an individual's immediate safety.  To abrogate a citizens right to ensure it himself should be considered a crime against Nature and Nature's God.

@ markpetens

No, again.  The strict implication of Sarkozy's statement is only that CERTAIN criminals will have guns AND ALSO the 'police'.  However, you might say that that is 'splitting hairs'.  Nevertheless, if guns are difficult to get (1) they will be less prevalent in society, even among criminals, and (2) the consequences of crime will almost certainly be less 'deadly'.   One should always be wary of making cross-cultural comparisons, because numerous other factors (besides gun availablity) are at play,  but compare the 4 million people of, say, New Zealand (with strict gun control) versus the '4' (or 5?) million people of, say, Colorado (with virtually no gun control).  There is little doubt that crime is much more deadly in Colorado than in New Zealand (for both criminals and 'victims') and that the 'accident' rate is also much higher in C.

Note, that I did not fully agree with the Sarkozy statement.  I do support the idea of private gun ownership of 'defensive' weapons, but under strict regulations.  Guns can be a useful 'tool', like cars, and equally need regulation, not blanket banning nor glorification.   Common sense can often be found in 'the middle'.   

Thank God for the N.R.A., i.e. The National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment.

In Texas the rate of crime dropped after Texas enacted the right to carry a concealed weapon upon obtaining a permit.

Florida too has enacted the right to carry a concealed weapon. I got my permit!!!!

Thank God I'll need the gun and permit one day when war is waged against Islam in this country. Oh who will need a permit then...unless it is a HUNTING LICENSE!!!! :)

The french state has demonstrated again and again that it is not capable of providing security to its citizens. Im sure Sarkozy would squeal very differently if he himself was confronted with a armed criminal in a dark side street. But of course a high official as he doesnt really live in the "real world"! No one should have the right to deny a human being the right to defend the most precious thing that he or she possesses: his/her own life and lives of his/her loved ones!
Of course the main reason behind all this is that he is afraid that some regular french people would take up arms to save the situation. As far as i know, a number of people in france today have a permit to own a gun. These are ordinary law abiding citizens who will now lose their permits.

i'm generally in favor of the right of a citizen to own a gun. but perhaps mr. sarkozy is thinking about the nightmare he would have on his hands if the more troublesome residents of his french suburbs packed heat. his police cannot enforce the peace now, when these disaffected youths are using only baseball bats and molotov cocktails. adding citizen gun ownership to the mix is probably too horrible to contemplate.

I am an American with no fascination for guns, but neither would I feel the least bit guilty about shooting an intruder who was threatening me or my family.  This would not ruin my life, pace Sarkozy.  Rather, I would look back on it as a necessary evil -- and hope that, in the future, burglars would think twice about threatening me or anyone else in my society. 

Europeans on this site repeatedly insist that America and Europe are closely alligned and share values and interests.  My doubts are only strengthened by statements like this from the future French president -- the most sympathetic candidate in France toward the Franco-American relationship.  Americans are routinely mocked for their religious faith, but clearly it is Europeans who have been most damaged by the lasting effects of sentimental Christianity and turn-the-other-cheek pacifism.  Let's erect trade barriers to this nonsense immediately.

@ markpetens

No, that is not true, and I think you know that Sarkazy is not saying that.   What he is saying is that NO ONE should have guns, except the 'police' (perhaps broadly defined). 

But, of course, that argument carries less weight when 'law and order' is breaking down, or when numerous laws are not being effectively enforced (by both the executive and the judiciary branches of government).

There are good arguments on both sides of this debate. But, one should not misrepresent the true positions of either side. 

My preference is for a 'reasonable compromise'.  Strict 'regulation' of private ownership of weapons, and only 'defensive' weapons allowed.  The regulation should involve (1) who can own guns (age requirements, reference and/or training requirement, exclusion of certain convicted criminals, etc..), (2) what they can own, i.e. only defensive weapons, and (3) responsibility for own weaponry, i.e. effective penalities for 'negligence'. 

What Sarkozy basically is saying that only criminals can have guns and protect themselves. Respectable citizens are left with nothing in the jungle that is!