French Republican Value: Disarm Yourself for Self Defense

A quote from French Conservative presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006

I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. 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.

Full Agreement! Sort of...

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.

Gun Control

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

Self-defense

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.

Whatever

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.

Dear idol worshipper

@ 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.

Primitive 'religion'

@ 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'.

Dear Marcfrans

I find great pleasure in sending guys with long toes into bushes that i might have suggested. The question mark apparently did the right job.

Can you name any gun that can only be used for defence?

What Europeans don't understand

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.

Inanimate objects cannot have intent. They are not alive.

I really hope to never have to use my firearm on a human. Thus my purpose in buying it is to deter any would be attacker upon my person or property, my secondary purpose would be to use it for sport - hunting or target practice, and my tertiary purpose would be to kill someone if my life were in danger from that person. A gun can only represent the person using it. Bad people will do bad things with guns - just like they do bad things with fertilizer compounds (bombs), box cutters(terrorism), cell phones(bomb detonators), cars etc etc. Even a pen can be used to stab someone in the chest and kill them. Yet no one seriously advocates "pen control."

No! Really?

And @ Marcfrans

You said 'I do support the idea of private gun ownership of 'defensive' weapons, but under strict regulations.'

I assume you are intelligent enough to understand my question. In stead of admitting your 'mistake', you continue to mistakenly grasp at my thoughts on the morality of objects and pacifism.

What i want to ask you, (cityboy?) Marcfrans: have you ever used a gun, or another weapon? Have you ever killed and slaughtered a mammal? I did, effectively. And i would be more than ready to kill an arab on germanic soil if necessary.

FRENCH POLICEMEN AMBUSHED

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?

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution....

Thank God here in the USA we have it....Otherwise, we'd be in one hell of a liberal chokehold pickle!.....The only logical explaination that I can think of for Sarkozy's comments is that he is trying to appeal to more centrist and or liberal voters for the elections next year....He may have just sealed his fate with the French voters by making these remarks....That is sad......Because the alternative choices are far from being better......

Statistics

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=1 

Guns - The Great Equalizer

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.

33,000 apologies

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.

Guns

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.

Sarkozy a conservative? Time to redefine the term.

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".

 

Swiss women's campaign for ban on guns

Switzerland

Now, Switzerland's biggest women's magazine is leading a campaign to tighten what they see as the country's archaic gun laws. They want lawmakers to create a national gun register and ban loaded weapons being kept in the home.

Defending ones' self!

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.

gunless, toothless Eurabia

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

Sarkozy??????

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?

Unacceptable Mr. Sarkozy

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.

WTF?

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.

 

 

 

implication 2

@ 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 GUNS

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!!!! :)

Concealed carry

I would like the Europeans to be aware that everywhere concealed carry laws have been passed in the United States violent criminal activity has dropped.

I live in a concealed carry state and am licensed to carry a concealed weapon which I do almost all the time. Imagine how much safer your society would be if all law abiding citizens had access to hand guns.

ROFL

Which is why the instance of violent crimes is so much higher then in the States....euh...ooops....I guess someone is in a self delusional state.

I guess that's also the reason why there are so few murder/suicides in the States. Oops again.

Or that there are so few accidents involving children and family members.... strike 3 oops.

If you think I'm wrong I'm sure you'll be able to back up your ludicrous statement with stats from a reliable source (and no the NRA doesn't count)

re: ROFL

@pjotr

"Which is why the instance of violent crimes is so much higher then in the States....euh...ooops....I guess someone is in a self delusional state."

Yeah, and that'd be you.

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

"I guess that's also the reason why there are so few murder/suicides in the States. Oops again."

You mean oops to your ignorance.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

"Or that there are so few accidents involving children and family members.... strike 3 oops."

Oops again to your ignorance.

Fatal Gun Accidents drop to 900 in 1998

Lowest number since 1903

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1310

Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

"If you think I'm wrong I'm sure you'll be able to back up your ludicrous statement with stats from a reliable source"

We always do, but you pretend they're not out there. Nothing we can do about your willful ignorance. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink....."

(and no the NRA doesn't count)

The NRA does count as a reliable source. You don't get to pick and choose who we cite.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

LMAOROFL

You're joking right ?

You can't really mean that you blindly take the word of organizations that have serious reasons to slant statistics let alone even make them up as they see fit.

It's like believing the tobacco industry when they say that smoking isn't addictive nor harmful.
Except for the total moronic it's something that people that aren't blinded by propaganda can see through.

You can indeed choose and pick who you cite as much as you want. It's a free country and it's free internet. Even in the USA with all it's draconian police state rules and the freedom to torture. Haven't said that doesn't however mean that when you qouted those that you did that you didn't make a total laughing stock of yourself.

Gun ownership

Pyotr, while it is true that there are many gun crimes in the USA, the number of deaths and injuries due to individual citizens using them on each other will never come near the amount of deaths that were the result of living in a fascist state, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, you name it. I don't believe that the number of gun deaths in the US will ever come close to 20 million. It will take decades to reach even 1 million gun deaths.

I would much rather take my chances in a free society where gun ownership was legal, than in a authoritarian regime where all of the power and weapons were in the hands of the powers that be. At least in the United States, if someone attacks you, you can attack them back if you choose to do so. It's not perfect by any means, but it sure beats the hell out of living in Europe or Russia. Especially if you happen to be a journalist!

Although my neighbors may have guns, I might have them also. I don't have trouble sleeping at night. My government knows this as well. The United States is the only nation on Earth where the government has a respectful fear of its citizens. You won't find strange killings of nosy journalists or too successful businessmen here, Pyotr.

I guess that's the biggest difference between the US and everyone else in the world. Sometimes individuals go nuts and kill others, but the government/state never does.

Curt Olson
Los Angeles

Ownership of automatic

Ownership of automatic weapons has always been illegal in The United Kingdom. Even British soldiers must set their rifles to single-burst firing. In Northern Ireland the IRA unfamiliar with the law seemingly imported all sorts of weapons from the USA such as M60 LPMGs and obtained other weapons from Libya or even in Belgium.

With this arsenal of RPMGs and AK47s and Barrett rifles they waged a terrorist war...............they still managed to kill fewer people each year than were murdered in the City of Boston or Chicago.

Presumably they were more controlled in their use of them knowing they would be killed by the Forces Research Unit (FRU) or SAS units operating undercover. Maybe if the Us had secret undercover units who killed those using weapons crime would fall ?

Sarkozy is a fool

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.

not sure i blame sarkozy

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.

In response to your post

** not sure i blame sarkozy
Submitted by entropent on Sat, 2006-10-21 18:34. **

Do you think any current or future gun law will prevent these Muslim thugs from arming themselves with firearms if they so desire?

All gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Criminals don't obey the law anyhow, why would they suddenly start obeying gun laws?

agreeing with sarkozy

to guillermo:
you make a fair point. but as they are not using guns now (correct me if i am wrong) but rather bottles, bats, and arson, it's a fair assumption that the majority of french suburban thugs don't currently have access to them. in the specific case of france, which has apparently already banned guns, i suggest it is better to keep them out of the mix, at least until the french police can restore some semblance of order (if they can). until they do, distributing guns, even to the law-abiding, would be problematic.

the larger issue, of course, is the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns, rather than the existence of guns in the french suburbs. on that point i suspect i agree with you; although i do not myself own a gun, i believe in your right to do so.

Guilt?

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.

No...not so

@ 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'. 

implication

Of course Sarkozy is not saying this explicitly. But it is by implication of his words that this will be the result. If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them, for them being criminals! Then you will say: "No, but the State is there to protect citizens with an armed police!" But as already shown above, a citizen was twice burglarized. Where was this citizen's security? You cannot argue that the State should be the sole provider of security, if this security by the State in the end will fail to protect its citizens.

Sarkozy

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!