Sunday, March 18th | 2 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

January 26, 2015 9:36 am

Gun Control After Paris

avatar by Jeremy Rosen

Email a copy of "Gun Control After Paris" to a friend
The HyperCacher market seized by Islamist terrorist Amedy Coulibaly. Photo: Twitter

The HyperCacher market that was seized by Islamist terrorist Amedy Coulibaly. Photo: Twitter

For a long time, I have believed that the gun culture of the United States is dangerous and frankly stupid. So many people are killed by firearms going off accidentally or because they fall into the hands of children or madmen. Their easy availability is not just because they are a transportable and smugglable commodity, but also because there is a myth in American culture that claims that only by possessing guns were the American rebels able to defeat the British and gain independence.

Even if that were so, and it is not, what might have been true 300 years ago is not necessarily the right answer for today. The NRA spends billions buying votes (as is the American way) to ensure that anti-gun legislation is blocked. Regardless of the massacres, casualties, abuses, and misuses, almost all attempts to restrict guns in the U.S. fail. As a result, its gun death statistics are the highest in the world per capita, and America insists on believing that guns help protect people.

The other lobby, of course, is the hunting lobby. I hate hunting. I think it is cruel. Shots often miss or injure without killing. Often enough an innocent bystander or passerby gets wounded or killed. But I know I will not convince anyone of this because I will be dismissed as a culturally inhibited Englishman corrupted by my upbringing, and I will be only preaching to the “amen chorus.” And yes, I do believe that the meat industry is cruel too and needs much tighter control. Frankly I’d like to see it banned altogether, but that’s another argument.

However, all this depends on the police forces around the world being able to protect their citizens. If you live in the Wild West, then – I agree, not having a gun would be crazy, even if it might not save your life. This would be true even if having a gun and being able to use it well meant that you were more likely to be a target yourself.

There has been a lot of debate about whether the police in the U.S. and elsewhere are over-armed. But since crooks, drug dealers, and ordinary citizens can acquire the most sophisticated and powerful killing machines, it would be ridiculous and insane not to allow the police to be able to match the fire they come up against. We have all seen how the Islamic fanatics in Paris were so well armed that they could force the police into retreat by completely outgunning them. They were, thankfully, eventually cornered, outnumbered, and put out of their miserable lives.

What happened in Paris, however, has now led me to modify my opposition. What happens when the state does not protect its citizens? There have now been repeated murderous assaults on Jews in France and elsewhere. Isn’t it time for them to be armed? It is the principle of the English philosopher Hobbes that we relinquish some of our freedoms to the state in exchange for its protection.

Where they fail, the contract is void. Europe has a strong tradition of restricting individuals from having access to firearms – even the police under normal conditions. As a result, its citizens are far less likely to be killed. But if assaults on Jews are increasing in France, I believe those Jews who remain must be prepared to arm themselves.

Israel is a country where citizens have access to guns and where they are constantly under threat. Yet you might argue that having guns did not stop the massacre in Har Nof. But the proximity of civilian arms did help limit the damage. If the Hyper Cacher store had armed protection, the initial assault might have been avoided. Clearly the French police have not done enough hitherto, despite the repeated assaults on Jewish targets. We must not be afraid of taking the initiative. If the French authorities object, they know that the answer is for them to do more to deal with the problem. Yet for all the fine words, we know they have abandoned area after area in France to Muslim self-control and have allowed the hatred to fester without response.

This situation is now being repeated right across the European community. I would not want to be in France today without self-defense. And the instructions of the U.S. State Department to Jews traveling to Europe not to show any outward signs of Jewish identity in public is simply crass appeasement, capitulation, and defeatism. Just as the refusal in Britain and the U.S. to print the cover of last week’s Charlie Hebdo uncensored, because it contains a cartoon of Mohammad, is a sign that we have lost the battle for freedom already.

We need a debate about the values of modern societies. Throughout the world what exacerbates alienation is a sense of inequality – financial and political. If one puts wealth and accumulation above providing a meaningful occupation, one will be breeding discontent. This is as true in Western states as it is in Eastern states. Even where there is a generous welfare system, this alienation festers. There has been a consistent governmental failure to find work, to create public infrastructure projects, or to use tools such as micro-lending to encourage the poor and unemployed to find some pride, regardless of color, religion, or race.

There is a constant flow of refugees and immigrants. In Europe every year some 300,000 come in from Muslim countries around the Mediterranean. In the U.S. there are just as many illegals crossing the borders. Most are peaceful and want only to find a better life. But inevitably amongst them, as with all such waves in history, there are gangsters and fanatics. Most societies have failed to integrate immigrants or the socially deprived. The problems are both social and, increasingly, religious. Muslim countries send thousands of primitive, hate-mongering imams around the world to cater to the spiritual needs of these disadvantaged and vulnerable wanderers.

On one level a society is to be judged by how it treats its weakest and poorest citizens. The Left believes that only a strong welfare system can help solve the problems of inequality. The Right believes that only by encouraging people to take care of themselves and find ways of creating wealth can the poor and disadvantaged raise themselves out of their disadvantages.

To be fair, most Western societies seek some sort of compromise between the two extremes. But clearly generous welfare in Europe has done nothing to ameliorate this. It is argued that American Muslims are less alienated than European Muslims because they feel better integrated.

But this is so in Europe too: those Muslims and other immigrant minorities who do well are better integrated. Those who are not are the breeders of violence. The European way has been to ignore the problem or simply throw money at it. Until this changes I see no alternative other than for us to strengthen our defenses. Because the jihadis are only showing that they can get more and better means of attacking what they regard as their eternal enemy.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Bob K

    Hey, Europe…how’s that gun control thing working out for ya?

  • Sarah R

    I’m a gun owner, was a member of my college’s rifle and pistol club, and have a father (who was in the IDF) who insisted on my learning to shoot when I was a teenager. Nevertheless, I agree with you insofar as I would far rather be able to count on a proactive and well armed police force than to have to provide all my own protection! Calls in the US to disarm the police and turn it into a toothless European-style force worry me more than Jihadism per se. I’m afraid you’re right about the Belgian bill and European Jews will be forced to arm themselves whether or not it becomes legal.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      Glad to see a balanced response. Of course one needs to differentiate between sensible gun owners and those who have some sort of religious love affair with weapons. The American way it seems is either or! Not very mature.

  • K

    I have never understood why the left likes the idea of the government being able to take away guns from law- abiding citizens. How does that not scare you? What is this obsession with coddling criminals but then punishing citzens who own guns? If you don’t want criminals to face the repercussions, that gives me all the more reason to own a gun. This isn’t a fairytale where once guns are banned crime will begin to cease. I’m sorry guns are scary for you but some of us are mature enough to handle them…

  • Steven

    Arrogance is simply a bad trait – judging by the overwhelming negative responses you received for your latest article if you had an ounce of humility you would stay quiet and not defend a position that clearly is at odds with nearly all your readers. After all you are not a genius and like pierce morgan that little idiot from the same place you hail from got fired for his stupid rantings, i guess maybe you should take a lesson from what happened to him as it may happen to you as well. At some point the editors will have to deal with the fact that you managing to piss everyone off

  • mick

    Yea ! That what I thought.

  • mick

    So , it seems mr rosen that you have been , shall we say , bit@h slapped with facts about something you obviously know little to nothing about. But im sure bloomersburg and moms demand pacifyers can use a leftwing shill such as your bad self.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      Not at all. All it proves is how bitterly contentious the issue is and how it is possible to marshal the facts to suit ones case. Most people here who have responded have been missing the trees for the woods and simply, and crudely reinforced their own prejudices. And that is what makes the USA so politically dysfunctional.

      • Deal breaker

        Jeremy Rosen–>”Most people here who have responded have been missing the trees for the woods and simply, and crudely reinforced their own prejudices.”

        Pot.. this is Kettle…. Over

  • Emilio Crosby

    Bill Whittle has some information that may have some effect on where it is that you get your information. Regardless of what many people claim these days, for the sake of Political Correctness, facts matter, you know? Video Link –

  • Klingon00

    The idea that we should restrict law abiding citizens access to legal firearms because terrorists kill with illegally obtained firearms is like saying we should defang and declaw our cats and dogs because wolves are killing our pets.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      Only when the State consistently fails to protect innocent civilians being victimized solely for their religion.

      • dranosh

        Or how about we let them have weapons so they can not become victims in the first place hm?

    • BH in Iowa

      Klingon00, the writer knows this. That is exactly what happened in his country. In Britain ten years ago, The State conducted massive firearm confiscations. Now, only the wolves have firearms.

  • Lee Cruse

    The US Constitution does not give freedom it gives you liberty. Liberty has a requirement of responsibility that freedom does not.
    Afghanistan may very well be a place with more freedom than the US or England. You can obtain just about anything you want and do what every you want if you have the money and power to do so. Killing and cruel acts is part of the culture of the place and probably will not end any time soon.

    Just as the US form of government is not a democracy where a raw vote count can make laws. Two wolfs and sheep deciding on the dinner menu is a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic where the rights of the minorities have the same protections as the rights of the majority.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      Yes I will admit that thats about the first serious argument against my position that I have read here from those who are gun advocates.
      My only problem is that there are plenty of other explanations as to why the crime rate has gone down that have nothing to do with the availability of guns but rather issues of different policing, demographics, birthrate and incarceration.

  • ssgtnelson

    “…the United States has more firearms per capita (90 per 100 residents) than any other country in the world — almost twice as many firearms per 100 people as number-two Serbia (58.2 per 100 residents). This is not shocking information, but the fact that the United States ranks number 111 out of 218 nations in the number of murders per hundred thousand residents should be…
    … if we removed the gun murder data for the 12 cities in the United States with the highest murder rates, all of which are Democrat Party-controlled cities with highly restrictive gun laws, the United States would drop to number 211 out of 218 countries.”

  • John Watson

    The revolution was 300 years ago? The NRA spends billions? The revolution would have been fought without guns? The US leads in gun violence? Too many mistakes or lies in this article. If you want to stop violence you don’t ask a person who knows nothing.

  • MeasureTwice

    The liberal mind is a strange place indeed. Only there can one acknowledge that armed criminals, especially terrorists and drug dealers, will be armed to the hilt. Then, with nary a bit of thought, they leap to the conclusion that the solution to gun violence is to disarm the law-abiding citizen. No matter how many laws or regulations they can ponder, these “educated beyond their intelligence” elites can’t reach the simple an obvious conclusion that such things will be ignored by criminals.

    The Police can’t “protect” you. They are reactionary forces at best, responding when called. With rare exception, it is only by happenstance that they are preventative.

    The NRA is a red-herring. In the USA, we are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Being mad at the NRA over gun violence is like being upset with driving schools over car accidents.

    If you wish to disarm yourself, feel free to do so. But please don’t interfere with my ability to defend myself and my family.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    The author is a typical lefty liberal..he doesn’t like guns,ergo nobody should have one…..”An armed society is a polite society”

  • Hugh G. Rection

    The author and Piers Morgan must be close friends. In a fairy tale world, you wouldn’t need a gun, but the reality is you do. I work in a city overrun by the Great North American Pavement Ape. These apes steal, assault, extort, and prey on most everyone they come in contact with. I can choose to be a victim or witness. I choose witness.

    • tim

      Mr. Rosen has chosen to modify his opposition on firearms ! It’s interesting, that this change of heart seems to have come about because the state can’t protect it’s Jewish population ! Am I to believe by reading this, that had Jews not been killed in France, that he would still support civilian disarmament, and if so, then it’s okay that non Jews are killed ! Mr. Rosen ” GUN CONTROL KILLS ” it doesn’t matter what religion a person is .

  • BH in Iowa

    People like the writer are the reason that after four thousand years, there are a mere fourteen million of us left.

    • Fanfare Ends

      Exactly. With any luck this Rosen fool will not breed ( much).

      So many lies in he first paragraph, I could barely get through the entire screed.

      If people want the truth on gun violence in the U.S., go to

  • Bob Lyon

    Jeremy, if only the world as you see it and spout had any similarity to reality.

  • Deal breaker

    GUN-Control advocates simply persist in the delusion that only those who agree with them could possibly be informed, intelligent, or right.
    –Do those that have a pro gun-control attitude be unwilling to defend themselves or their family, given an opportunity with a firearm? Would Gun-control advocates reject self-defense with a firearm? Do you favor self-defense of your family via spoken word and a cellphone; to those who wish to do harm to you and yours? If this is the case, is this associated with your family that raised you never owning a firearm? I am trying to understand the motivations for gun control? It does support the contention that gun control is, symbolically, people control.
    As a hunter and angler// Your comment “I do believe that the meat industry is cruel too and needs much tighter control. Frankly I’d like to see it banned altogether”…. Are you.. Mr.Rosen.. a self sufficient, organic, vegan?? or a meat eating hypocrite?
    The only thing I am seeing is.. the Elite/Rich/or anti-second amend politicians conjuring: Ҭ
    ***One set of rules which grants them power, privilege and luxury & Another set of rules that attack, persecute and terrorize everyone else. This is What Mr BIDEN/oBAMA/BLOOMBERG (BoB) and other elite/rich/or politicians mean when they whine about people owning guns, it’s okay to own a gun or be protected by one if you are the elite/rich/or a politician. If you are poor, you don’t deserve to protect yourself. The common man/ the poor need to wait for agents of the State/police to arrive and write a report about the criminal activity or event that took place. The primary function of the police is not to prevent crimes, but to collect information about crimes which recently occurred, investigate, and hopefully close the loop by catching the criminal.
    These same people don’t care, They have the money to live comfortable.. unlike the normal citizen on the grind. Normal citizens do not have an armed crew to protect them like: Mr. BoB. Yet somehow they believe they know the struggles of the common man? really…”¨They probably/eventually, will succeed using the dumbest voters in the history of mankind as their tools. This includes the idiots that vote themselves government hand-outs…. and the Conservatives that help them, because they’re too stupid to get off the couch and actually vote/act to save this country.
    Wanting to change the Second Amendment in order to pass your desired gun restrictions, admits.. that what you want violates said amendment; Do you believe they could correctly amend the Second Amendment and keep it within its original intent? I don’t think so…. they will chip it down until it is a bunch of sentences with yellow post-it notes attached to it.
    ***Define: infringed and then define: Shall not be Infringed.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      I have yet to see evidence that having guns does indeed protect people. Surely a hand gun is a poor defense against an Uzzi. Will you arm everyone to the level that they can fend off determined murderers and drug lords? In the end one is dependent on efficient effective law enforcement and that is where the money should go and be under proper scrutiny.

      It is true too often Government fails bust it does in almost every area. is everyone therefore to be his or her own doctor?

      As for the Constitution, Supreme Courts are there precisely to reinterpret it when it is manifestly stupid or outdated or being abused.

      • dranosh

        perhaps you’d do best if you went back to England where the subjects are protected by the monarchy, over here we are citizens that take responsibility for our own protection

      • sorry, you’re mistaken. Supreme Courts may INTERPRET the Constitution, but they are not supposed to REWRITE it, no matter how out of date or stupid they think it is. Amendments to the Constitution are properly made only by being voted on by the people.

      • chris

        Mr Rosen,

        I am certain you are intelligent enough to find the websites that document the regular occurrences of citizens protecting themselves with weapons every day. perhaps I misunderstand your comment?

        The average citizen isn’t worried about protecting himself from a drug lord with an Uzi as you suggest, that’s an extremist view that serves to reasonable discussion. He is worried about the method head and deviant breaking in with an illegally obtained rusty handgun he bought in the street or even a knife. Do you presume you could take down a 250# angry felon with a knife in your living room without a gun?

        Do you suppose that the police can get there before he stabs you?

        What if you are the only thing between this guy and your precious children? I will tell you the answer… You won’t. The police will arrive in time to take notes on the murder.

      • Roger V. Tranfaglia

        You have taken a small step to reality, thank you for admitting your change of heart. To further your journey (should you feel the need) please check out Guns Save Lives (.com). Up to 2 million people in each of the last several years save their own lives or the lives of family,friends. Likewise they save themselves from getting hurt or losing property! Just by having/SHOWING a weapon!! More times than not no shots are fired, the bad guys don’t want the hassle or risk of getting killed,hurt or caught. Annddd those are just the reported cases!!!
        If your up to it check out thegunfeed or thegunwire (both .com) You would learn a lot about our community and culture……..

      • Deal breaker

        It’s hard to understand a decision-making process that concludes the slaughter of a dozen helpless occupants of a gun free zone in the middle of a gun free city indicates an urgent need to ensure that all American citizens be rendered helpless occupants of a gun free country… Do you realize that the Police have no duty to protect you as an individual, That it is codified in law, By SCOTUS ruling(Warren v. District of Columbia), Even with Court Ordered writ of protection, There is still no duty for the police to protect you, The only time the Police Have a Duty to protect You as a Individual is: When they place you under arrest and suspend your ability to protect your self.

        The Constitution is not their’s(The Supreme Courts) to interpret. It is their duty to uphold the original principles and intent… Soo, in your mind unless we have heavy-regulation/ draconian laws of some kind with stiff penalties then anything else is uncommon sense and carries no validity? You need a better argument, I don’t play under those rules. Gun-Control laws always punish the responsible and make them criminals for trivial things like having 1 extra round. These laws are meant to discourage gun ownership not crime.

        Why is it that I’m reading many references to dysfunctional congress and the NRA boogeyman, but no references to the Second Amendment and the people’s perceived threat of losing yet another natural right of man.. Simply put, self defense is a Biblical and natural right of man, and I fear that your words imply otherwise by possibly suggesting the false promise of government managed safety? The loss of this right represents a shift in power from the law-abiding American people to central government. The people’s liberty is being taken based on the idea that people will be safer if the government has more power, and the government’s “subjects” have less. Could the truth be that a majority of Americans are not actually buying into what the gun controllers are selling? Remember “if you like your health plan.. you can keep it”(Obama) Could it be that the cause of the gun control advocates failure to make what only they feel would be progress is, in reality, simply a bad idea?

  • R T Deco

    “… almost all attempts to restrict guns in the U.S. fail. As a result, its gun death statistics are the highest in the world per capita, …”

    Apparently, Mr. Rosen is geographically inhibited Englishman left ignorant by his upbringing. Have the English never heard of Mexico or Central America?

    The US is not even close to number one when it comes to firearm fatalities, and if we leave out the suicides (which account for the majority of firearm fatalities in the US) the situation is even more lopsided. For example, the rate of firearm homicides in Mexico in recent years has been THREE TO FIVE TIMES that of the US, in spite of gun control laws that are relatively strict and in spite of a progressive relaxation of gun control laws in the US over the past quarter century.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      So you are comparing the USA to banana republics? Even so you have be selective about which statistics you choose. Besides I was talking about supposedly civilized states.

      • Gambrinus

        You should have said so. What you wrote was incorrect. Wikipedia claims 12 other countries have a higher per capita gun fatality rate than the US (2013). Honduras’ gun fatality rate was about 6x that of the US. Other countries with higher rates include Brazil and Mexico.

      • Fanfare Ends

        What’s you r complaint with comparing the U.S. to a banana republic?

        You and your fellow Obamaholics and. Clintonistas are doing your best to turn America into one.

        Face it, you worship Marx, you don’t believe in individual responsibility “until he State has failed to protect me, BWA, BWA…”

        You and your ilk have encouraged muslim immigration into Europe and America, and you lie your head off with garbage claims about gun violence and gun accidents because you can’t stand the idea that people should have the right to not only defend themselves from criminals and terrorists, but from the type of tyrannical govt you would happily work for if it only imposed more of the social justice schemes you and your fellow travelers believe we should all knuckle down to.

        You are as much the reason for our 2nd amendment as the jihadis and tyranny.

      • Skippy thedread

        You sound like a college sophomore. Take black and Hispanic offenders out of US “gun” crime stats, and the U.S. is as safe as anywhere on earth.

        How’s THAT for being “selective?”

      • Lee Cruse

        Yes, the comparison of the US (as a whole) to Mexico and South America is not a good comparison in many ways. However, here in Texas where the dividing line is a river that in may places is less than two inches deep and people walk across without even realizing they are crossing a boarder in some of the parks, the comparison seems more reasonable.

        There is no doubt of two facts. One, if you make guns very hard to obtain, the bad guys will find and choose other weapons. If the population is trained to accept a level of crime as expected, then the need to kill witnesses is less but violent crime is higher. Second, that a criminal will avoid victims that shoot back. So, my point is that looking at “gun violence” is very misleading> A much better yardstick is to look at violent crime. Here in the US, as gun ownership and carry has increased greatly since 1990’s, the crime rate (including crime using a gun) as decreased by about 50%. With last week release of 2013 first six months of FBI combined crime stats, the trend continues. Guns up and Crime down.

      • W. Waz

        Are you saying, Mr. Rosen, that people who live in, as you say, “Banana Republics” are not themselves deserving of a safe life for themselves and their families? Are you saying these are less-than-human folks who don’t deserve being compared with Americans?

        Everyone’s life is important, Mr Rosen. Not just American political and celebrity royalty.

        RT Deco’s point is valid. You cannot compare the number of deaths due to firearm abuse with the number of firearms. If that were the case, then Mexico would be one of the safest places on earth (it isn’t). Switzerland would be one of the most dangerous (it isn’t despite the fact that every household with an adult male is required by law to have a military-grade weapon in it). Vermont would be one of the most dangerous states in the country (it’s in the top two safest) even though it enjoys Constitutional Carry laws and over 40% of the population has at least one gun. Or, that California, NY, Chicago and NJ would each be a safe nirvana due to their already every-the-top draconian gun laws.

        Remember, there are already literally thousands of anti-violence laws already on the books on a state or federal level nationwide. The ACTIONS of these individuals who abuse these tools are already against the law. And yes, everything you can touch can be weaponized by a warped enough mind…not just guns. That’s one of the reasons restricting gun ownership in any way is such a dumb and lazy way to solve a much more complex problem.

      • chris

        Ironically the UK has a much worse violent crime rate than North America. Yes they don’t occur with guns.. …but the dead don’t care what they were killed with do they?

    • Brenda Martinez

      As a result, its gun death statistics are the highest in the world per capita,”

      A lie-; Phils has more strict gun laws than USA.- Honduras and the Philippines have much higher per capita than USA

      “The Honduran city of San Pedro Sula, Honduras, tops the list of the world’s most violent places on earth.”

      Uruguay, Swaziland, South Africa,Panama, Mexico, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Brazil all have higher per capita rates than USA-

      (Krug 1998) EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. “Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.”, International Journal of Epidemiology 1998.[72] Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.
      (UNODC 2002)The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001-2002). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2005.[73] This report provides more updated information on homicide by firearms, but not on suicide by firearms.
      (UNODC 2000)The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998-2000). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2002.[74] This report provides more updated information on homicide by firearms, but not on suicide by firearms.
      (Barrow 2000) Greg Barrow. “SA gun deaths rise”, BBC, 2000-02-15.[75]
      (Kaiser 2004) Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2004., 2008-04-08 [76]
      (GunCite 2008) International Homicide Comparisons., 2008-04-08 [77]
      (CDC 2012) Fatal Injury Mapping (2004-2006)., 2012-02-05 [78]
      (GunPolicy 2012) Global Impacts of Gun Violence., 2012-02-10 [79]
      (UNODC 2012) UNODC Homicide Statistics 2012 [80]
      (Victims of crime survey 2011) Victims of crime survey 2011 – 9.7 The use of weapons when crime is committed [81]
      (WHO 2012) European Detailed Mortality Database [82] ICD-10: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24 2011. ‘Calculated Rates – Australia.’ UN World Population Prospects – Total Population (both sexes combined)

      Read more:

  • So sorry Jeremy you do not know what you are talking about, or you are lying. Jews in Israel CANNOT get hold of guns! I have first hand knowledge of this when I filled out the form for aliyah, and you are asked if you own firearms? After talking to a rep from Nefesh I was told that only under very few circumstances can Jews have guns. My family at this time decided to delay our trip and this was an important factor in our decision not to move at this time. We felt that if Arabs have guns, ( and there are photos of them posing with guns) we were not going to be defenseless for stupid PC reasons. (I read at another site PC really is political corruption, I agree). Even the Algemeiner reported stories that after the war this last summer in Israel and more threats from the Arabs, Jews wanted to get a hold of guns to protect themselves.

  • Joe Murica

    It is more than clear that Mr. Rosen did ZERO research before spouting a litany of gross assumptions which are outright false. … The NRA has never had anywhere close to even one billion dollars in it’s coffers and has never spent anywhere near that on ANYTHING (much less “billions”) … You are just making things up out of thin air.
    … And it is also obvious that you have not researched the crime statistics regarding crime and gun legislation in the United States. … Without exception, EVERY state that has enacted citizens right to carry a firearm, the violent crime rate has dropped precipitously, by an average of 70% (a direct correlation).
    Jeremy ? … You have just made a complete fool of yourself in front of the entire world. … You sound like someone’s hand-wringing grandmother.

    • Jeremy Rosen

      Gosh, what a lot of gun happy little Elmer Fudds we have . No wonder so many Americans get killed by guns.

      • VST

        This is not a serious response to the very basic, and well-known, statistics refuting your emotional and outright offensive jiggling with incorrect figures and assumptions.

      • Fanfare Ends

        There you go, revealed as a liar and poor writer, and you confirm it by replying with childish insults.

        Try these sites for a day or two before you waste electrons writing again about firearms.

      • Axenolith

        At least with that response you clearly remove any doubt that you had an iota of true knowledge of the subject with respect to America.

      • tim

        Fudds = hunters that use the equivalent of a sniper rifle, and don’t really care about gun control unless it effects their preferred firearm . I have a feeling thats gonna change, now that American sniper has shown how deadly a hunting rifle is ! Anti gunners will start becoming more vocal about these ” tremendously ” deadly firearms in the hands of ” their ” neighbors, and soon, I suspect .

      • Roger V. Tranfaglia

        Yes …….jeremy I can be a troll too………

    • Jeremy Rosen

      You are right, the figure of a billion is indeed a hyperbole. Nevertheless the NRA does have the power to cower Senators into being scared to vote for any kind of gun control.

      • Skippy thedread

        The NRA? You mean 5 million American citizens, not including up to 100 million gun owning non-members? Gun control is a loser in the US because the people don’t want it. Where’s your love of “democracy” now?

      • Lee Cruse

        Jeremy, the NRA has managed to be very successful in as a civil rights organization in keeping the gun control extremist somewhat under control, However, the fight continues.

        NRA is important and successful not because of money but because they have 5 million paid members that care about the NRA issues that will turn out with their friends and vote.

        Bloomberg, Allen, Soros, Gates … make up a long list of people that each in their own right outspend the NRA in favor of gun control. They only win in places where they can overwhelm the low information voters with money, like I-594 in WA state.

        Gun control groups count anyone that they obtain an address for as supporters and in many cases they give money for people to attend their functions, however, that is not the same as someone who cares enough to pay a membership fee every year.

  • The First Amendment gives you the write to post this article.

    The Second Amendment gives me the right to protect all Amendments, to include your right of free speech!

  • Matthew S. Chase

    `It is interesting that Mr. Rosen spent nearly the entire article spewing untruths and nonsensical anti-Second Amendment drivel, and then summed up his article by acknowledging that, in fact, guns in the hands of civilians (in this case Jews insufficiently protected by Paris cops) may be lifesavers.

    As a Jew who carries regularly, I’m dismayed when a fellow Jew (as is often the case) takes the positions demonstrated by Mr. Rosen’s incoherent article. Jews of all people, with our history that we claim to “never forget”, including the history of 20th Century Europe, should NEVER consider our own disarmament. The NRA should have as members every American Jew.

    Yet, with so many American Jews so colossally ignorant of history generally and as displayed above the Revolution specifically, the Consitution generally and the Second Amendment specifically, and gun and crime statistics utterly, my disappointment is poised to be never-ending. Oh well…

    Mr. Rosen displays total ignorance, but achieves the right result. Why? Because the position he asserts in the final lines of his article are merely the common sense approach. Hint, Mr. Rosen: there is NO police force, no matter HOW excellent they may be, that will PREVENT such crime. When seconds count, police are merely minutes away.

    Why do I carry a gun? Some answer, it’s because a cop is too heavy and doesn’t fit in my holster.

  • jimg9x21

    Funny article. First the author rails against the easy availability of firearms in the US then bemoans the fact that Europeans can’t defend themselves. The author also discloses his very narrow understanding of firearms in the US by spouting the party line from those gun control folks that oppose individual self-defense. Europeans in general and the French in particular have relinquished their right to self-defense and the responsibility that goes with it. For centuries they have assumed the role of serfs to avoid the harder choice and have left the defense of the individual to the state and now the author cries foul when the state fails to uphold its end of the bargain. Now they are starting to pay a price for this foolish choice and there is nothing they can do to fix it. They, like Great Britain have become part of that ever growing class called victims with no recourse but to kneel in obedience to the powers that be and hope they will be protected. Be careful what you wish for.

  • Emanuel

    The second amendment is MORE important than the others; our arms protect YOUR right to free speech!

    • Jeremy Rosen

      No, your guns don’t and haven’t protected bubkas. In civilian circumstances its the law and the police who protect me.

      • Haywood Jablowme

        hey Jeremy..
        Ya might not be up on American law with statements such as ” In civilian circumstances its the law and the police who protect me.”

        So to break it down for ya..the US supreme court ruled it is NOT the police’s job to protect anyone

        see below

      • JF

        Rabbi, you know why you are being hounded as police-state loving, gun control fool?

        Because everyone realizes from your knee jerk responses to their accurate criticisms of your flawed gun control whining, that your closing sentence was a waste of air:

        “…I see no alternative other than for us to strengthen our defenses. Because the jihadis are only showing that they can get more and better means of attacking what they regard as their eternal enemy.”

        And so you claim to wish us Jews to be better armed, and yet all you can to is whine about and ridicule the members of the one organization (the NRA)* that is committed to defending the very part of the Constitution THAT ALLOWS AMERICANS, JEWS AND GENTILES alike, THE RIGHT TO BE AS/MORE ARMED THAN TERRORISTS, WOULD-BE NAZIS or any group or Govt. that would deprive Americans of their lives and liberties.

        Until you understand that, you will never be taken seriously on this subject.

        * see also

      • Lee Cruse

        Wrong, police (or government) has no duty or responsibility to protect any individual without a special relationship. That special relation ship is when you are in prison or have a secret security detail. Otherwise, the ONLY person that has responsibility to protect you is you!

        Police have a role in the general case of law enforcement, however, their role starts after the violent crime is committed and the killing has ended.

        The first responders are always the victims. In my way of thinking the first responders need to be trained and armed with the tools they pick. If that be a gun then great, if that be something else then it is their choice.

      • John Watson

        Another lie. Law abiding U.S. citizens protect themselves with firearms at a rate of over two and a half million times a year.

    • shloime

      by your reasoning (sic), afghanistan should be the freest place on earth, and england should be a tyranny. so what’s wrong with this picture?

      • tim

        And you think England is not tyrannical ? The only people who have armed protection are the elites ! To hell with the surf citizens ! If thats not tyranny, I don’t know what is .