It's sure worth handing guns to everyone for defense. If everyone is armed that really makes the world a safer place. How else could you e.g shoot somebody to defend your parking spot? /s
But seriously.. do you have been to Europe? You need to visit some very extreme areas to be in real danger. What you describe is pure hyperbole.
I don't know of any no-go zones. Sure, some areas in larger cities tend to be more dangerous than others. But still far from no-go zones. No idea where this information comes from.
In France, there are definitely a few. There are places where even the fire brigade gets attacked. That's why they're called "no-go zones". The police can still go there but only with heavy means; you can't just send a random police car with two cops there, you need special units in riot gear.
The French term commonly used in the media is "zones de non droit" meaning "areas outside of the law" or sometimes, perhaps more politically charged, "territoire perdus de la république" (the republic's lost territories).
Officially they are known under various names that start with "zone". Currently the official term is "zones de sécurité prioritaire" (areas of priority security).
Those areas generally correspond to the areas that most countries warn about in their advice to travelers when it comes to France.
They exist in other European countries as well under similar names.
Interesting. My wife is french, never really about that. Also, Berlin is assumed to have some. I drank beer in bar in one of those once. Found about it later.
I'm only a little hesitant to believe this because people say this about lots of places in San Francisco ("don't go there, it's dangerous") etc. and my parents in their 60s go there quite often and they don't think it's particularly bad. And I recall people saying that about London too and the so-called no-go zones were not really that.
I don't think it's political. I think some people have just grown up in very safe environments and have a smaller comfort zone.
Of course if you're intimately familiar with this by living in France or something I wouldn't question it, but if you're just looking in from the outside, then it's all shadows on a cave wall.
So, all of these places I saw portrait as such in media, mostly conservative to right leaning ones in Europe, or FOX news, turned out to be no no-go areas in reality.
Using footage from demonstrations that got out of hand, civil unrest at one point and overblown as well as wrongly cited numbers are all that is to that.
And yes, in Europe there is no such thing as no-go zone where police don't go and all you have is anarchy.
He is using multiple times the expression "quartiers de reconquête républicaine" ("suburbs for the Republic to re-conquer").
If the President of a country considers he needs to reconquer parts of his own country, don't you think there is a bit of a problem, beyond whatever Fox News might say?
You might think there is some nuance because the areas with risk of Islamic separatism are not _necessarily_ the same as the high-crime areas where the police cannot easily go. But in practice they definitely are. It's not a pleasant situation, but it's the situation.
I can give more background if you are interested, but it is a well-studied problem with no solution in sight.
But seriously.. do you have been to Europe? You need to visit some very extreme areas to be in real danger. What you describe is pure hyperbole.