The head of the world’s international police agency (Interpol) – which is very activ [6]e in counter-terror efforts – said last October that arming citizens might be the best way to stop terrorism.
ABC News reported [7]:
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack [8] at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”
***
The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as “an evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.
***
“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?‘ This is something that has to be discussed.”
***
“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”
If you are for gun control – as I used to be – you may want to note that a top liberal Constitutional law scholar [9], Ghandi and the Dalai Lama [10] are all for the right of citizens to bear arms.
Perhaps more importantly, look at [11] the alternatives [12] …
Would you rather let the government keep on waging its virtually [13] endless [14], counter-productive [15] , freedom-destroying [11] and ruinously expensive [16] War On Terror?
Or would you rather arm yourselves and take your chances?
I know a native American man who has a bumper sticker on his truck which reads:
Open Hunting Season on Terrorists
I think he’s got the right attitude.
Postscript: For those who think that guns are “unhealthy” or “disgusting”, please note that Freud disagreed. Specifically, he argued that when men give up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities – and that power is transferred to standing armies – it disempowers us and makes us weak psychologically.
And see this [17].
[18]