Interpol Chief: An ‘Armed Citizenry’ Possibly the Best Response to Terrorism

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.”

At least 67 were killed over a period of days at the Westgate mall, more than 60 of the dead were civilians. The Somalia-based al Qaeda-allied terror group al-Shabab claimed responsibility for the attack as it was ongoing but investigators are still trying to determine exactly who planned the strike, where they are and what is next for them. U.S. authorities in Uganda, fearing another similar incident in Africa, issued a warning late last week.

Citing a recent call for al Qaeda “brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups,” Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.

In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

“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?'”

This is really not a hard question, and yet we continue to endlessly debate it in the United States. Liberals hate the idea of armed civilians and say this is not the wild west. In reality, it is much worse than the wild west, because we have fanatical, suicidal religious zealots who are determined to bring the world to its knees and to kill as many innocents as possible. They do not recognize any of the preposterous liberal rules, and liberals seem willing to trade freedom for massive police patrols and secured enclaves.

That is not an option, and would be stupidly expensive. But as Col. Noble has indicated, an armed citizenry is a much greater deterrent because the jihadis do not know who is and is not armed, and the response time could be almost instantaneous if citizens were part of the solution. The real problem is that liberals do not trust their fellow citizens and think that anyone that would carry a weapon is a backward country bumpkin worthy of zero respect.

And so we go on, waiting for the next Muslim terrorist attack in a “soft” center where patrons are sitting ducks with no recourse for self-protection. There is no logic there, only the ignorant, distrustful response from elites that the people must simply wait for the executioner.




Leave a Reply