Interpol chief: Maybe we should let civilians arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

posted at 5:21 pm on October 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The founders of the United States protected the right to bear arms for a number of reasons. They wanted to ensure against the imposition of tyranny, and also have the ability to call militias to muster for external threats.  They also recognized that citizens had to protect themselves rather than rely on the government for personal protection, and that self-defense was a natural right on which government had no business intruding.  Besides, the only way that government could provide that kind of protection in all circumstances would be to create a police state so imposing that no freedoms could possibly survive.

That wisdom may soon come back into fashion.  ABC News spoke with Interpol Secretary-General Ronald Noble about lessons learned from the al-Shabaab terrorist attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, and he wonders aloud whether it’s even possible to secure soft targets from this type of malevolent evil.  Instead, Western nations should consider allowing their citizens to arm themselves for their own security (via Instapundit):

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 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.”

Would that prevent terrorist attacks on soft targets? Probably not entirely, since the terrorists usually have no problem with dying along with their victims in the end rather than being captured, considering that martyrdom (falsely, by the way, but that’s another entire discussion).  However, it would limit the scope of the killing, a point Noble explicitly makes by referring to American states with pro-carry policies:

“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.”

We have argued this many times in the past, noting that the so-called “gun-free zones” are really nothing more than “victim-disarmament zones.”  It’s the right of property owners to set the rules for entering their property, of course, but that doesn’t make those rules and policies less foolish.  Noble’s point reflects that, too, and the folly of disarming the responsible citizenry without the possibility of ensuring effective security against threats of all types in a free and open society.

This is something that has to be discussed. We’ll see if the US can handle that discussion without the hysterics and demagogues of the gun-control crowd taking it over.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I am not sure how but this is racist.-prog thinking

rob verdi on October 22, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Q: Why do you go armed?

A: A policeman is too heavy to carry around.

ajacksonian on October 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Interpol chief: Maybe we should let civilians arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

No shiite Sherlock!!!!

So even the chief of Interpol now basically admits that gun free zones don’t work….

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I read this earlier and was stunned that a US news outlet released it.

cozmo on October 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM

This guy to be arrested for some crime in 3-2-1

faraway on October 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”

Probably not. We also wouldn’t have had to wait for the SWAT team to finish its looting spree in the mall before and after taking down the bad guys.

reddevil on October 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

This is obviously an NRA hack….

d1carter on October 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Would that prevent terrorist attacks on soft targets? Probably not entirely, since the terrorists usually have no problem with dying along with their victims in the end rather than being captured

A good, logically-made point. As evident from testimony from mass shooters who somehow survive, as well as from suicide notes left before the attacks, the vast majority of these murderers do not intend on surviving. BUT at the same time, only 2 multiple victim public shootings since 1950 has been carried out in a legal-carry area. So even though they are planning to die, they overwhelmingly tend is to choose targets where they will face the least resistance.

Glenn Jericho on October 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”

Only if it was in a gun-free-zone, like Fort Hood. And, I think this guy missed the news about the new Colorado gun laws.

besser tot als rot on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

cozmo on October 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Saw this earlier today on Legal Insurrection and thought the same thing. How’d this slip through the LSM anti-gun-anything filter?

PatriotGal2257 on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Probably not. We also wouldn’t have had to wait for the SWAT team to finish its looting spree in the mall before and after taking down the bad guys.

reddevil on October 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Also, SWAT wouldn’t have pretended that the siege went on longer than it did so they could loot all of the stores.

besser tot als rot on October 22, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Piers Morgan will have a stroke

tbrickert on October 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM

“If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”
===========================================================


HELL NO!!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

A MUSICAL INTERLUDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EbrMAZbFpo

roflmmfao

donabernathy on October 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

“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.”
========================================================

HELL YES!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

As a reminder, they didn’t just kill people; according to reports, they also brutally tortured hostages for days. Castration, rape, pulling off noses and ears with pliers…

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/kenya-shopping-mall-attack-nairobi-hostages-were-tortured-before-they-were-killed-says-police-doctor-8842509.html

WhatSlushfund on October 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”

Only if it was in a gun-free-zone, like Fort Hood. And, I think this guy missed the news about the new Colorado gun laws.

besser tot als rot on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Colorado still has concealed carry.

njolsson on October 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM

This is obviously an NRA hack….
d1carter on October 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM

It would be nice to know where he is from. If he’s American, I’m shocked that they would send anyone who isn’t left of Lenin to Interpol. It would be heartening to know that someone from a less gun friendly country came to this conclusion though.

Glenn Jericho on October 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Saw this earlier today on Legal Insurrection and thought the same thing. How’d this slip through the LSM anti-gun-anything filter?

PatriotGal2257 on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

They saw that it was a European guy and figured it was safe.

Kafir on October 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM

HELL NO!!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

HELL YES!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I like this new thing. ;) Very concise.

Axe on October 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas,

Seriously, he lost total credibility by viewing those 2 as synonymous..

hillsoftx on October 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

cozmo on October 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Saw this earlier today on Legal Insurrection and thought the same thing. How’d this slip through the LSM anti-gun-anything filter?

PatriotGal2257 on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Did it actually make ABC News’ television news? Can you find it on the ABC News homepage?

Perhaps it’s one of those backwater blog pages like WaPo uses sometimes to technically have “published” something yet without publishing it?

kunegetikos on October 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Colorado still has concealed carry.

njolsson on October 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM

and 2 state politicians that were just recalled for their anti-gun rhetoric and a confused gov Chickenpooper about where to stand politically on the issue..not the same as Tx…

hillsoftx on October 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM

We need to give the Country the same sort of protection you see in a parking lot at a gun store. For some odd reason, no crime occurs anywhere near there.

Johnnyreb on October 22, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Want to field this one for us, verbaluce?

rogerb on October 22, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Here’s proof Gun Free Zone’s work:

Make your own Gun Free Zone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhgzcioPet8&feature=player_detailpage

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Colorado still has concealed carry.

njolsson on October 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM

And the theater that was the site of the shootings was a “Gun Free Zone” so no one was legally able to carry. You know, law abiding citizens following the law were attacked by someone who sought out a soft target.

And Gun Free Zones are the softest of targets.

ProfShadow on October 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Who would you trust more with your defense in that situation?

Yourself or a ‘security force’ only days away?

I’m surprised such a pearl of pure truth and logic existed at InterPol.

USCitizen on October 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Interpol chief: Maybe we should let recognize that civilians have a Natural Right to arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

rbj on October 22, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Oops, FIFY

rbj on October 22, 2013 at 6:07 PM

It won’t make anti-gunners reconsider at all. Suppression of the natural right to bear arms, which is the natural right to effective self-defense, is about making most people helpless; it’s not about a misguided attempt to make them safe.

David Blue on October 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Colorado still has concealed carry.

njolsson on October 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM

and 2 state politicians that were just recalled for their anti-gun rhetoric and a confused gov Chickenpooper about where to stand politically on the issue..not the same as Tx…

hillsoftx on October 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM

HOWEVER, Denver itself has different rules than the rest of the state regarding open carry, and there are lots of gun free zones – see Aurora theater.
So unfortunately my answer is – yes it could happen here, not for several DAYS straight, but the basic attack could happen.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Eh, it would be better to douse every customer who walks through the door with fresh puke which would then deter any possible attacker through pure disgust.

And make the “Gun Free Zone!” signs larger and more prominent, though a quick-witted terrorist might realize that his RPG isn’t a gun and continue on after dropping his rifle.

Bishop on October 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Hard to get a concealed carry in Denver. Don’t confuse the libtard front range or them dope smok’n trust-fund-baby ski-bum towns with the rest of Colorado. Denver ain’t like Texans in any shape or form, unless you are talking about them libtards in Austin.

WestTexasBirdDog on October 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM

They saw that it was a European guy and figured it was safe.

Kafir on October 22, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yeah, I love when their preconceived notions of what some Europeans really think is demolished by reality.

Did it actually make ABC News’ television news? Can you find it on the ABC News homepage?

Perhaps it’s one of those backwater blog pages like WaPo uses sometimes to technically have “published” something yet without publishing it?

kunegetikos on October 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Well, I don’t happen to be near a TV at the moment, but a simple Google search turned this up. It’s on the ABCNews site, but I guess that doesn’t count if it’s not on their home page, right? /

PatriotGal2257 on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

And the theater that was the site of the shootings was a “Gun Free Zone”

I’ve heard of those places, might even have seen one once though for some reason I was looking at my shoes as I walked through the door and must have missed the sign.

Bishop on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Situation: You’re in a public place and some nutcase starts shooting people.

Would you rather
A). Have someone respond with deadly force immediately?
B). Exercise your Commonsense Civil Right of self-defense and deal with threat?
C). Or be real concerned that about crossfire just before the nutcase shoots you anyway?

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Only if it was in a gun-free-zone, like Fort Hood. And, I think this guy missed the news about the new Colorado gun laws.

besser tot als rot on October 22, 2013 at 5:40 PM

And I always like to point out that there was an attempted mass shooting in Colorado Springs a few years ago at New Life Church. But because it was NOT a gun free zone, and volunteer church members inside had concealed carry, the killer only killed 2 teenage girls in the parking lot and was immediately stopped in the church lobby by one of the CCW volunteer security guards.
2 miles from my house BTW – so I’m very partial to that story – and the reason I now carry just about everywhere.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

And the theater that was the site of the shootings was a “Gun Free Zone”

I’ve heard of those places, might even have seen one once though for some reason I was looking at my shoes as I walked through the door and must have missed the sign.

Bishop on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

“Gun Free Zones” make about as much sense as “Fire extinguisher free zones”.

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The libtard answer is you pee on yourself and then try to work a little group therapy with the shooter to understand just how bad his life has been to get to this point…….

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Would you rather
A). Have someone respond with deadly force immediately?
B). Exercise your Commonsense Civil Right of self-defense and deal with threat?
C). Or be real concerned that about crossfire just before the nutcase shoots you anyway?

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

But my own answer would be B with A flavor to it, and hope A also happens in support of my response.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The libtard answer is you pee on yourself and then try to work a little group therapy with the shooter to understand just how bad his life has been to get to this point…….

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Sad to say, I could imagine them suggesting that.

I’ve always noticed that the Left never seems to go in for reality and factual based thinking.

At the end of a long argument where you destroyed all their emotion based Hoplophobia, they end up curling into a virtual fetal position with some line like ‘we should just ban all guns’..

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:24 PM

But my own answer would be B with A flavor to it, and hope A also happens in support of my response.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:20 PM

It was a rather imprecise postulation – the main thing would be that no one in that situation would be thinking ‘I just hope no one shoots back at this lunatic’…

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Interpol chief: Maybe we should let civilians arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

So it’s up to them?!

Akzed on October 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM

It was a rather imprecise postulation – the main thing would be that no one in that situation would be thinking ‘I just hope no one shoots back at this lunatic’…

Galt2009 on October 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Unfortunately they exist.
Look at how many people have been fired from their jobs recently for simply defending themselves – even when they didn’t even actually fire a weapon.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Interpol chief: Maybe we should let civilians arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

So it’s up to them?!

Akzed on October 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Good point – but in many other countries – yes – it IS up to them, and right now they don’t allow civilians to defend themselves.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Good point – but in many other countries – yes – it IS up to them, and right now they don’t allow civilians to defend themselves.

dentarthurdent on October 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Sort of like Chicago and D.C.

Oldnuke on October 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM

We’ll see if the US can handle that discussion without the hysterics and demagogues of the gun-control crowd taking it over.

Hahahahaha!!!!!

Or to paraphrase Fat Mike Bloomberg: ‘You’ll NEVER put a gun IN my cold, DEAD hand!’

GarandFan on October 22, 2013 at 7:01 PM

HELL NO!!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

HELL YES!!

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I like this new thing. ;) Very concise.

Axe on October 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Axe:Lol,ya,after going bonkers babysitting grandsons,and not active
on H/A for a few weeks, it will do that to ye—–:0

canopfor on October 22, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Glenn Jericho

He’s an American. Don’t know if you remember Waco, but he was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury who was over the ATF at the time. His wife, Maggie Williams, was Hilary’s chief of staff. Bubba himself recommended him for chief of Interpol.

Despite all the crap above, I always thought he was a reasonable human being. In the Waco hearings he didn’t spout a lot of nonsense like the other Treasury bigwigs, but more or less expressed remorse for the ATFs actions. But this happened in the days before the Alan Graysons and Nancy Pelosis of the world took over the Dems.

The fact that he’s still at Interpol some 20 years later lends some credence to my opinion that he’s reasonably competent.

jclittlep on October 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM

That wisdom may soon come back into fashion.

That would be nice, but I won’t hold my breath until it does.

Socratease on October 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?”

Maybe in Colorado.

trigon on October 22, 2013 at 8:11 PM

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas,

Seriously, he lost total credibility by viewing those 2 as synonymous..

hillsoftx on October 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM

He’s European.

Solaratov on October 22, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Expell Islam, forbid its transit in non Islamic lands. Problem solved. Learn to live without the splendors Muslims bring with them.

BL@KBIRD on October 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM

BL@KBIRD on October 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM

That still leaves you with Euro-trash leftists, deep-ecology
Gaiaists”, anti-globalization “activists”, and Utopian One-Worlders, all of whom have in the past gone the “bomb and bullet” route when they thought they weren’t being obeyed by everybody else.

Granted, half of them thought a coherent “program” consisted of emulating a Judge Dredd futzie;

I want to establish World Peace, free all the Umpty Candies, and KILL EVERYBODY!!

But that didn’t make them less dangerous than, say, the PLO- just less predictable.

Still, what this man proposes will never happen. Because “progressives” don’t give a damn about “people”. In fact, they hate “people” who are not exactly like themselves.

And they are terrified of what armed “people” might do to them when they, the progressives, finally try to achieve their dream of being the only (semi) sentient beings left in the Universe.

clear ether

eon

eon on October 22, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Next thing you know, somebody will suggest the economy would do better if people kept more of their own money.

It’s madness I tell ya!!!

trigon on October 22, 2013 at 8:59 PM

The social order is deteriorating, or maybe just devolving back to what it was in the 19th century. A good number of people, like terrorists and gangsters, just don’t give a damn about rules, and politicians support that either tacitly by denying it or by coddling the bad guys. We need to accept that and protect ourselves.

PattyJ on October 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Soon to be ex-Interpol chief embroiled in sex scandal involving minors and cocaine trafficking: Maybe we should let civilians arm themselves after Westgate terror attack

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 22, 2013 at 10:44 PM

“Gun-free zones”? I call them “sitting-duck zones”.

Antivenin on October 23, 2013 at 3:19 AM

Would that prevent terrorist attacks on soft targets? Probably not entirely, since the terrorists usually have no problem with dying along with their victims in the end rather than being captured, considering that martyrdom (falsely, by the way, but that’s another entire discussion.

Well perhaps we’d better have that discussion. The Muj are still labouring under this delusion that Muhammad, the Qur’an and the Sunna still mean what they say when verses like Sura 9.111 are regularly quoted.

Please, please, disabuse them of their apparently deluded belief in the written words of their holy books. We’d love to see you do it.

Liam1304 on October 23, 2013 at 5:04 AM

since the terrorists usually have no problem with dying along with their victims in the end rather than being captured, considering that martyrdom (falsely, by the way, but that’s another entire discussion).

How many people need to believe in this ‘false belief’ before it becomes a ‘true belief’? Did Allah show up anywhere and tell us what he really wants, so that we can actually judge what is true or not? Because, otherwise, it doesn’t really matter what the ‘real’ Muslims say. There’s enough ‘false’ Muslims out there who think otherwise. And these false Muslims happen to believe that they’re the only real Muslims.

Besides, I think it’s disrespectful for anybody who is not Muslim to start lecturing Muslims on what is true or false Islam. The question of whether terrorism is martyrdom, is a question that only Muslims can answer. Just like only Catholics can decide for themselves whether they think abortion is murder.

Phoenician on October 23, 2013 at 6:23 AM

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.

Wouldn’t that make it a hard target? *shakes head*

GWB on October 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM