Saturday, November 2, 2013

(OT) ABC News Exclusive: Secretary General of Interpol Wonders Aloud If Armed Citizenry Is More Necessary Now, Instead of Gun Control

I don't believe this article got much coverage, given how it is under the Obama administration when it comes to armed citizenry.

For my record, from ABC News (10/21/2013; emphasis is mine):

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'

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."

Noble's comments came only moments after the official opening of the 82nd annual gathering of the Interpol's governing body, the General Assembly. The session is being held in Cartagena, Colombia, and is being used to highlight strides over the last decade in Colombia's battle against the notorious drug cartels that used to be the real power in the country.

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.

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.

"How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters. "It's Interpol's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists."

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?'"

Prior to the Westgate attack, the gun control debate has been ignited time and time again in the U.S. in the aftermath of a series of mass shootings, including one in a movie theater in Aurora, Col., a suburb of Denver.

(I think I can tell the answer by the majority of Japanese: they'd rather be in a city with the strictest gun control and absolutely no citizens armed when shooting starts in a big shopping mall...)


Anonymous said...

How many mass shootings do you see in Japan, though?

And I think most people everywhere assume that no guns = no shootings.
Problem is, people who want guns will still get ahold of them, regardless of the law. Regular people can't comprehend that because they can't imagine anyone blreaking the law. I'm not even exaggerating. That is their mentality.

Once a technology is introduced to the world, you can't just ban it. People who want it will always find ways to obtain it.

Anyway, it's also ironic how countries seek arms to deter other countries from attacking them, whilst at the same time making a fuss about whether their own citizens should be armed to deter criminals from attacking them.

Hypocrisy much?

Personally, I don't see why we don't just have licensed trained armed civilians, kind of like Air Marshals. Criminals wouldn't know who is armed or not. What I do know is that disarming all the non-criminals isn't the answer, and that arming all citizens isn't the answer either. Idiots shouldn't carry guns.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 11:11
'Idiots shouldn't cary guns'. I wish that was true...
Idiots shouldn't build nuclear power plants
Idiots shouldn't run banks
Idiots shouldn't be politicians
Idiots shouldn't have the right to vote
Idiots shouldn't be living basicly, but they seem to be all around us...

VyseLegendaire said...

Slaves dream not of freedom, but of becoming masters.

Anonymous said...

If I were in Westgate would I like the middle age cowboy to pull his gun? Well, I do not know... Maybe I would like it if he attracts fire on himself while I manage to leave the scene.
On the other hand, when I am *not* in Westgate, would I like the same middle age cowboy sipping beer two tables away from me to be carrying a gun? Definitely not.
This is what we need to ask ourselves.

arevamirpal::laprimavera said...

Vyse, amen to that.

I'd rather be shot than chopped and sliced by a kitchen knife, a favorite way to kill people in Japan.

Anonymous said...

Japan has more deadly attacks using samurai swords than guns. You can't reload swords quickly and very few people have the ability to kill dozens ala Zatoichi or Lone Wolf, so it's pretty much a one on one thing.

Getting rid of guns in Japan was easy because of the collective "borg" mindset but trying to get rid of guns in the US will be a heck of an undertaking. Giving everyone the green light to arm themselves will only result in violent chaos. Gone is the wild west and its men of fortitude and justice--- yes, we are overrun by idiots now.

Darth 3.11 said...

Much like our courtship with using npp, arming citizens is peachy until something...goes...wrong...

Right now, in the USA, in states like Florida, armed citizens are free to gun each other down under the "Stand Your Ground" law, in which slaughtering others is justified under the slightest imaginary threat from others, including teenagers (black ones, of course...slavery legacy continues unabated) are gunned down by one unhinged gun owner for the crime of playing loud music in their car. "It was the music that made me do it, Judge! I was threatened by the dangerous backbeat!" Cue the next slaughter.

So, go ahead, fire up the npp's, we are threatened by a lack of unlimited power instead of using any self-control at all. Cue the next disaster.

Anonymous said...

Darth 3.11, "black ones, of course"? What's not reported in the media you read is the news like the black youth swarm and kill whites just because they are whites. And that's OK with you I suppose. Slavery legacy indeed.

I guess it's totally OK with you also that cops are gunning and tasering unarmed citizens under the slightest imaginary threat to the cops.

Anonymous said...

I fail to understand the argument inferred by "... 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?"

To my knowledge, in the States no mass shooting in recent history has been prevented or brought to an end by one or more armed citizens. On the contrary, a lot of mass shootings have been COMMITTED by armed citizens.

When it comes to terrorism, whether soft target terrorism or any other kind, the question has always been whether you can fight violence with violence. Look at Israel and Palestine to get an idea of how well fighting fire with fire is working. Plus, they have especially extensive experience with soft-target terrorism.

Anonymous said...

"To my knowledge, in the States no mass shooting in recent history has been prevented or brought to an end by one or more armed citizens"

mscharisma, to my knowledge there was no armed citizen at the scenes of mass shooting to prevent further killing.

Anonymous said...

At anon @12:33: ... and that is precisely the point why the inferred argument that you'd be better off during a mass shooting in Denver or Texas vs. at Westgate mall makes no sense at all. Nothing to back it up with. Thanks for making that even clearer.

Anonymous said...

mscharisma, you completely miss my point. Even in the US, most people are so neutered that they wouldn't even think of fighting back such assailants, even when all it would need is to whack him/her in the head from behind. They look for "daddy and mommy" (=police, who are extremely good at killing citizens).

Darth 3.11 said...

"I guess it's totally OK with you also that cops are gunning and tasering unarmed citizens under the slightest imaginary threat to the cops."

No, it is not OK with me. Not sure where you came up with this conclusion...

Anonymous said...

At anon at 10:14:
No, I don't think I was missing your point. I'm just saying that your point underscored mine: the insinuation one would be better off fighting soft-target terrorism with arming citizens, especially using Denver and Texas as examples, is - at the very least - pointless. And apparently you agree since, according to you, citizens are too "neutered" to fight back anyway.

Post a Comment