/ 19 November 2015
In the wake of the attack on Paris and the attempted attack in Germany we thought we’d remind you of what Former Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said back in 2013 (in the immediate aftermath of the Westgate Mall shooting in Nairobi, Kenya) about what is likely the best answer for responding to Muslim terrorism against “soft” (or civilian) targets.
In an 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. 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 spoke directly to the fact that al Qaeda (and now ISIS) had begun focusing their efforts and urging their supporters to “strike soft targets, to do it in small groups.”
“How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere. 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.”
Noble exasperated liberals further when he bluntly and forcefully told ABC News that liberals in the United States needed to rethink their pro-crime gun control 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. 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. 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?'”
It’s a fair question and the answer should be obvious. Gun Control makes law abiding citizens less safe in the increasingly dangerous world.