After 67 people were killed in last month’s terrorist attack at the Westgate mall in Kenya, it looks like the international community could be engaging in a gun control debate of its own.
In an interview with ABC News, INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble suggested that arming civilians could be an answer to protecting open societies.
"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."
Discussing the “evolution of terrorism” with reporters at a news conference, Noble said terrorists are shifting their focus from targets like the Pentagon, to places that have little to no security, such as malls or movie theaters.
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."
Indeed. With the exception of the attack on Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011, the common theme among mass shootings in America is that they occur in gun-free zones. And the same is true of the Kenya mall attack. The country has extremely restrictive gun laws and “carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is prohibited,” according to GunPolicy.org.
Even our "crazy" mass murderers are never so "crazy" as to attack a known place which is NOT a "Gun Free" zone, such as a police station, and NRA convention or a target range.
Tyrants want their subjects unarmed!
It does not matter what potential targets you prioritize to protect with rigorous security, there will remain soft targets that will achieve a terrorist's objective.
If a military installation has restricted entry, target the school or day care center where the soldiers take their kids. If the Pentagon is secure, target the Pentagon metro station.
Would you be more terrorized by an attack on Joint Base Andrews, or by a suicide/homicide bomber at your annual church picnic?
I can't see myself terrorized by terrorists any place. Instead, if I actually thought I'd ever meet any of them I'd be taking steps to insure that I can shoot back.
My point is that, as a nation, we would probably be a lot less concerned about our vulnerability to terrorism if the targets were the types of places that we typically protect.
When those targets become too risky or too difficult to attack, there are plenty of places that the government not only does not protect, it proudly declares them to be gun free zones.
Points to remember about the attack on Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011. The crowd around Giffords was dense enough that the people who had CCW permits were not able to identify the shooter, and wisely held their own fire. This is normal when citizens are responding; and statistics show that bystanders are more likely to be shot by police responders than by citizen responders.