Armed citizenry a positive
Can it be? A person with enough intelligence, knowledge and position to come out with a statement like “Armed citizens might be a more realistic answer to the evolving trend of terrorists to attacking soft targets rather than hardened areas.”
Ronald Noble, head of the international police organization INTERPOL and a former Clinton appointee who headed law enforcement under the Treasury Department including the ATF has taken this position publicly in an interview with ABC news.
Noble has said that in free societies, government have only two viable options for addressing attacks on civilians: One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that, he said, alluding to the positive impact of a few civilian gun owners during the assault and siege on the Westgate Mall in Kenya last month.
“Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get to them you will have to pass through extraordinary security,” security that he indicated would be unfeasibly prohibitive in both money and liberty.
I might add in my opinion the 9/11 attack would not have happened if the pilots had been armed. Of course that was stopped by some politicos that think guns are dangerous. Three thousand people paid the ultimate price there!
Is this not the same for the demented mass murders who choose targets where resistance is least likely and victims are most helpless, schools, theaters, etc.
This statement should make police around the world question their views on gun control. It should also make politicians and general public think it over! Of course they will continue to ignore facts and it is likely that this prominent and effective law enforcement official will find himself without a job as seems to happen when one bucks the system.