Top Counter-Terrorism Agency: Citizens Should Be Armed To Stop Terror Attacks

Head of International Police Agency:  Arming Citizens May Be the Best Way to Stop Terrorists

The head of the world’s international police agency (Interpol) – which is very active in counter-terror efforts – said last October that arming citizens might be the best way to stop terrorism.

ABC News reported:

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.”


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.


“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?'”

If you are for gun control – as I used to be – you may want to note that a top liberal Constitutional law scholar, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama are all  for the right of citizens to bear arms.

Perhaps more importantly, look at the alternatives

Would you rather let the government keep on waging its virtually endless, counter-productive, freedom-destroying, ruinously expensive War On Terror?

Or would you rather arm yourselves and take your chances?

I know a native American man who has a bumper sticker on his truck which reads:

Open Hunting Season on Terrorists

I think he’s got the right attitude.

Postscript:  For those who think that guns are “unhealthy” or “disgusting”, please note that Freud disagreed.  Specifically, he argued that when men give up the primal drive to protect ourselves, our families and our communities – and that power is transferred to standing armies – it disempowers us and makes us weak psychologically.

And see this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Me, too. I used to be for gun control. Now I’m not.

  • unheilig

    Carrying a gun is self-protection? How does that work? Do guns stop bullets now? The only thing that might stop a determined gunman is a trained expert. Even most police fail this test, they’re much more likely to shoot innocent bystanders or get themselves killed. Even shooters on army bases manage to kill a lot of people before somebody brings them down. Arming untrained civilians is asking for trouble. Just look at the statistics.

    • Keith Liberty

      that is what handgun carry permits are for………

      • unheilig

        That trains you in how to fire one, not how to react in an unexpected and dangerous situation requiring split-second decisions with lives at stake.

        • Dee

          unheilig armed self defense is a martial art just like unarmed self defense. people who wish to be armed or to carry for self defense should get some training, the more the better, if they wish to actually survive an armed encounter. There is a good chance in any armed encounter that somebody is not going home that night.

          The Bad guy, being the attacker, starts off with an undisputed advantage, the only reasonable hope a good guy with a gun has is better training and a more serious training schedule. The opportunities are many and many are quite affordable. If folks are seriously thinking of carrying a lethal and deadly weapon for self defense they need to confront some serious considerations and personal choices.. the hardest being the concept of creating a great bloody mess and jeopardizing their freedom for the rest of their lives when they act in self defense with lethal force, the easiest is making the commitment to get the training and do the practice that makes them dangerous to bad guys and safe to the general innocent public that might be in the line of fire. Might check out

          and and watch and the other related videos on the page. There are also various training academies and some can be expensive like Frontsight, The Gunsight academy ( granddaddy of them all and started by Jeff Cooper who basically invented the modern concept of armed self defense, invented the 4 safety rules, the weaver stance etc.) , Thunder Mountain is yet another school. Most schools do an intro course of about a week and require about 1000 rounds of ammo. The NRA has classes that are more local and weekend oriented and broken down into smaller teaching blocks and tend to be more affordable than talking off a week and paying for a week long residential course. IDPA is a good place to practice and do some learning and is by far and away the most affordable option.
          A fair portion of folks who carry are actually quiet serious about the responsibilities involved and the armed self defense industry is probably much larger and a far more serious industry serving a much larger market than most unarmed folks realize.
          Carrying a lethal weapon is not something anybody should do in a half assed, half trained, half hearted, manner.

    • ClubToTheHead

      I know personally of two cases where the mere belief that a potential victim was carrying a gun made the predator flee.

      One of those two cases was my encounter with two men who demanded money while my wife was with me. Guns deter predators who are usually looking for an easy target, not one that will give them trouble instead.

      I’ll believe guns don’t provide protection when government officials demonstrate the safety of disarming themselves and going without guards.

      Dear leaders, lead by example or shut up.

  • ClubToTheHead

    Martin Luther King , Jr. once applied for a license to carry a gun. Not delusional, but he was denied.

    Gandhi demanded of the British occupation that civilians be allowed to own guns. They asked him what they would do with them? and he replied that he would tell them after he got them.

    I’ll consider giving up guns when the government gives up its nuclear weapons. These idiots with their nukes and war mongering are more likely to kill us all for some stupid reason, and yet so many still see these prima donnas as our benevolent guardians.

    Amazingly delusional disconnect with reality among those who still see America as the City on the Hill, and a beacon to the world, while the push for next world war is on, one that is going to leave every life support system in collapse.