[digger48]

for some reason, I couldn’t copy and paste from the ABC website.

This was a snippet from http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/interpol-chief-after-kenya-mall-attack-maybe-armed-citizenry-isnt-so-crazy-after-all//#more

[vbmoneyspender]

[bk1000]

Just designate every place a gun free zone.

[onona]

Armed and ready sir !

Post where I'm needed !

[PowderMonkey]

"...either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves."

He already knows the answer to that. There is no such thing as a secure perimeter. There is only a redoubt. The rest is just buying time. During my time with that organization, its HQ in Lyon, France was hit by a Bombay/Kenya style attack, proving if they can't get inside the wire, they'll just hose the place down at a distance from the parking lot, and take you out as you arrive for work. Defense is not a winning strategy. You have to take the fight to the enemy, and make him fear you.

[SC_Pete]

In Minnesota, a recent study of carry permits shows that permit holders are 300% LESS likely to commit murder or manslaughter than the general population.

“Rate of carry permit holders committing murder and manslaughter/100,000 per year, .542.

Rate of murder in the general population in Minnesota, per 100,000 averaged for the years 2003, 2005 – 2012, is 1.78.”

http://beforeitsnews.com/survival/2013/10/murder-rates-by-minnesota-gun-permit-holders-expose-remarkable-safety-of-firearms-owners-2493064.html

[Mark17]

and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

How incredibly non PC of him.

[Steely Tom]

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.

There is a third choice, in LiberalLand anyway.

That choice is to open the borders and - at the same time - forbid ordinary people to own or carry firearms.

Then, when horrific mass-casualty attacks occur you get to:

1. blame your political enemies for creating the environment in which the attackers felt the need to kill...
2. demand more gun control, making it still harder for ordinary law-abiders to protect themselves, and...
3. enjoy the private thrill of seeing ordinary middle-class folks punished for the supposed sins of what you believe to be our twisted and illegitimate nation

This is such a triple-whammy win-win that the left finds it absolutely irresistible.

It becomes a win-win-win-win when you realize how many wealthy lefties live in gated communities, hire armed security people to protect them, fly private aircraft so they don't have to deal with oppressive security measures, etc., etc.

[Billthedrill]

A public that is NOT armed is a fairly recent occurrence in history. It isn't a particularly successful one.

Gentlemen should be armed. The reason is that there are a lot of people who aren't gentlemen who are and that is not going to change. Ladies may do as they please - they will anyway - hopefully by virtue of the fact that the gentlemen around them are armed, but if there are no gentlemen around them, they at least have the choice between being a free citizen or a victim.

This is civilization. Dying in a pool of your own blood in your neighborhood mall is savagery. Choose.

[CodeToad]

We don’t have that many concealed carry weapons in any mall at any one time BUT I suspect if that were tried here there would be a few dead bad guys regardless. In fact, I suspect there might be a few hunting parties of rednecks looking to take a shot at the rest of them.

[ladyjane]

So did anyone ever hear exactly how many died in that mall attack? And how many died as hostages because the roof collapsed?

[BenLurkin]

Hope he doesn’t lose his job for telling the truth.

[Dagnabitt]

Armed citizens plus common sense immigration practices. (stop importing jihad)

[MasterGunner01]

Robert A. Heinlein said it best: “An armed society is a polite society.” [It's also a very risky society for thugs and Muslim terrorists.]

[InABunkerUnderSF]

“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.”

I wish we'd been able to convince Governor Brewer of this a couple of year ago when a bill requiring public buildings, like the state capital, to either provide armed guards at every entrance and a secure location for people to check their weapons, or else permit citizens to carry in said public buildings.

[Peet]

First:
...Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall...

Then:
Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” [SNIP] 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.

Those two seem ("seem" heck, are) mutually exclusive.

[mbennett203]

OK. I don’t want a rectal examination by a security agent to go shopping, so... Guns it is.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

“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.”

This is the government, so which way do you think these countries are going to choose? That's right, get ready for the super rectal exam just to get into your local mall. On the plus side, it should make internet shopping even bigger....

[Pilsner]

Wow. We appear to finally have an Interpol Secretary General about whom you can say something better than, "He's not as bad as some of his predecessors, like Reinhard Heydrich."

or Ernst Kaltenbrunner