Posted on 11/03/2013 6:16:15 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Mindful of the recent terrorist attack at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said that armed citizens in open societies need to be able to defend themselves and others against terrorist attacks.
In the Sept. 21 shopping mall attack, considered to be a “soft target,” some 72 people were killed, including five of the attackers from the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab. While five of the dead were members of the Kenyan military, 61 were civilians.
Noble said in a report on ABC the attack on the mall marks an “evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and other high-security locations, attackers have begun to focus on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.
“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem (of terrorism),” Noble told ABC. “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.”
Such enclaves could include places where people generally gather, such as at malls, theaters, supermarkets, town squares and churches. But putting these locations under a high level of security would keep people from going to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
He’s apparently preparing for retirement if he’s going to start speaking the truth about guns.
He will be replaced......it’s easier to deal with terrorists than to deal with the public and the threat they pose to world domination
He needs to be careful or he may end up in the same retirement concentration community as the Brass that is being purged...
I’ve thought about this in the past. In a fully armed society, the nuts and criminals are armed as well as the sane people. I think you’d have more small-scale violent incidents, but very few large scale ones.
Crazy armed people would “go off” from time to time, but the armed majority around them would put them down fairly rapidly.
It’s a risk/quality of life decision that few societies are prepared to think through. Occasional, limited violence, or rare larger-scale violence.
I think you could build a mathematical model whose solutions would approximate the issues with forest fire management. Allow some little burns, or stomp them out, creating conditions for the inevitable huge blaze.
2nd Amendment bump for later.....
I do not think there is even a slight chance of small scale incidents increasing in a fully armed society. Most of these criminals are cowards that prey on the weak and defenseless. Violent crime would fall across the board.
How true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.