Interpol Secretary General Says We Need to Talk about Armed Citizens

The current Interpol Secretary General, the first American to hold the post, says that after the Westgate Mall act of terror, it’s time to start having a serious conversation on the value of armed citizens. He basically highlights that to minimize the risk of these kinds of attacks, we can go to a police state where you need exceptional security to go into any building or there’s the option of an armed populace:

“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.”

He notes that these terrorists didn’t go to a place like Texas to find victims. They went to a place where citizens are largely unarmed.

Looking up his story, this is a complete break from so many things you would expect about a man with his background. He was born in New Jersey and went to New England for college. He’s a tenured professor, and he served in the Clinton Administration as Undersecretary for Enforcement at the Department of the Treasury. That means he was also involved in the “review” of ATF’s actions at Waco. He has previously been so well liked by his colleagues in the international law enforcement world that his last two elections as Secretary General have been supported unanimously.

14 thoughts on “Interpol Secretary General Says We Need to Talk about Armed Citizens”

  1. That is an amazing admission. He sounds like someone who finally faced the facts. How do you stop terrorist attacks like this? Its the same problem with schools. You really have two choices- secure enclaves or armed people. Question is, what do the people really want?

  2. Can you imagine the response to “All you have to do is let TSA screen everyone who wants to enter the mall!” ?

    1. I think that’s exactly why people you wouldn’t expect will become more okay with the idea of concealed carry by citizens. Even people who may not love the idea probably find it slightly more tolerable than entering every building with TSA-style security.

      1. Also TSA style security doesn’t cover if the perps rented a shop in the mall, worked in the mall, worked as delivery men to the mall, or simply attacked the line outside the mall.

        That’s not even getting into the manpower, time, and equipment expense. And that’s just to get a security-theater level security.

        Real security is even more costly and near impossible given the amount of throuput and raw number of facilities.

    1. When I looked this guy up and realized he’s a former Clinton Administration official from New Jersey working as a tenured academic before his stint at Interpol, where the international community seems to like him, it kind of blew my mind that he was being so vocal in support of citizens carrying guns. This is not your typical carry activist.

      1. I know, right? I ran to check the calendar and make sure all the months still had the right number of days, because I think that’s how you’re supposed to tell if you’ve slipped into a parallel dimension or not.

  3. Hey

    I grew up in New Jersey and graduated from both college and law school in New England. But I’m not a Clinton appointee.

  4. In large parts of the US, for every politician (and citizen, for that matter) who thinks, “Gee, this guy might be right about CCW!” there’s likely two or three more who would happily submit to TSA-style screening to go to the mall.

    I remember a few times ago I was flying for business and the sheep behind me were bleating something along the lines of, “Oh, thank goodness TSA took away my pocketknife! I can’t believe I brought it with me! Who knows what have happened if I had that with me on the plane!” That’s the kind of Grade A problem we’re dealing with.

    Surprisingly enough, the INTERPOL guy sounds like he’s approaching this rationally, like a reasonable, logical person who wants to prevent slaughter of innocents. Most voters are neither logical nor particularly concerned about outcomes. Gun control is a religion.

  5. Ron Noble was a an anti-gunner when he was in the Clinton Administration. He was in charge of implementing the Clinton-era “assault weapons ban” and other aspects of the Brady law. Will be interesting to seek if he sticks to his guns (so to speak) on these comments.

Comments are closed.