Interpol chief recommends “armed citizenry”
Andy sends us a link to ABC News in which they report that the Interpol Secretary General, Ronald Noble, an American, said out loud that maybe governments should consider an armed citizenry in response to the shift in terror patterns like at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi last month;
“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.”
“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.”
Well, there were the attacks in Toulouse, France last year when soldiers and citizens were attacked by a terrorist with a handgun, and that didn’t affect France very much. It will probably take a large-scale attack like Westgate in Europe to force a shift in the way they view legally armed citizens there. Africa still seems a little distant at the moment.
But it is amazing that an organization like Interpol is talking about the subject, albeit a bit belatedly. Of course, he was doing the interview in Colombia, where they have an equivalent to our Second Amendment – Article 223 of their Constitution – gun ownership is guaranteed by law with certain restrictions.
Category: Guns
I lurk occasionally over at ARRSE (the British ARmy Rumo(u)r SErvice) and read what they have to say about the concept of armed citizens. Most are horrified by the idea (though not all) and I’ve never quite understood that. After all, the government could establish very strict standards for those who wished to get a carry permit (a lot of training with strict “shoot or no shoot” scenarios, liability insurance, registration, etc.) and make sure that armed citizens are even more prepared than the police to use firearms appropriately, but they seem to want none of it-it doesn’t make any sense to me.
@1 There are still PLENTY of Brits who love guns, and still own them. However, they do so overseas. It is a common practice for British firearms enthusiasts to be members of gun clubs in France where the laws are much less draconian.
The systematic removal of guns from the British cultural lexicon is an insidious thing to observe. When I discuss the topic with my British friends (wife is a Limey) I get a more volatile reaction than if I were to discuss their handling of child molesters, rapists & murderers. The Fabian Society and their offspring did an amazing, albeit terrifying, job of stigmatizing firearms and those who wish to own them.
Japan is the same way. Strict laws against personal ownership of guns means a huge boon of business in Japanese tourist destinations for gun ranges. Honolulu does a very brisk business in having indoor gun ranges firing weapons the Japanese only see on TV or movies.
@2 And the same ideology is hard at work here.
“‘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.”
IMO, that is the sixty-four million dollar question.
Kids in Heinlein’s ‘Red Planet’ had to take training and do a gun wearer’s oath. Otherwise, they couldn’t have weapons.
I’m constantly disturbed by the naive people in this country have that they’ll be protected by someone else, e.g., law enforcement. Yeah, we’ve seen the results of that, haven’t we?
@5 We have indeed and those results are none too pretty…
Ex-PH2: especially as the SCOTUS has ruled that police essentially have no legal obligation to individually protect you. See Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005).
And that is why I ask, why don’t the libs start by disarming the police? There’s no Constitutional issue and, as I have pointed out previously, large cities would be rid of thousands of guns overnight!
@3–Guam was the same way. And I saw what they were charging. I knew Japanese tourists blew their money on stupid shit, but not THAT much money.
The problem in the UK is not just how difficult it is to legally obtain a firearm (while criminals naturally have as many as they want,) it is also that we do not have adequate self defence laws so that if someone breaks into your home you cannot defend yourself or your property with a firearm, even if you have somehow managed to persuade the police to let you have one. The current Prime Minister David Cameron has said that this shouldn’t be the case but he hasn’t actually done anything to fix the problem.
I don’t think that the UK has ever had much of a tradition of widespread gun ownership outside of farmers and the gentry which is why as the posters above have noted there is widespread prejudice against gun ownership in the UK. This prejudice is naturally reinforced by agitprop from the usual suspects in the media.
The biggest problem that I think exists with self defence in the UK is the idea of “reasonable force.”
That is to say that it is reasonable to hit a burglar with your fists but that it is unreasonable to shoot him.
The obvious problem with this is that the former action puts the victim of the burglary at far more risk than the latter and generally creates the perception that the law is more concerned with preserving the “human rights” of criminals than it is with preserving justice and good order.
@11. That’s too much thought for what is practiced here and for which we have to thank the Brits and Common Law. Hey, it’s night, one is is relaxing in his home, someone breaks into the home and Blam! Blam!…that’s that. Well, that’s that but for the mess.
I agree that every one should be allowed to carry a gun, either openly or concealed. There are only a couple of conditions that should be attached to this previlage. First that the caliber of the gun must be less than 26mm. Second that a citizen of a republic be limited to the possesion of weapons with only TWO shots. If the citizenery is limited to weapons with only two shots then of course the police can reasonbly be limited to a weapon with six shots. Any citizen who thinks that he needs more than two shots for any legitimate purpose proves by his/her fear that they need additional instructions on how to properly handle a firearm. It might be said that a two shot handgun is no match for a criminal armed with a M16A1 but such a person does not know basic addition. Even in the USA violent criminals outside of the military are a small part of the population. Therefore if a person or small group of people armed with a high capacity magazine were to attempt to carry out an illegimate violent assault in a republic they would be met by a hail of accurate fire from many nearby citizens whcih would end thier illegimate activity in a matter of moments. Well what if those citizens were faced with a worst case scenario of a large group of well armed men attempting to carry out an illegimate action. I would say this large group of men will be quickly overwhelmed by the large number of militia reinforcements that would arrive on the scene, to say nothing of the local police. Still the most important consderation is that in a R E P U B L I C such a thing will not happen because there would be no motive other than greed or racism to carry out such an attack and in a R E P U B L I C it would be impossible for a large group of men to organize such an attack because the plot would be discovered by the authorities long… Read more »
aT #313, Curt the daylight break ins are 3 or more bad guys. Here in my area they are targeting the elderly who take pain meds(me). Robbing and taking the meds. So, only 2 shot firearm would get me badly hurt or dead. I keep a 7 round in my 1911 and 1 in chamber. Another mag in easy reach. My trainig includes pulling trigger asgainst a another trying to close out my hearth record. People , who have had the adinline (sp) dump that can cause to miss the first shots then settle down to hit the bad guy. you or anyone else Most likely empty their firearm and not the target without regular practice. 26mm restriction, Iam going to a Glock 20 converted to .50 cal. Joe
@13: I concur with Joe; home invasions by bad guys are done in multiples these days in many instances (there are many documented instances on this website alone). With your logic, we might as well take Joey “Plugs” Biden’s advice and just shoot a couple warning shots off the back porch with a shotgun. If you want to use your standard, go for it, but don’t think that your plan will work past the date of your funeral.
#13/Curt: Two rounds of 1+” ball is an asinine concept. So is the assumption that any, much less all encounters in such situations would result in multiple upstanding citizens firing against the criminals.
The shear idiocy of such a restriction and the illogic which “supports” it demonstrates that you do NOT have superior firearms training. You may have a larger quantity of indoctrination by parties that wish to overturn the 2nd Amendment, but NOT superior firearms training.
As to the Interpol Chief’s recommendation, that is an excellent suggestion. If a shooter/terrorist, or band of terrorists attacked a mall/school/etc., there chance of success would be much more remote if the superior number of “potential victims” were armed, trained, and ready to use deadly violence against the terrorists. Crime would also be greatly reduced.
Seems to me that quotes of many of the Founding Fathers support the concept, and that at the beginning of this Republic, the situation was much closer to that than it is today.
25.4mm = 1 inch
.50 cal = 1/2 inch
12mm is a little smaller than .50cal
Curt @ 13: So much stupid in one post, it’s a wonder the blog doesn’t collapse in on itself.
1 – It is spelled privilege.
2 – Bearing arms is not a privilege, it is a God given right.
3 – 26mm is a little over 1 inch, which is a bit inconvenient for personal carry, concealed or open. I will stick with 9mm or .45(inch) JHP for my carry weapon.
4 – Limiting the weaponry citizenry are allowed to possess has no effect on what criminals carry. The US cities with the tightest gun control laws also have the highest crime rights.
5 – If a group of criminals (> 2) invade my home, how long until the militia arrives? Seconds count here.
6 – Remember how the US government detected and stopped that large group of men (19) who attempted to hijack three airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol? Oh, wait, they didn’t.
7 – Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. “Don’t disagree with me because of my high speed low drag training, light years ahead of you provincial yahoos.” Just what ee-light tactical mall ninja training did you receive?
Apologies for feeding the troll.
And I see others beat me to the punch.
I think it’s quite plain that good ol’ #13 Curt K has never been shot at or had a gun waved in his face.
That militia thing? Militia? Seriously? To stop a break-in? That’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen in a long time.
Piece of advice: occasionally, leave your room and get outside in the fresh air. Your brains are addled.
Hmm, could Curt be funnin’ us?
Fore Rensic TACs Evasion = Forensic Tax Evasion.
If so, well played sir, well played. [golf clap]
I like this part: “… it would be impossible for a large group of men to organize such an attack because the plot would be discovered by the authorities long before it could be carried out.”
Uh, @13, CurtK, did you hear about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Just askin’, sport, because your opinions smack of video gamesterism and don’t have a lot to do with reality. Large group of 19 men planned and carried out a multi-plane hijacking and killed a lot of people, and the ‘authorities’ didn’t put 2 & 2 together to stop it.
Try to understand this: the success of a planned attack like Pearl Harbor or those 4 plane hijackings depends on the element of SURPRISE!!! Same thing with suicide bombers: those people don’t advertise their plans.
And this one: “If you have any doubt about anything that I just wrote it is because the training that you have recieved is not as good as the training that I have recieved. There are many people in this world who have training that is light years ahead of that given on any military installation in the USA.”
So, you took Giduck’s Specialized Spaetnaez Shovel Skills Study? Wow, I’m so unimpressed. So who are the rest of these ‘specially trained, light years ahead of you all’ peeps, huh? Oh, wait — that’s a SECRET, right????
And while I’m at it, Idiotstick, do a little proofreading, OK? It’s ‘receIved’, not ‘recIeved’. I before E, except after C – learned that in the first grade, sport.
Curt was a bored little f@ck stick who decided to troll…Curt were you bored over at Blackfive so you needed to see if anyone else would be interested in your vapid, inane commentary?
Your ability to express a lucid point with valid arguments is a wholly entertaining example of a limited intellect stymied by a complete lack of mastery of the basic writing skills usually acquired at age twelve.
Stick around and write some more, we would all be thrilled to see some further examples of how the public education system failed you.
Well I will agree to the 26mm limitation. My carry pieces are a 9mm and 10mm.
Who says I cant compromise??
Oh BTW #13… I would love for you to come try and take mine… pretty please…
I THINK Curt might have been having a wee bit of fun at our expense.
Either that, or that’s as much ignorance as I’ve seen in one place in quite awhile.
You want to set us straight on that point, Curt?
@24 That’s funny sh1t dude…no need for the 1″ hand cannon?
It’s clear Curt’s a tool who gets bored when school gets out…
Say, guys, just what kind of recoil does a 1″ gun have, anyway? I’m trying to get my head around it, since my experience with hand guns and long guns is limited to this one time, in 1968, when some dipstick Navy CPO asked if anyone was interested in learning to shoot a gun. (He didn’t say what kind of gun.)
So I said, ‘OK’ and went down the street to the shooting range at Bolling AFB (next door) and picked up a .38 pistol. But, see, when I wanted to use both hands to steady it against the recoil, the dipstick chief said I was supposed to stick one hand in my pocket. Well, in my light blues (see photo in gallery), I did not have a pocket in the skirt, so I just held my left hand straight down at my side, and when I squeezed off a couple of rounds, I let the recoil bounce my right hand right back into that dipstick chief’s face.
Oh, yeah — my booger hook was still on the bang switch. And he didn’t want me in his shooting party after that. So I asked some Marines I worked with if you’re allowed to steady your shooting hand with the other hand, and they said ‘Sure, of course you are.’ And they took great pleasure in giving me proper instruction.
Yeah, they were cute, too. What!?!? I like Marines. Deal with it. 😛
Some background on Curt Kastens; He was a troll at B5 until they banned him and, naturally, we got him in the custody settlement. He’s a Euro-wienie and he really believes that shit. By the way, I want one of those two-shot 29mm handguns.
Yes it is true I was bored last night. The let down after the super thrilling Giants Vikings game had me in a real stupor. But the home invasionm excuse for needing a 9mm pistol with a 15 or even a 7 round clip does not, im most cases, hold up under scrutiny. In a country where the sane people live, and in most countries even the criminals are sane, if a person had a 2 shot pistol and a double barreled shotgun normally used for hunting in the house, there is more than enough fire power to repel any home invasion, or at least hold off these imaginaries bad guys until the police arrive if one lives in an urban area. Now if one lives a rural area I suspose it should be possible for exceptions to be made and allow a six shooter in the house when the person has proven that they are not insane. But I have to really wonder if even anyone in a rural area would want any more fire power than that because if a person lives it a rural area and a gang of heavily armed men are trying to break in to your house it is no doubt the police who believe that you are running a meth lab in your house. Trying to defend yourself will just lead to a needless tradgedy. If you live in an urban and the group of men do not retreat after the first blast of your shotgun then what you really need is for someone to wake you up from your nightmare.
Trust the General Organizational Directorate wey have the training neccessary to cure insanity.
Um, Curt, we’re talking about the Westgate Mall thing, not some mundane home invasion. Two rounds wouldn’t have put a dent in those terrorists. Try to keep up.
HAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
That’s some serious, industrial-grade crazy right there, guy.
And Curt, we’re all about personal knowledge around here, so I’ll ask this now: Have you ever even SEEN a real gun? In real life? Sober?
Apparently in Curt’s World, a person defending themselves or their home never misses their target or is confronted by more than 2 people.
Idiot.
@28 The German PAK was a 37mm anti-tank weapon….a 26mm hand gun could make some really nice holes in lightly armored or unarmored vehicles…in a softer target I suspect you could put your arm through the hole…
@29 I’m not clear where you get the idea that the 2nd amendment only applies to defending yourself….having a high capacity magazine is the same as desiring a Lamborghini or a Ferrari, you have the right to own them. That right was so important to the founders of the nation they wrote it into the constitution as the 2nd most important right given to man by God, second only to the freedom to speak your mind free from government intrusion or oppression.
The founders knew the right to assemble and speak freely was a necessity to a free people, they also knew the English model of disarming the populace made for a government that could impose its’ will against the unarmed citizenry often with fatal results and despotic outcomes.
The bill of rights is not a set of privileges extended to us by our government is a declaration of rights inherent in your birth and not to be infringed by the corruption of the political process.
As Mr. Lilyea mentioned try to get caught up so you can keep up…
Ex-PH2: Um, not real sure how much a 1.024 caliber (26mm) handgun would have. But with a decent powder load and a reasonable barrel, I’d guess about 3x or more of the kick of a .357 magnum – for starters.
I think the technical description is, “It would kick like a freaking angry mule.” (smile)
Curt,
Grasp your double barrelled 26mm pistol in your dominant hand, open mouth, place double barrel firmly against roof of mouth, pull trigger(s).
The massive 26mm projectiles will pass through the roof of mouth, sinuses, through a large empty void and exit the top of your head.
Once you have recovered from the generally superficial wounds, please come back and let us know how it all worked out for you!
Here you go! A 26.5mm “handgun”:
http://www.keepshooting.com/h-k-flare-gun-26-5mm.html
Just yesterday my nephew borrowed my AR to hunt coyotes, they run in packs and are considered a pest which means you can shoot them whenever you encounter them and there is no limit, and you don’t even need a hunting license (at least here in N.C.). So a high-capacity, semi-automatic like the AR is very useful in hunting such a pest. The left says a lot of retarded stuff about firearms like “no one needs an AR for hunting”, but they always speak from ignorance, never forget it.
Hondo, that should be ‘more than 1 (one) person’ and you left out the part about ‘never has an adrenaline spike that impairs accuracy, even at close range’.
And sse, Curt, who has no experience even as limited as mine, does not appear to comprehend that a .38 bullet will leave a nasty hole in someone, never mind what a .45 bullet from a Colt revolver, jes’ like in them there good ol’ days in the West.
It’s nice that you have a little dream world to live in, Curt, but I sure hope someone rattles your cage door some day. The Westgate Mall attackers were four men who walked in the front door and started shooting.
Now, just you tell us all, in your unbridled wisdom, how they managed to plan that invasion without anyone knowing about it ahead of time.
Oh, yeah, that ‘General Organizational Directorate’ thingy. Is that your way of letting us all know that you’re really a moron with too much time on your hands? God hasn’t cured insanity yet, sport. It’s a genetic disorder that is passed down by parents to their children. GOD doesn’t have a whole to do with it.
and that, ladies and gentlemen, deomonstrates the mental deterioration of the European continent is just two postings.
Tell ya what, Kurt old buddy – just for openers, when and where have you ever SEEN, much less fired, a 26mm pistol? And just when did you start that homosexual affair with Joe Biden?
I like Curtsy’s presumption that self defense is why we citizens of the US have guns. I have them because I can and because I like them. I have big ones whose projectiles, when fired, make big holes, others make little holes, and some make in-between holes. Speaking of holes, Curtsy really is an asshole.
It’s so nice to know that real stupidity is still alive and kicking.
Curt says: ‘if a person lives it a rural area and a gang of heavily armed men are trying to break in to your house it is no doubt the police who believe that you are running a meth lab in your house’.
Ah! Obviously, Curt is unaware that people who live in rural areas are more vulnerable to home invastions than people in heavily-populated areas. Just ask any Amish farming family how many times they’ve been attacked at night by hooligans from the local community. Ask them. It’s quite well-known in THIS country that Mennonites and Amish don’t have or use telephones of any kind because it goes against their faith. That leaves them with no way to call 911 for help if they need it, and when their homes are invaded, they are at the mercy of the invaders. Perhaps I could bring up that Amish school that was invaded a few years ago by a crazy who not only shot and killed several students and the teacher, but also sexually assaulted several of the female students. No phone. No way to get help.
That part about heavily armed men attempting to break into your home means you simply MUST be cooking meth? Yeah, Curt, you simpleton, it’s quite well-known that people drive down the highways cooking meth in their CARS as they go. I can find more than enough backup from local sheriffs to support that statement.
Not everyone who lives in a rural area is a douchebag like you are, Curt, and I’m quite happy to tell you that your ignorance of what goes on in cities and in the countryside in ANY country in the world is appalling.
Let say for sake of argument… that I am attacked by 10 crazy “people trying to better their lot in life” idiots… any normal red blooded american would at least want to take as many of them with me instead of cowering like a pansy in the corner begging for my life…
Curt, putting myself into the mind of a sane criminal, if I were planning an invasion of a home which abides by a law that they can have 4 rounds of ammunition (that has yet to be manufactured), I would relish the fact that they fired 1/4th of it off as a warning, and do my best to get them to waste the other 3 rounds.
Further, I would maintain a circle of five co-criminals, with the best arms the criminal world could supply, and whom had no propensity for discussion.
In the meantime, I’d probably take up the practice of hunting the Queen’s forests and eating her venison, since there are so few with access to such vast areas of land and they wouldn’t hear the suppressed fire of my illegal arms.
Then again, if I were a criminal, there probably aren’t too many laws I would conform to.
As pointed out previously, the 2nd Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right, to help forestall the abuses suffered by Americans at the hands of a distant govt. It has the wonderful by-products of also providing a defense against criminals, and a means of putting food on the table.
Nevertheless, I would like to see links to your 26mm pistol and your 5gauge double barrel shotgun. I’d prefer to see video of you shooting it.
When I read Curt’s posts here, it’s like I’m in the very same room with Piers Morgan and Joe Biden while they’re both drinking large amounts of codeine-laced cough syrup and swapping gun control theories.
Ex-PH2: Curt the Fool’s original comment above says that everyone should be restricted to a gun of caliber “less than 26mm” and to “weapons with only TWO shots.”
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding good marksmanship on the part of the individual defending themselves or their home. A two-shot pistol could theoretically take out two assailants/home invaders.
Kinda leaves you “high and dry” if you’re facing three armed perps, though. Or if you’re facing two and miss.
I go away for a little bit and I get to come back to insane ramblings from curt.
Well, Hondo, in regard to more than two perps, you could pull a Jason Bourne burner and put one of them in front of you as a shield, or you could do an Indy Jones and use their guns against them — all of this, of course, assuming that you can actually pull off such a stunt, and with no adrenaline spike interfering with your actions.
If you’re 22 and spry and athletic, maybe. If you’re 67 and arthritic, not so much.
#13 Kurt, I do not make or sell meth or mj. None of my friends do neither. Did you pull that assumation out of your ass? Joe
Twist, welcome back.
Isn’t it kind of a relief to have a genuine, dumb as a bean bag troll on hand?
Ex-PH2, I’m just popping on from time to time. Still dealing with stuff, but luckily I have a lot of family up here in Alaska.