Quote of the day—Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble

How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere.

Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. 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.

Ronald Noble
Interpol Secretary General
October 21, 2013
Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders ‘Armed Citizenry’
[Other people have things to say as well:

As Tam said, “I feel all through the looking glass, here.”—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble

  1. Your post exhibits some selection bias in what you emphasized. He rolled out a list of the two possible ways to stop mass killings and you noticed the one you liked.

    The people who decide these things in the EU will choose, I am absolutely certain, extraordinary security (i.e., further imposition of onerous control on the subjects).

    • Oh, I’m sure you are right. But that fact that he’d even publicly acknowledge that the “armed populace” option even exists is an amazing thing. Most pols refuse to talk about such a thing, except to mock and deride it directly as utterly absurd. The would never give its merits serious consideration.

      • I agree on both points, and would add that even with “Extraordinary Security” there still exists the “Soft Target” behind it. And so, to be truly effective, the “Extraordinary Security” would need to present at least an equal threat to possible attackers as the one posed by a substantially armed citizenry.

        What would such an Extraordinary Security force look like? For one it would have to be largely undetectable, to mimic concealed carry citizens, and for another it would have to be widely dispersed, such that any space in a mall for example would most likely contain one or several armed security guards. In short, it would have to substantially mimic a free, armed society, and to do such a thing using restrictions and special status as opposed to simply having liberty, it would be a police state of treMENdously intrusive and oppressive nature and it would be treMENdously expensive.

        So no; there is absolutely no analog to a free society. There is only liberty verses some horribly corrupt and destructive alternative.

        The greater point is that there has been a 100 year movement in this country, in spite of our constitution, aimed at transforming us all into soft targets.

    • Yes, the second option (the expansion of the police state) is clearly their preference. “Armed citizens, we can’t have THAT! How would we ever control them?”

  2. Joe,

    Once you notice the INTERPOL chief is an American, the “through the looking glass” aspect goes way down.


    Actually the bigger problem with “Extraordinary Security” (other than the fact that’s unaffordable) is the soft target in front of it. Security perimeters typically cause large bottlenecks of people standing around in the unsecured area outside the perimeter (cf. the LAX shooting or any number of checkpoint incidents in Israel.)

  3. My model image for the soft target behind the hard boundary is the massive chicken farm. The chickens are packed in so tightly they must be de-beaked to keep them from pecking each other, which renders them helpless against the fox or coyote or dog that gets inside.

Comments are closed.