Whilst the politicians and elite social classes around the world do their very best to prevent honest, law abiding members of society from owning and possessing firearms of any description. The criminal, non-law abiding, and terrorists continue to have a seemingly inexhaustible supply of not only small arms, but arms of much greater calibre. With all the current unrest that there is, combined with enormous fiscal pressures on states to control spending within their economic systems, cuts are being made in aspects of state spending. Therefore it is ironic that the many states around the world that are oppressing the ownership of tools, such as firearms, that could provide personal security, which by extension, would protect others as well; are reducing theirs systems of protection in order to save money.
Over the years, those in power have tried, and in many, many countries have been successful in convincing the populace that, they do not need to protect themselves, they do not need the tools to protect themselves, and they do not need a right to protect themselves. If you will surrender these premise, then we, as a state, will supply you with protection in the form of a police force/service. There are some problems with this premise though, the police cannot be everywhere at once, and whilst they may only be a phone call away, that distance translated into travelling time can be a lifetime, especially if you are being attacked, or the victim of a home invasion. Also, those that have convinced the masses that personal security is a bad thing, do not think that their security should be surrendered, and with a few exceptions, these people now hire or have the state provide them with armed security; as if somehow their life and wellbeing is more important than everyone else's.
With the rising unrest in certain areas of our world, and the ability to reach out from their bases in far off countries to inflict terrorism and destruction on their perceived enemies with armed cells, the police are not ever likely to be in the right place at the right time. An unfortunate, but convincing example of this inability of the police to protect everybody was the beheading in the middle of London. There were numerous people about at the time, many recording the whole grisly incident, but where were the police? With credit to them they got there as fast as they could, but it was not quickly enough to save the life of the victim. There were, as I have already stated numerous people on the scene, the vast majority armed with their mobile phones to record the incident. Now just imagine if one of those people had been able to offer help to the victim with their own personal defence tool.
Well recently there has been one person in the world who has a different take on things, Interpol chief, Ronald Noble. He has asserted that, "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." He then went on to say, "How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere."
"It's Interpol's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists." He continued, "Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, [Westgate mall] shooting people randomly?"
"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." "For me it's a profound question, people are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'
Mr. noble's thoughts and words are not likely to change anything over night, but just for once it is pleasing to hear that someone in a position of power is prepared to trust members of society to be responsible for their own and others protection. As Benjamin Franklin opined "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."