http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

"Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians."

Do we wait until it happens here or do we do something in advance?

Ise Mise we you and I have been arm wrestling in another thread about this very subject.
Know my friend I am no Green/Left activist.
Not an anti gun nut.
Have been a sporting shooter, now not against them but no longer one.
I wrestle with my thoughts for and against shooting feral animals in park country.
Know National Parks in some areas pays its workers over time to shoot Rabbits, and the occasional feral cat.
But in my view, the chances of us becoming another USA is zero.
I do not EVER want to know the angry/criminal/or just plain mad can have a gun, destroying our freedom to walk the streets in the rather weird idea that guns protect us.

You would have to say that is a pretty fair admission that the cops are no longer up to the job of protecting the public.

They could do the job if we were prepared to pay enough money to hire enough of than, but we aren't.

We would also have to get rid of all the political correctness, that stops then calling a spade a spade, or a negro a negro when putting out a warning. Fat chance there I guess.

If we armed Australian civilians "for self-protection", I'm pretty sure we'd all be safer moving to Kenya.

It might work, though how you could know escapes me... the half-dozen or so al-Shabab terrorists in Nairobi, Kenya were patently amateurs to take days to murder some 60 civilians.

Sandy Hook, by comparison, showed how a single US mass-shooter can take about half an hour to murder nearly half as many 'soft targets'.

But I have no objection if Ronald Noble's USA wishes to pursue this course of action as an experiment on behalf of other nations. After all they have the pre-existing legislative frameworks as well as the chains of supply in place to easily enable the arming of the remainder of the citizenry who are not so already.

I predict that their court systems would quickly fill with expensive claims against armed civilians for innocent bystanders injured or killed in any attempted interdiction's crossfire.

Can't see public liability insurance coping with the potential fallout. There could be though a distraction away from global warming - to instead worrying about the sort of heat people were 'packing'

Well said Belly.
Guns have their place, but not in the average suburban citizen's home.

We only have to look at the US to see what happens when anyone can access any gun.
Any gun lovers can move there...

see what happens when anyone can access any gun.
Suseonline,
Again you're coming back with a runaway comment. Nowhere did anyone suggest that anyone should be entitled to own a gun. It's like saying anyone should be allowed to drive a car. It has to be done with competence & sense of responsibility. Only those who have completed National Service can own one and, if they go haywire through drug & drink then they forfeit that privilege.

Individual,

I hate to say it but anyone is allowed to drive a car, so the analogy doesn't apply.

is Mise,
Ever heard of suspended licenses or licenses taken away altogether, or health issues, age etc. ? How do you obtain a driver's license ? Renewing licenses every year etc. Try and walk into a gun shop & say you want to buy a firearm & ammo. You think they just sell it to you without proof of competency ?

If we want truth tell me how likely such an attack will take place here.
Then tell me who would use the guns.
A story growing bigger tells of two eight year olds caught trying to light a bush fire.
What if such as them stole dads gun.
A thread built on a personal view/wish.
Ignoring the fact by a wide margin Australians, and be grateful for it, will never let such a thing happen.
Our gun laws protect us far better than freeing up gun ownership would.

Belly,

Why do you think offenders choose multiple killings to get the lasting attention they seek?

Individual,

What you say only applies to public roads and public land, on private land anyone can drive anything.
It is quite common in country areas for unlicenced, underage children to drive an unregistered/unregisterable vehicle down to the front gate of a property to catch the bus to school.

Firearms and their users must be registered/licenced regardless of where they are; so any such analogy between motor vehicles and firearms is thus faulty.

is Mise,
Don't ruin a serious discussion with splitting hairs. In some countries ex National service people actually have to keep a gun in their home. I believe Switzerland is one. You are arguing gun ownership whilst I am arguing mentality. Imagine if the Swiss had a mentality like Australians, the world would not know what time it is.

Not splitting hairs at all, cars and guns are not on the same scalp.

As far as mentality goes how does one judge who is mentally competent to own a gun or a tank of petrol?

"Not splitting hairs at all, cars and guns are not on the same scalp."

Yes you are right there Is Mise. Cars kill a damn site more people than guns, in every country that has cars

besides which they allow unfettered access to a fierce accelerant and component of a high explosive mixture.

Beats me how ordinary Australians can be trusted with the stuff especially with the free availability of electronic, mechanical and chemical igniters.

There is no curb on remote electronic controls either.

On OLO and elsewhere I suppose, people just see the headline and proffer their own uninformed, prejudiced view as 'argument'. Here is some of the article,

<Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

"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."

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "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?'">
[link given in the OP]

It really does come down to mentality. Who would I trust more in that shopping centre to protect me & others ? A sober & logical thinking civillian with a gun over a toeing the line irrational copper with a gun any day.
If we had more sense at our disposal in Authority then there wouldn't be a need to debate this because every adult in the shopping centre would have had national service & would therefore be a more responsible citizen & by being more enlightened through national service they would be responsible gun users in a situation like in that shopping centre. As I said, it's a matter of mentality.

Ronald Noble is well educated and has a wealth of relevant experience. You would think that he is someone worth listening to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Noble

Thanks is mise you and I are never going to agree on this issue.
I stick firmly with the view comparing our country to that mass murder event is stretching it.
Letting more guns on our streets silly and too with my firm view, few support you.
I have noticed the thread has developed a rather push bike like stager.
As efforts are made to justifie guns by reference to numbers killed?
And too in open site moving the debate , in fact some comments seem to have forgotten the subject.
Some blame our Cops? for what criminals actions nothing less.

Belly,

Can you give me any reference to any problems that were caused in Australian society pre the 1996 gun laws when licensed civilians were allowed to carry concealed loaded pistols any where that they went?

Has anyone noticed the increasing incidence of stabbing lately ? Should we ban knives because some morons use them to inflict injury on others ? What about the morons who dream up legislation for everything we do do ? Aren't they at fault for instilling such mentality ? Just look at the viloence that football has become, we're not far removed from the throw them to the Lions mentality are we yet it is sanctioned by millions every weekend. Mentality, mentality, mentality it's all about mentality. Give a logical person a weapon & you're safe, give a weapon to someone unstable such as footbrawl) fans & you're taking a chance.

Football violence
Multiculturalism, the 'diversity we have to have', untouchable, NOT PC to ever mention the imported ethnic differences and the violence associated with it.

Resolving disagreements with weapons
Multiculturalism, the 'diversity we have to have', untouchable, NOT PC to ever mention the imported ethnic differences and the violence associated with it.

Criminal Gangs
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/migrant-groups-going-gang-busters/story-e6frg6z6-1226017998892

http://tinyurl.com/lgmex5m

The federal government must finally listen to the electorate and be more selective in the overall number of migrants, where it draws migrants from, the number taken from particular areas and the number settled in particular areas of Australia, how Immigration checks them and the conditions for granting of citizenship.

While the fault does not lie entirely with imported violent people and traditions, the federal government should not be adding to the problem, or as police seem to be saying, multiplying it, and introducing new hatreds.

Here's the thoughts of a rather famous philosopher on having civilian arms, in this case, specifically pistols.

William Vallicella:
"Here is a stab at an argument for natural gun rights.

(1) Every human person possesses a right to life.
(2) If a human person has a right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate it.
(3) If a human person has a right to defend his life, then he has a right to an effective means of defending his life.
(4) A handgun is an effective means of defending one's life, and indeed, in some circumstances, the only effective means. Therefore,
(5) human persons have a right to possess handguns.

See: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/
and follow the links, particularly "Archives".

Civilians armed? That invokes an ugly picture. The term "Going off half-cocked" comes readily to mind. Unless all civilians are trained how and when to use arms - such as in Switzerland - it would be an unmitigated disaster.

I suspect that in Middle Eastern countries, civilians are permitted all types of weaponry - and look what occurs there. The fact that we are a western democracy counts for nought. There will always be a segment of society who are gung ho, and there is always the risk of "lynch" mobs, reprisals, etc. Imagine a society where Chinese whispers can grow into fact, eg the Middle East. But we would not be immune ...

If one is talking about a citizen's army with rank of command, then it could be a possibility, but it would have to be tightly controlled, as would the storing of weapons.

There is nothing to worry about Danielle since Little John Howard got all of those likely terrorists, OMG bikies and organised crime like the Mafia to hand in their illegal guns.

Sleep well.

Er, wait a minute, home burglary is endemic. Too easy, keep a video camera going 24/365 in your bedroom. That way the police have something to go on later. The clearance rate for home burglaries is poor and the video you (ahem) left behind will help them.

An armed citizenry at a shopping mall?! That sounds fun ... Oops, I thought a gunshot ...

I lived in Malaya for several years during the emergency, learned how to handle arms, and also the need to respect them.

Unfortunately, with any group,, the collective IIQ, thus response, drops down to the lowest denominator. Someone, or several, less than astute with poor judgement ...

Also how old would one need be to have a handgun? Then there are those borrowing Dad's. We can't refuse those of young age to have guns when our soldiers of the same age are fighting, albeit under command.

There are thousands of respectable, law-abiding citizens about you, some of whom have held a firearms licence for periods longer than many posting here would have lived.

For years they have carried firearms to an from range practice and competition, for example. No-one ever realises and there are no incidents involving them, not even the minor ones that programs like A Current Affair could beat up. How come they are not running amok through, "the collective IIQ, thus response, drops down to the lowest denominator."?

I am not proposing concealed carry, just pointing out the obvious, in order that there might be some informed and balanced debate.

In the days when concealed carry was normal in NSW, in fact open carry was not allowed except on private property in the bush, there were no problems with those licenced to carry concealed pistols.
The licence was a known as a "Possess, Use and Carry" Licence and I would like someone, anyone, to come up with a genuine reference that they ever posed a problem.

They were abolished in 1996 as they posed a danger to political correctness and were an ever present danger to criminals.

The thought that ordinary people could defend themselves was anathema to John "I hate guns" Howard who was himself always protected by men with guns.

onthebeach,

Yes, there are many responsible gun owners, who are trained and shoot regularly. They are not the problem. It only takes a few impulsive rat bags to cause carnage.

As the proposal is from the US, which already has lax gun laws, if any at all, their own history with gun crimes would surely demand caution. There would have to be a complete overhaul of gun laws - even restricting some who already have weapons - to make this work. Aren't people permitted guns already? Thus, at a base level it would hardly be a novel idea.

Switzerland is an excellent example of an armed and trained citizenry,

onthebeach,

You mention home burglary. In the US I think (I may be wrong) it is already OK to shoot an intruder if you fear for your life.

I'm not sure about the law in Australia with regard to despatching home intruders .

I heard of a case in Queensland when a man rang the police because he heard an intruder in his garage. The police reassured him they would be there immediately. Twenty minutes passed, no police. The victim rang the police telling them not to hurry, he had shot the intruder. The police arrived within minutes. Finding no body, the asked the victim why he stated that he had shot the perp; his response, why did you state you would be here immediately?

Possibly an urban legend, but demonstrates our own laws re shooting of intruders.

Is Mise,

Australia has never been a gun culture, with an obsession with arms. I have never been in fear of an intruder, or of being threatened with arms whilst in this country. As for an act of terrorism, it is a possibility. But I doubt if much could be achieved by armed persons, untrained and undirected, in a shopping mall. Certainly extra lives would be lost.

The only way it would work would be to have shifts of armed personnel at every public place, personnel not only well trained in this type of defence, but also with someone in charge.

The US is a gun culture. "The right to bear arms, etc." I have US friends who admit that anything is possible over there. They own weapons, as would any intruder who entered their home.

I don't think the US is safer by having guns available to all.

Danielle,

Outside of NSW you not only will be charged if you injure an offender in your home, but you will also face a reversed standard of proof, where it is YOU the victim who is in the dock, obliged to prove you were at risk and that you limited any force to the exact amount or less that was required to retrain the offender. In the court where hindsight rules and very optimistic hopes are held for police to intervene, you are on soft sand indeed.

You appear to have no knowledge of the firearms and weapons regulations, because should the court find that you the homebody and burglary victim used anything that could be construed as a weapon, and there is broad scope for that, you will certainly be charged and punished.

Under the laws, use of a firearm is impossible, stupid and a lay-down misère for serious punishment. At the scene the first act of police will be immediate confiscation of of licence and confiscation of firearms, and likely cuffs as they police usher you the victim off to a cell and interrogation. The political 'Progressives' have ensured that the burglar has rights and you don't.

'Gun culture' is just stereotyping and name calling. Gun crime in the US is almost exclusively gangs, drugs and slums, black on black.

In Australia it is gangs (lower socio-ecomimic group and frequently ethnic as is knife and other violent crime) and drugs. How many times do senior police have to pass comment on the idiocy of importing people from places and cultures where violence is the preferred way of dealing with even minor disagreements?

onthebeach,

Thank you for the information. I did have the impression that shooting an intruder, no matter how much in fear of one's life, was a difficult act to defend in this country.

When I stated that the US has a gun culture, this wasn't meant to be pejorative in the literal sense. it is not only gangs who have arms, but ordinary people. I don't know of any restrictions on obtaining weapons. Even if there were, arms could be sourced illegally. Owning guns is a right. I don't see this. To me, owning arms carries responsibility - not only how to use and handle them correctly, care for them, but also how to store them. It is when these principles are not followed, that disaster strikes.

I have no problem with serious and responsible gun owners. I do have problems with cavalier gun ownership. If the US brought in the proposal, there would have to be a massive cleaning up of guns on the ground, before it could be implemented. It would also mean radical changes in gun laws. I can't see the American people, as a whole, agreeing to
this.

Danielle,

Thank you for your very reasonable reply. The only strong and robust control is the firearms licence. All else is populist politics that wastes taxpayers' money.

The problem in the US is much deeper than the superficial 'gun culture' spin.

As far as the occasional multiple homicide is concerned, the media (and others who should know better) have made multiple killing the gold card access to spectacular coverage, and replayed regularly thereafter. Offenders will use machetes, guns, arson, bombs, you name it, as long as the feckless and irresponsible media are certain to sensationalise it all into a media spectacular, and there are politicians and others seeking self promotion and secondary gains from giving it an egg-beat as well.

onthebeach,

You hit the spot about the media. "If it bleeds, it leads!"