The Patriot Post® · Terrorist Attack on an American Mall: Is There a Preventative?

The recent terrorist attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi left us with images of horror. A jihadi suicide squad of approximately 15 men attacked the crowded mall, armed with explosives and rifles. Shoppers were killed indiscriminately as they attempted to flee; some people, seized by the perpetrators, were quizzed for their lives in a bizarre game of Quran trivia. An incorrect answer to questions such as “who was Mohammed’s first wife” was punished by a bullet. The siege lasted almost three days; 66 innocent people were slaughtered over that period while responding police and soldiers fought to subdue the terrorists.


The Westgate attack was patterned after a very similar incident, the 2008 Mumbai Islamic terrorist attack. In the Mumbai attack, 10 men armed with rifles and explosives attacked key points in the Indian city of Mumbai – large hotels, the central railroad station, the Jewish Community center, stylish cafes and theatres. More than 150 innocent people were murdered by the assailants. The police and military response was poorly coordinated and slow, and helpless people, incapable of fighting back, were murdered at will. Security camera video from the railway station recorded the terrorists chatting as they strolled around the station, pausing to shoot people found hiding under baggage carts or cowering in dark corners.

How can a free society deter or at least reduce the impact of such attacks? Where are we most vulnerable? Is there a reasonable mechanism that lowers the possibility of success for terrorists and saves lives during the event?

In an article at Guns, Crime and Videotape blog, investigative journalist, security consultant and former Chicago police officer Paul Heubl commented on the potential for such an attack on American soil. He suggested that places such as Beverly Center Mall in Beverly Hills would offer an almost irresistible attraction for jihadists. The mall is stylish, upscale, and crowded. It is close to the seat of the entertainment industry and any attack would instantly command worldwide attention. The terrorists while planning would be sure to note that California ensures that law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Such a place is guaranteed to be a mere hunting ground for the attackers, as armed jihadis shoot shoppers and staff at will. There will be no one in a position to fight back effectively; the few cops doing off duty traffic or security work on site will be quickly overwhelmed.


The jihadi “guns and bombs” attack is a tactic for which there is basically no good preventative measure and not much in the way of good response. Certain areas, such as the east coast and the west coast absolutely will not provide and prepare for armed resistance in a public marketplace. It disturbs and frightens them, so they ignore the issue. Armed security guards and noticeable police presence are discouraged by mall owners – they think heavy security suggests “unsafe conditions” and this is bad for business. 

Terrorists seek soft targets and the most “bang for the buck” – as seen in Mumbai and more recently in Kenya, ten attackers can kill a lot of people with small arms and easily smuggled explosives. They can shut down the commercial activity of a large city, and throw the social fabric into an uproar. They can accomplish carnage while the responding police are setting a perimeter, assessing the situation and building an effective force, coordinating with responding agencies, establishing a command post, getting SWAT on site, etc. 

An official response takes time, and the terrorists will use the time to inflict mayhem. An attack on a target such as Beverly Hills is a significant possibility. The tactic is cheap, the training required for the terrorists is minimal. There are lots of unprepared targets immediately available in a small space. This is just the thing to entice a terrorist on a budget who wants to make a name for himself on his way to 72 virgins.

The conclusion is inescapable – private first responders would be the most immediate and effective way to limit damage and save lives while official response “got ready”. Private first responders is a fancy way of saying “armed private citizens”. In case of a terrorist attack, they are there already, they see the scene unfold. Properly equipped, they can they can take immediate action.

It would not take a whole lot of people providing return fire, even if it wasn’t particularly effective, to slow down and complicate the actions of the terrorists. The terrorists would not be able to hunt freely; they would understand they were not in total control of the situation. Any armed resistance would mean they would have to spend a fair amount of effort in self-protection and defensive activities. The Kenya terrorists dragged horror-stricken people from under tables in the food court and found them cowering in the men’s washroom. Imagine the effect if the first jihadi to enter that men’s washroom seeking hostages was shot by a private citizen with a gun?

Leaving Beverly Hills and looking at a similar potential target, substitute “North Park Mall, Dallas” into the model. Another reasonable venue might be “The Galleria-Houston”. Gaming the logical outcome of a similar attack in Texas produces a significantly different expected outcome.

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) says there are currently 518,000 active Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders out of an over 21 population of approximately 18 million. This gives a statewide CHL rate of approximately 2.9%, although better educated, more well-to-do people have CHL’s at a somewhat higher rate than the average. At any given peak time at North Park there are perhaps 3000-3500 shoppers (judging by the parking lots). This does not include store employees, who potentially are CHL holders themselves.


If only half of those licensed regularly carry a sidearm, that means out of those North Park shoppers, there would potentially be 45 armed, law-abiding, trained private citizens. They would certainly make a difference if an attack occurs.

In Kenya, one man armed with a pistol rescued 100 or more people – the fact that he was a British Special Air Service (SAS) veteran was certainly a plus for him, but the fact he was armed, ready, and right there is what made a difference to the hostages he saved. Press photos depicted some armed citizens, weapons drawn, assisting in the initial rescues of hostages. Even a one-legged lawyer with guts and a pistol ready at hand would make a difference.

Texans are a pugnacious lot. I’ll suggest that the outcome of a terrorist attack at North Park or The Galleria would be significantly less successful for the terrorists attempting a Westgate mall hostage shoot-em-up scenario, compared to a similar attack in Beverly Hills. I would expect similar outcomes in Tucson, or Albuquerque, or Baton Rouge, Tampa Bay or Indianapolis, or any place where citizens are able to defend themselves.

The prescription is easy to see; now comes the hard part.

There is an entire national political and social elite who are violently opposed to citizens having the means to defend themselves. The great bulk of the Democrat Party, Rahm Emmanuel, Michael Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, would-be Texas Governor Wendy Davis and all the people who are afraid of guns for any purpose in private hands will deny the advantage of private citizen response, because it is an affront to their worldview. How do you get them to agree to a policy change to allow for the one single policy that might make a difference, namely the casual, common and unremarkable daily carrying of arms by law-abiding private citizens?

That really is the hard part. Sadly, I suspect the above named folks would rather suffer the bloody consequences of a successful terrorist attack than allow for more law-abiding armed citizens.