Been down here 3 months and got beat-up & mugged

[CedarPawn]

Two problems I see with this. One, I think you're assuming that a completely armed populace would greatly lower crime. It might, but I do not think it would, especially when crime in societies like in Argentina and Brazil stem from poverty and inequality.

Secondly, one would have to assume that all criminals are rational and decent beings, many are not...to use your own words, some are "psychopaths". In any event, desperation does strange things to people, even to those that are otherwise rational and decent. And in the face of an armed populace criminals would simply change tactics. Rather than pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet (because the assumption is that everyone is armed), he would simply shoot you, probably to kill, rather than face being shot himself. I think you would see a sharp rise in violent crime.

I also believe that your assumption that others would step in is faulty as well. Think of all the legal ramifications. I think most people would think twice before intervening in that type of situation, especially with a firearm.

ETA: And what about the police? How would they behave working in a completely armed society? I can only imagine a huge spike in "accidental" police shootings. "Well we assumed he had a gun......"

Right then, cops first: Down here, who knows? I sure don't, although I have a feeling if any group were disproportionately murdered in our hypothetical newly armed Argentina it would be cops. They seem so universally hated, and after all it's their job to step in when things get hot and heavy.

This brings me to intervention. Maybe you're right, and people wouldn't intervene to stop robberies or homicide, but that would be a problem with the populace, not their guns. In any case, I think more people are decent and civic minded than not, and with the power to stop a violent crime they would.

For your second point, that's likely a correct assessment, if EVERYONE is armed. Let's run with it for the sake of this discussion. Crime in general would go way down (because only the most desperate or sociopathic would still be out robbing/mugging/whatever). Only comparatively few extra nasty criminals would be left, and then the police might actually be able to manage the situation. Couple this with proper application of the death penalty and I'll take it.

For that first point you made, I think it does. Whether I actually need something or am just greedy for more is irrelevant, it's much easier if my victim is helpless.

 

[CedarPawn]

Its about self preservation. If you are ready to die for a cellphone or the cash in your wallet, you are welcome to do it. Be ware of not killing someone innocent in the process.
Myself, I'd rather deal with the loss and move on than see the grass grow from underneath.

Fair enough, can't really argue with that. I'd at least like the option of getting Medieval.

 

[Guillo]

Fair enough, can't really argue with that. I'd at least like the option of getting Medieval.

Going medieval, unless you have some serious training and cold head, its probably going to end up in a tragedy. Something as simple as shooting into the air can end up hurting someone that had nothing to do with it.
I heard a story of a couple of guys that were trained and competed in championships of "practical shooting", had "portación" and when they tried to stop a robery somewhere. They ended up shooting innocent people and with a lot of troubles for that.

 

[gouchobob]

Of the countries rated most safe in Latin America two border Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

Whats different in Chile? Mainly respect for law and order, and respect for the police. The police there do not take bribes.

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/30...ica-rated-as-safest-countries-in-latinamerica

Could the same happen in Argentina? I think its possible but it would require very different leadership and a big change in attitudes toward corruption. Hard to see when this is going to happen, we might not see changes anytime soon.

 

[CedarPawn]

Going medieval, unless you have some serious training and cold head, its probably going to end up in a tragedy. Something as simple as shooting into the air can end up hurting someone that had nothing to do with it.
I heard a story of a couple of guys that were trained and competed in championships of "practical shooting", had "portación" and when they tried to stop a robery somewhere. They ended up shooting innocent people and with a lot of troubles for that.

For what it's worth, I'm very capable with a variety of weapons, and have had occasion to use them "for real" before. It saved my life, incidentally, so maybe that illustrates the mindset I'm coming from here. Sure, there's always a risk that an innocent bystander might get hurt and that's a shame. The way I see it, our job is to be responsible and minimize those risks. It's like a car: people are killed in car accidents all the time, but that would hardly justify banning all cars. Instead, we make people who want to drive learn to use them properly and within legal guidelines, resulting in reasonable risk management.

 

[Guillo]

For what it's worth, I'm very capable with a variety of weapons, and have had occasion to use them "for real" before. It saved my life, incidentally, so maybe that illustrates the mindset I'm coming from here. Sure, there's always a risk that an innocent bystander might get hurt and that's a shame. The way I see it, our job is to be responsible and minimize those risks. It's like a car: people are killed in car accidents all the time, but that would hardly justify banning all cars. Instead, we make people who want to drive learn to use them properly and within legal guidelines, resulting in reasonable risk management.

Ok, so for what you say you either had military training and experience. Weren't you the green beret?
How much of the rest of the populace will have equivalent training and experience to use a gun safely in a high risk / high tension situation?

 

[CedarPawn]

Ok, so for what you say you either had military training and experience. Weren't you the green beret?
How much of the rest of the populace will have equivalent training and experience to use a gun safely in a high risk / high tension situation?

Military yes, Green Beret no, I was a Marine. Whether the average person is capable with weapons is an important issue, and I think I see where you're going with this. These days, due to decades of anti-gun activism most normal people even in more gun friendly places like the US have never even held or fired a weapon, let alone gotten their minds around using one in earnest. I'll freely admit that as things stand ignorant hoplophobia is a major obstacle to a responsibly armed populace. I don't think that's insurmountable though, I've seen people go from being intimidated by guns to being quite proficient in a few weeks. It all comes down to education, the problem is that most people don't get one. That would have to be fixed first.

 

[Guillo]

As a confess hoplophobe (my hubby is a shooting instructor and I've already forbid him of having anything resembling a gun in our love nest) I can't agree with what you post. I don't think that just being a proficient shooter insures that when you have to use it on self defense you will do the correct thing. And it can easily backfire on you, one thing is to be beaten up and another is to get into an open gunfight, risking not only your life but also of everyone else in the surroundings.
Properly trained military or security forces with guns I find it ok. Civilian use.... I don't.
And I certainly don't think it could be of any help to someone on the situation the OP described, unless he was willing to shoot the three robbers.

 

[chop]

On the bright side, now you can root for River Plate!

 

[CedarPawn]

As a confess hoplophobe (my hubby is a shooting instructor and I've already forbid him of having anything resembling a gun in our love nest) I can't agree with what you post. I don't think that just being a proficient shooter insures that when you have to use it on self defense you will do the correct thing. And it can easily backfire on you, one thing is to be beaten up and another is to get into an open gunfight, risking not only your life but also of everyone else in the surroundings.
Properly trained military or security forces with guns I find it ok. Civilian use.... I don't.
And I certainly don't think it could be of any help to someone on the situation the OP described, unless he was willing to shoot the three robbers.

Well, being willing to shoot the robbers if they won't be reasonable would kind of be the point, someone not ready to do that has no business carrying weapons.

I also don't think I was entirely clear when I talked about education: I agree that proficiency alone is not enough to make a responsibly armed citizen; as you say it is equally imperative to ensure that those who carry arms understand the ethics involved. There's no reason why an average citizen can't be just as capable and ethical (as far as guns go) as those with military or police training; 150 years ago it was the norm. Of course, we can't guarantee that every person will abide by the law, but then again if they wanted a gun for neferious purposes so badly they would get one illegally anyway, and after all, that's what the police (and if necessary other citizens) are there for.

In any case, I don't argue that everyone should carry arms. Indeed, someone like you with a genuine averson to them probably shouldn't, and that's OK. However, the fact that many people are unsuited or averse to carrying arms doesn't mean that people like me should have our hands tied.