Guns, Guns Everywhere

[Civil War Man]

Georgia passes legislation allowing carrying loaded weapons into bars, schools, restaurants, churches, and airports

ATLANTA — Pro- and anti-gun forces do not agree on much, but they do agree on the breathtaking sweep of the Georgia legislation allowing guns in bars, schools, restaurants, churches and airports that is now awaiting the signature of Gov. Nathan Deal.

Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, calls it “the most extreme gun bill in America” and the “guns everywhere” legislation. The National Rifle Association, which lobbied for the bill, calls it “the most comprehensive pro-gun” bill in recent state history, and described the vote at the Capitol on Thursday as “a historic victory for the Second Amendment.”

More than a year after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut elicited a burst of gun-control legislation, the Georgia bill shows just how far the counterreaction has spread as lawmakers, mainly in Republican-controlled states in the South and West, pass laws allowing weapons in all corners of society while strengthening so-called Stand Your Ground laws.

Critics say the victories may come at a price as pro-gun legislation pushes up against the limits of public opinion.

“I do think they’ve overreached,” said Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The Georgia bill, she said, is “so extreme and people do have such a strong reaction to it. I don’t think over all it’s a victory for them.”

The bill was opposed not only by gun-control groups, but also by the state’s police chiefs association and restaurant association, Episcopal and Catholic churches, and the federal Transportation Security Administration. A majority of Georgians also opposed it, according to several polls.

Mr. Deal, a Republican, who is expected to sign the bill, is up for re-election this year, but there is no sign of a political backlash against him or anyone who voted for the legislation. The governor’s Democratic opponent, State Senator Jason Carter, President Jimmy Carter’s grandson, also voted for the bill.

“I don’t think it will backfire,” said Jerry Henry, director of Georgia Carry, one of the main local groups that promoted the bill. “You can bet those politicians who voted for it knew what their constituents wanted.”

What they wanted, in this case, would be a veritable gun-lobby shopping list.

The bill allows people with a weapons permit to carry loaded guns into bars, as long as they do not consume alcohol — although the bill does not say how that caveat would be enforced.

It allows guns in public areas of airports and eliminates criminal charges for permit holders caught with guns at airport security. It authorizes school districts to appoint staff members to carry guns at schools, ostensibly to defend students in case of an attack.

It allows felons to claim the Stand Your Ground defense — in which someone who “reasonably believes” his life is in danger has no duty to walk away and may instead shoot to kill. And that is just the beginning.

Georgia lawmakers backed off a provision allowing guns on college campuses and weakened the section allowing guns in churches, permitting them only if a church expressly decides to do so. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll in January found that more than 70 percent of voters opposed both measures. The poll did not ask about guns in bars, but polls in other states have found 70 percent or more of the public opposed the idea.

Many bar owners said they were taken by surprise.

“I don’t have any problems with people owning guns, but I do have a problem with guns and alcohol,” said Melissa Swanson, owner of the Rail Pub in downtown Savannah. “Everybody could be in here having a good time, but all you need is one bad drunk with a gun and it could be a bad situation.”

Backers of the bill say the aim is not to flood bars with guns.

“This is a private property issue,” said State Representative Rick Jasperse, the bill’s original sponsor. “We’re not going to decide what goes on inside a bar. Let the bar owner decide.”

While the Georgia legislation is notable for its breadth, many of its provisions have been promoted by the National Rifle Association for several years and have cropped up separately in other states.

In the past year alone, 21 states have passed laws expanding the rights of gun owners, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Three allow guns in churches, two allow them on college campuses, four in bars and eight in schools.

Some states have become so eager to be seen as gun-friendly that there are few limits on matters deemed worthy of legislative attention.

The so-called Pop-Tart Bill, which the Florida House passed last week and is under consideration in Oklahoma, would shield schoolchildren from being punished for making a gun out of a breakfast pastry. The Second Amendment threat the bill seeks to remedy was that of a Maryland second grader who was sent home from school last year after biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.

If the new frontiers prove unpopular, the gun lobby may be a victim of its success. Every state now allows people to carry guns in some public places, 42 allow assault rifles and no major federal gun control laws have been passed since 1994. So gun-rights groups have focused on carving out niches to expand where one can legally carry a gun.

There was a flurry of gun-control legislation after 26 children and educators were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., by a well-armed, mentally disturbed 20-year-old. But in the 12 months immediately afterward, states passed 39 laws to tighten gun restrictions and 70 to loosen them.

On Thursday, the day the Georgia bill was passed, a fight broke out in a gray, windowless shack called Milo’s Bar in Marietta, an Atlanta suburb. As the brawl spilled into the parking lot, at least three guns were drawn. Shots were fired, and a bystander was wounded.

It is not clear whether the new law would have changed anything. Milo’s already had “No Weapons” signs posted. Anyone there with a gun was already violating existing law as well as the bar’s policy.

“The people you have to worry about are not the ones who have gone to the trouble to have applied for a license and gotten a background check,” said Mr. Henry of Georgia Carry. “The ones you have to worry about are the criminals who are not going to abide by the law anyway.”

Gun control advocates counter that even people authorized to carry weapons can lose their temper, with potentially deadly results. Two recent cases in Florida appear to bear out that point: In one case, a man was shot dead in an argument over texting in a movie theater, and in another, a teenager was killed in a dispute over loud music.

The issue is a simple one for Barbara Lawson. On Saturday, the 53-year-old Sandy Springs resident went to Milo’s to tape posters with her son’s picture on the bar’s exterior, demanding it be closed. Her son, Tekilum Terrell, 34, was killed there last April. “My son was killed in a bar with a 9-millimeter gun,” she said. “Without that gun, we’d still have him here. Do we need more guns in bars? After this? Seriously?”

Correction: March 26, 2014
An article on Tuesday about passage of legislation in Georgia that would ease restrictions on guns misstated in some editions the name of a federal agency opposed to the measure. It is the Transportation Security Administration, not the Transportation Safety Authority.

My favorite part is how it decriminalizes trying to sneak firearms past airport security.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The thing that irritates me is that churches alone get the "only if they expressly choose to allow guns" exception in the law, while bars don't, despite having a far greater reason to oppose guns in bars than in churches.

[Col. Crackpot]

Not to make light of things, but has there ever been a time where someone went into a church, even one in Georgia and thought, "dammit... if i only had my gun"? Excluding that episode of The Walking Dead of course.

[Crossroads Inc.]

My question is... Has there ever been a time where a Randomly concealed Gun STOPPED someone from killing someone else?
Someone shoes up, starts shooting people, and is stopped by some "Law Abiding America" who pulls their gun?

[Zed Snardbody]

My question is... Has there ever been a time where a Randomly concealed Gun STOPPED someone from killing someone else?
Someone shoes up, starts shooting people, and is stopped by some "Law Abiding America" who pulls their gun?

Clackamas Mall Shooting 2012. Shooter is challenged by a person carrying concealed and goes into a stairwell and takes his life.

It's not so much about protecting others though, it's about being able to protect yourself even though you decided to go to a restaurant or a bar that night instead of leaving it unattended in your car or something.

[Agent Fisher]

My question is... Has there ever been a time where a Randomly concealed Gun STOPPED someone from killing someone else?
Someone shoes up, starts shooting people, and is stopped by some "Law Abiding America" who pulls their gun?

New Life Church shooting, Colorado Springs? Subject walked into a church, started shooting. A CCW Permit holder opened fire, stopping him before he could kill more than two church members.

[Zaune]

Okay, fair enough. But how many guns were used in crimes so far this year were previously owned by CCW holders who failed to consider the problem of how a gun under your jacket helps prevent you being stabbed in the back, clubbed over the head with a Thermos while you're taking a piss, kneed in the balls by that guy who asked for directions and turned out to have better reflexes or any number of other scenarios I can think of? (Or by some fuckwit who bought it for protection against burglars and left it in plain sight on the nightstand while they were at work, for that matter, but that's a separate issue.)

And equally importantly, how many times have CCW owners panicked and pumped a couple of bullets into someone who didn't actually mean them any harm?

Seriously, there have been times in my life where I literally could not leave my apartment without a knife in my back pocket, and if I'd been able to scrape up the money to buy a gun I'd have carried one of those as well. And I never, ever want to be in that place in my head again. It is not healthy and it is not safe, and it frankly kind of scares me that parts of the US are willing to enable people in that state of mind.

[Zed Snardbody]

Seriously, there have been times in my life where I literally could not leave my apartment without a knife in my back pocket, and if I'd been able to scrape up the money to buy a gun I'd have carried one of those as well. And I never, ever want to be in that place in my head again. It is not healthy and it is not safe, and it frankly kind of scares me that parts of the US are willing to enable people in that state of mind.

Only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

What you're saying is that you felt in such fear for your well being that you carried a knife and would have carried a gun if you could, but it sucks and you don't want others to be able to?

I'm not trying to twist your words to make a point, I'm really trying to understand this. I see concealed carry as a means to an end with in regards to self defense. I don't put on my holster worried that every moment I'm going to get mugged or jumped. I'd gather you don't carry your mobile because you're worried your car is going to just decide not to work when you come out of the store and you'll need a tow or a ride. It's useful for it and you take it with you most day.

Now granted a firearm is a more mono-use thing, but most people that carry aren't in a siege mind set either. The first thing that any halfway decent carry course teaches is don't go where stupid people do stupid things. If I'm not in a pool hall at 3 am in the abandoned commercial park I don't need to worry about most shenanigans. Situational awareness isn't fear, its simply situational awareness. All the situations you described (aside from the night stand) are ones that most people would avoid or would seem suspicious to them. As much as the "knock out game" was discredited, almost everything you described is very similar to it and really doesn't usually happen in the real world.

[Zaune]

I don't actually have a car, but now you mention it, carrying a phone kind of is an 'in case of emergencies' thing for me.

And in my defence, I lived in a pretty bad neighbourhood at the time this was happening; it was impossible to walk to the convenience store most evenings without having to cross the street to avoid a bunch of gangsta wannabes hanging around, and on two occasions I had to, how can I put it? Persuade some unpleasant characters to leave the vicinity of the apartment building while ostentatiously holding something heavy.

The knife still came dangerously close to backfiring on me, though. I quit carrying it after I barely stopped myself pulling it on an acquaintance who startled me, and went in search of professional help.

[Simon_Jester]

My question is... Has there ever been a time where a Randomly concealed Gun STOPPED someone from killing someone else?
Someone shoes up, starts shooting people, and is stopped by some "Law Abiding America" who pulls their gun?

Clackamas Mall Shooting 2012. Shooter is challenged by a person carrying concealed and goes into a stairwell and takes his life.

It's not so much about protecting others though, it's about being able to protect yourself even though you decided to go to a restaurant or a bar that night instead of leaving it unattended in your car or something.

The flip side of that is that you now need to protect yourself, not only against random intruders and drunks with broken bottles, but drunks with firearms as well.

Which results in the bars turning into the equivalent of a stereotypical Wild West saloon, only with automatics instead of blackpowder revolvers.

And as for the people who don't want to deal with drunks with guns? Welp, guess they shouldn't walk into a bar in Georgia.

Seriously, there have been times in my life where I literally could not leave my apartment without a knife in my back pocket, and if I'd been able to scrape up the money to buy a gun I'd have carried one of those as well. And I never, ever want to be in that place in my head again. It is not healthy and it is not safe, and it frankly kind of scares me that parts of the US are willing to enable people in that state of mind.

...What you're saying is that you felt in such fear for your well being that you carried a knife and would have carried a gun if you could, but it sucks and you don't want others to be able to?

I'm not trying to twist your words to make a point, I'm really trying to understand this. I see concealed carry as a means to an end with in regards to self defense. I don't put on my holster worried that every moment I'm going to get mugged or jumped. I'd gather you don't carry your mobile because you're worried your car is going to just decide not to work when you come out of the store and you'll need a tow or a ride. It's useful for it and you take it with you most day.

The point is that Zaune considers the decision "I need the means to end another man's life" to indicate that one seriously expects to need to be on the lookout for deadly violence. Because the personal firearm isn't very useful unless it's combined with a fair degree of hypervigilance to make sure you actually get a chance to draw it.

Sure, sensible people avoid situations where stupid people do stupid things- but that strategy works just about as well without a gun.

[Patroklos]

CCW permit holders have one of the lowest gun crime rates of any demographic as well as crime rates in general. CCW holders are neither the cause nor the solution to gun violence problems, let them be.

[Batman]

I'm...not entirely sure I like the cellphone/gun comparison. While killing someone with a cellphone is physically possible it's a lot of work. Killing someone with a gun is frighteningly easy even if you never meant to. A cellphone is eminently useful being a cellphone in lots of situations while killing someone with one is hard work and time-intensive .Shooting someone with a handgun is pretty much what they were designed for, and can be done in a moment.

[Zed Snardbody]

Almost all jurisdictions that I know of prohibit the drinking of drinking of alcohol while carrying. The law isn't so much get drunk with a gun, as no longer making a place off limits. The bar down the street from me has awesome burgers, but I couldn't carry there and get one. In some places, an Applebee's is off limits because they have a bar there.

On the second point (I'm rusty with the board and didn't want to keep quoting) hyper vigilance isn't necessary. If you make good decisions about where you go and how you comport yourself just being aware of your surroundings is enough. In Zuane's situation of having to cross to the other side of the street to avoid the conflict he has successfully deescalated the situation by being aware. Now though he notices that they have crossed the street with him. This is out of the ordinary and the decision making process begins. If he'd been carrying, he's not compelled to use his weapon, he can keep walking, start running, duck into a store, call the police, tell them to stop and not come any closer or if he feels the need to, avail himself of the option of using that weapon to defend himself with all the legal and emotional repercussions that come from it.

The last thing I would say to him is that he should be carrying, or that he needs to carry, or god forbid hes a wuss for not. But if he decides to avail himself of what I believe to be a fundamental right to defend oneself, I believe he should have that option.

I carry and don't wake up everyday and seriously expect the threat of deadly violence even though I have deadly violence on my hip. I wake up every day and wonder if I can stop and get an egg McMuffin without being late to work. It's an understanding that it exists and that in the distant realm of possibility that it happens I can answer it in the most effective means possible. I carry a spare tire and a fire extinguisher in my car to. And have a first aide kit and fire extinguisher at home because shit happens.

Carrying doesn't mean you have to go all Jason Bourne and sit with your back to the wall facing the exit and watching who goes and come out of the bathroom. It's more not having your head buried in your phone or noticing someone noticing you or getting to close. Most concealed carriers are like police, they go their entire lives without having to draw, brandish, or fire their weapon. Even more so with concealed carriers because they're not answering call outs to crimes and such. It's a decision and a way of thinking

[Ralin]

My favorite part is how it decriminalizes trying to sneak firearms past airport security.

I kind of approve just on the grounds that this fucks with the TSA.

[Formless]

I'm...not entirely sure I like the cellphone/gun comparison. While killing someone with a cellphone is physically possible it's a lot of work. Killing someone with a gun is frighteningly easy even if you never meant to. A cellphone is eminently useful being a cellphone in lots of situations while killing someone with one is hard work and time-intensive .Shooting someone with a handgun is pretty much what they were designed for, and can be done in a moment.

This is the sound of that comparison flying over your pointy ears, Bats. At no point did Zed make cellphones out to be weapons, just an emergency tool which you rarely need but would probably feel safer having on-hand anyway. I mean really, how hard do you have to fail at reading comprehension not to get that one? I need barely paraphrase here. Your post is sheer brainless knee-jerking.

[Batman]

Let's see-emergency tool #1-you can call for help, and if you go to really contrived lengths and involve a lot more resources than are ordinarily immediately available can use to kill.
Emergency tool #2-is moderately useless for anything other than shooting people.
If you don't think they are comparable you don't make the comparison to begin with.

[Formless]

Dumbfuck, Zed conceded that the instant he made the comparison. That does not nullify his argument, because it is irrelevant to the point he was making-- you aren't necessarily more paranoid for carrying a gun than for carrying a phone. Or a flashlight. Or medical supplies. Or any number of other emergency supplies and tools that you probably don't need, but need anyway. I have pills in my pocket at all times just in case I have a seizure. You know how many times I have seizures in a given day? None. Once per year, at most, and I can only hope that its less frequent than that in the future since I'm finally eligible for a driver's license. But emergencies happen, and I need to be prepared.

And Lorazepam has only one use! One use and no other that I can responsibly apply, but it is damn good at what it does! I wonder how your argument holds for whether or not I should carry that drug at all times. But hey, somehow I doubt that fact produces much outrage when its a drug and not a weapon.

[Lonestar]

Copied from the "Gun people who hate gun people" FB group. Bolded is commentary from the group administrator.

-Removal of fingerprinting for renewal of Weapons Carry Licenses (WCL). Good

-Prohibiting the state from creating and maintaining a database of WCL holders. No Problems here(Lonestar: Probably to prevent a wikileaks/FOIA type situation where a "journalist" wants to out gunowners)

-Creation of an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force in the face of a violent attack. I'd be interested to see what this entails

-Removal of the sweeping restrictions on legally carrying a firearm with a WCL in churches and bars, leaving this decision to private property owners. this is already how it works here in PA(Lonestar: And in VA, it's legal to carry in a establishment that sells alcohol. So, I could carry it in a "Chilis" or something. Drunks are gonna get drunk at a restraunt as well as a "dedicated" bar, and there are very few instances of drunks + guns happening in public)

-Lowering the age to obtain a concealed WCL for self-defense from 21 to 18 for active duty military, with specific training. I don't agree with special privileges for soldiers. Most of them can't shoot for shit and have zero relevant experience with handguns and concealed carry. Make it 18 for everyone.

-Repealing the unnecessary and duplicative state-required license for a firearms dealer, instead requiring only a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Good. Remove redundancy

-Prohibiting a ban on firearms in public housing, ensuring that the right to self-defense should not be infringed based on where one calls home. GOOD

-Codifying the ability to legally carry, with a WCL, in sterile/non-secure areas of airports. I can already do this in PA(Lonestar:And in Virginia)

-Including a provision that would have the state report those persons who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient to the NICS system while also providing an ability for relief through an application process to the court system for the purpose of restoration of rights. reasonable

-Stating that under a declared state of emergency, all law-abiding gun owners will not have their Second Amendment rights restricted or infringed by executive authority through Emergency Powers protection. Not sure this was an issue before, but good. (Lonestar: Probably because of the confiscation scheme New Orleans did during Katrina)

-Strengthening current firearms preemption statutes through further clarification of the regulatory authority of local governments, excluding firearm discharge ordinances. Good, that shit is confusing enough without having to know the intricacies of the law in every podunk municipality


Not mentioned in the comment: Suppressed hunting. A good metric for this would be Vermont, which has exactly one firearm law on the books: the banning of suppressors within the state. This was because of widespread poaching rather than "won't someone think of the children???" and deer populations had tanked. Nowadays with hunting being a declining past time Poaching of game isn't as big a deal.

[Lonestar]

Which results in the bars turning into the equivalent of a stereotypical Wild West saloon, only with automatics instead of blackpowder revolvers.

And as for the people who don't want to deal with drunks with guns? Welp, guess they shouldn't walk into a bar in Georgia.

Or a Applebees in Virginia, which are violent hellscapes as a result of lax VA carry laws.

[Zaune]

The point is that Zaune considers the decision "I need the means to end another man's life" to indicate that one seriously expects to need to be on the lookout for deadly violence. Because the personal firearm isn't very useful unless it's combined with a fair degree of hypervigilance to make sure you actually get a chance to draw it.

Sure, sensible people avoid situations where stupid people do stupid things- but that strategy works just about as well without a gun.

Pretty much. I can't honestly imagine very many people would drop a three-figure sum on a pistol plus whatever the CCW application costs unless they thought there was a non-trivial likelihood of having to use it. (Well, unless they were trying to compensate for some personal deficiency in their machismo, real or imagined, which is a whole different kind of unhealthy.) And even if there's a good reason for that, it isn't an especially healthy state of mind in the long term; the line between hypervigilance and paranoia can be awfully thin.

[Simon_Jester]

I confess- I exaggerate with comparisons to Wild West saloons. But I consider them a cautionary tale if we go far with the "an armed society is a polite society" proposition. Lots of men who routinely travel armed, plus alcohol, is not a good mix. It sort of works as long as you're very choosy about who you allow to go armed (ONLY people with a modicum of sense, oh and money to spend on things like CCW permits, oh and so and so many hours of training).

But to me, that kind of undermines the idea that we seriously consider this a right, as opposed to a privilege we extend to a select body of citizens.

CCW permit holders have one of the lowest gun crime rates of any demographic as well as crime rates in general. CCW holders are neither the cause nor the solution to gun violence problems, let them be.

I don't actually mind their presence in an environment as a rule, but there are a few places where I'm reluctant. The big ones:

-Anywhere with alcohol. This should be obvious. I don't care how low your gun crime rate is, it's bound to get higher when you're drunk. You can say "don't drink and carry," but we both know people will.
-Schools and college campuses are the other big one. The reason here mostly has to do with the fact that they're environments where we know a large fraction of the population is lacking in maturity and common sense. Barring weapons from the place categorically seems like a reasonable step to me.

Almost all jurisdictions that I know of prohibit the drinking of drinking of alcohol while carrying. The law isn't so much get drunk with a gun, as no longer making a place off limits. The bar down the street from me has awesome burgers, but I couldn't carry there and get one. In some places, an Applebee's is off limits because they have a bar there.

My observation is that we will see a rise in drink-and-carry rates, rather predictably, when we let people walk into bars with guns. Not everyone is a master of "the Zen of not fucking up," not even every CCW holder.

On the second point (I'm rusty with the board and didn't want to keep quoting) hyper vigilance isn't necessary. If you make good decisions about where you go and how you comport yourself just being aware of your surroundings is enough. In Zuane's situation of having to cross to the other side of the street to avoid the conflict he has successfully deescalated the situation by being aware. Now though he notices that they have crossed the street with him. This is out of the ordinary and the decision making process begins. If he'd been carrying, he's not compelled to use his weapon, he can keep walking, start running, duck into a store, call the police, tell them to stop and not come any closer or if he feels the need to, avail himself of the option of using that weapon to defend himself with all the legal and emotional repercussions that come from it.

The flip side of this is that all this situational awareness works reasonably well to protect you even if you do not have a firearm on your person. And for that matter, even what you would consider a reasonable level of situational awareness can feel like hypervigilance to other people- because it means that they lack the freedom to truly shut down their active 'radar.'

Many people have a genuine preference for believing they are safe. Now obviously that has limits (they're not, in quite a few places). But one of the reasons for "no guns in this location" laws is to ensure that there is a sense of safety. Or at least safety from actual deadly firearms, in that particular place. So that the people who do not want to spend all their time pinging their surroundings with metaphorical radar can cease to do so.

[Darth Tanner]

It just strikes me (as a European) as a completely alien mind-set that people feel a genuine need to carry a lethal weapon around with them, the fear of crime/blacks/poor people/democrats/gays in America must be immense, and going from the other thread about fear of police you must have no confidence in your police service.

Surely the shear level of inconvenience (I'm guessing here, please correct me if I'm wrong) of carrying a lethal weapon on a day to day basis must be huge compared to the perceived gain? I would love to hear what reasoning you use for carrying from board members, how does it impact your day to day life when you decide to carry a weapon? Do you carry it everywhere or just when going to certain areas?

The comparison to a mobile also amused me; why not carry around a grappling hook or an anti-venom kit?

[Purple]

It just strikes me (as a European) as a completely alien mind-set that people feel a genuine need to carry a lethal weapon around with them, the fear of crime/blacks/poor people/democrats/gays in America must be immense, and going from the other thread about fear of police you must have no confidence in your police service.

This always puzzled me as well. What puzzles me even more is how everyone having a lethal weapon at all times is going to make anyone safer. I mean I get the idea where you have a gun but no one else does. That puts you on top of the pile. But when everyone has a gun than what's the point? There is no deterrence happening as no ones stick is bigger than anyone elses. The only thing that has changed is the potential result of any altercation. And combined with the level of paranoid fear required to make you think you need a firearm at all times... Well really nothing good comes to mind.

[Simon_Jester]

Personally I've always thought the stronger argument for "right to bear arms" has little to do with one's safety and more to do with the definition of "citizenship."

If I am a full citizen in my society, with good standing, can't I be trusted to own weapons? Why would my own society need to control and distrust me to the extent of banning that? Am I assumed to pose some sort of threat to the state or to the people?

[Patroklos]

This always puzzled me as well. What puzzles me even more is how everyone having a lethal weapon at all times is going to make anyone safer. I mean I get the idea where you have a gun but no one else does. That puts you on top of the pile. But when everyone has a gun than what's the point? There is no deterrence happening as no ones stick is bigger than anyone elses. The only thing that has changed is the potential result of any altercation. And combined with the level of paranoid fear required to make you think you need a firearm at all times... Well really nothing good comes to mind.

Your calculus doesn't really make sense here.

I have a gun and you don't = you probably are not going to attack me if you are looking for targets.

I have a gun and you do too = you still probably are not going to attack me if you are looking for targets. Equal chances are not what the average riffraff are looking for.

Now factor in that this is a CONCEALED permit situation, so the more poeple that have them as a percentage of the population the more you have to assume someone might have one even if you can't specifically tell for that individual. If one percent of the populace is armed statistically your chances are pretty good, if twenty-five percent are then crime looks a like a less profitable activity.

The above is not to push any particular policy, I just take issue with your idea above.