Be very nice to fellow employees, starting July 1.

[wrobert]

Crist signs 'guns-to-work' bill

Gov. Charlie Crist has just signed the controversial bill (HB 503) prohibiting businesses from barring workers from bringing guns to work and leaving them in locked vehicles. Only employees with concealed weapons permits would be allowed. Businesses could also not post signs banning customers from doing the same.
And with that, the Florida Retail Federation and Florida Chamber of Commerce will be filing a lawsuit challenging the law, scheduled to go into effect July 1. More on the suit here.

[Smiling JOe]

Why wait to be nice to them? I think the car is viewed as an extension of a person's home or person, and is unlawful for an employer to regulate what can be in the auto. Next thing you know, employers will not want employees to keep cigarettes and coffee cups in the car. Personally, I am more concerned with the cell phones in the car (and I use one) and the car itself, than I am with a gun which is kept in the car. Statistically, employees are more likely to get killed by an auto crash than gunshot wounds.

[wrobert]

Why wait to be nice to them? I think the car is viewed as an extension of a person's home or person, and is unlawful for an employer to regulate what can be in the auto. Next thing you know, employers will not want employees to keep cigarettes and coffee cups in the car. Personally, I am more concerned with the cell phones in the car (and I use one) and the car itself, than I am with a gun which is kept in the car. Statistically, employees are more likely to get killed by an auto crash than gunshot wounds.

Sheesh! Did they issue all you moderators buckets of ice water?

[Smiling JOe]

Was my post that cold?

I think many out of town SoWallers, at least some of the active ones, have arrived in SoWal, and are out on the town and eating at all the tasty places. I saw quiet a few of them today, and two said that they left the puters at home, intentionally!

[TooFarTampa]

But did they bring their guns?

[rapunzel]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

I'm all for the second amendment, and believe there should be an armed citizenry to ensure there is an out clause on the social contract of our government should it begin to curtail civil liberties. Taking guns to work is not defending Man against tyranny, it's manifestation of gun worship.

When I worked at Blue Cross, a man killed his wife in the parking lot one evening. She was one of my co-workers, and she had been given the gun to "protect herself' from him. He didn't show up in the parking lot that night with a gun, but when things didn't go as he'd hoped, a gun happened to be there.

I just don't get why people need guns at the mall. Are there a lot of tyrants hanging out at Auntie Anne's Pretzels?

[Jdarg]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

I'm all for the second amendment, and believe there should be an armed citizenry to ensure there is an out clause on the social contract of our government should it begin to curtail civil liberties. Taking guns to work is not defending Man against tyranny, it's manifestation of gun worship.

When I worked at Blue Cross, a man killed his wife in the parking lot one evening. She was one of my co-workers, and she had been given the gun to "protect herself' from him. He didn't show up in the parking lot that night with a gun, but when things didn't go as he'd hoped, a gun happened to be there.

I just don't get why people need guns at the mall. Are there a lot of tyrants hanging out at Auntie Anne's Pretzels?

Snicker.

I just don't "get" the gun thing. I never will. We don't have use for anything other than a BB gun, and even that is unnecessary - Darg Vader uses it to shoot those aluminum cans that are attacking us constantly.

[beachmouse]

Little blurb in the editorial section of the daily fishwrapper today mentioned that there had been a couple of studies comparing workplaces where employees were allowed to keep guns in cars to places where they weren't. One study said that fatal violence was five times more likely at workplaces where guns were allowed in vehicles. Another study said that fatal violence was 3-7 times more likely at workplaces allowing guns in vehicles.

So call me not in favor of this new law.

[30A Skunkape]

Yet another compelling reason to await the arrival of a welfare check in the safety of one's own mcmansion.

[Bob]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

I'm all for the second amendment, and believe there should be an armed citizenry to ensure there is an out clause on the social contract of our government should it begin to curtail civil liberties. Taking guns to work is not defending Man against tyranny, it's manifestation of gun worship.

When I worked at Blue Cross, a man killed his wife in the parking lot one evening. She was one of my co-workers, and she had been given the gun to "protect herself' from him. He didn't show up in the parking lot that night with a gun, but when things didn't go as he'd hoped, a gun happened to be there.

I just don't get why people need guns at the mall. Are there a lot of tyrants hanging out at Auntie Anne's Pretzels?

well-written, but you are surrendering to the actions of the lowest common denominator

[Smiling JOe]

packing heat is not going to work well against tyranny. Look no further than the mess out in TX right now. The Sheriff has a military tank on the scene. Police are not your protection. To think they are, is a false security. I don't pack heat, because I'm not in an environment where I feel that I need that protection. Carrying a loaded gun comes with many responsibilities, and there is no way to put the bullet back in the gun, so I choose not to go that route. Put me in a different environment where I regularly feel threatened, and I might increase my risk tolerance and carry a gun to protect myself, family, friends, neighbors. Some people get a little friskier when they pack heat, but I know many others, myself included, who know the responsibility of carrying, and we would use it as a last resort, not as an intervention in controversial situations.

Nut cases are everywhere. Add the wrong drugs to the mix and you get trouble. (Drugs not necessarily being illegal. Look at some people's reactions to anti-depressants. I've seen it first hand.) A gun can do some major damage in the hands of these people, but they can do as much damage with a 7,000 lbs SUV. I liken it to people being really scared of getting killed by sharks, when they drive on the highway to get to the beach. People have been carrying guns for a long time. If they are not being checked by security, you can bet that those guns are likely in their vehicle when at work. Charlie just makes it legal to do so. That is like the millions of Americans who smoke pot. Having a law making it illegal doesn't stop those people from smoking. Changing the law to make pot smoking legal, will not likely change these people's smoking habits.

[scooterbug44]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

Taking guns to work is not defending Man against tyranny, it's manifestation of gun worship.

When I worked at Blue Cross, a man killed his wife in the parking lot one evening. She was one of my co-workers, and she had been given the gun to "protect herself' from him. He didn't show up in the parking lot that night with a gun, but when things didn't go as he'd hoped, a gun happened to be there.

I'm out of rep, but great analogy!

Guns don't make people safer, they increase the potential for violence and death. Instead of passing legislation to make guns more prevalent, they should be passing legislation to limit gun ownership.

I know many wonderful people who own guns for shooting, hunting, etc. They are sane & logical people who do not feel a need to bring their gun to work, into social situations, etc.

Guns can be funn and there are many tasting things you can hunt with them, but safety, responsibility, and prudence need to be mentioned more than the misguided "right to bare arms."

[rapunzel]

[QUOTE=Smiling JOe;396175]packing heat is not going to work well against tyranny. Look no further than the mess out in TX right now. The Sheriff has a military tank on the scene. Police are not your protection. To think they are, is a false security. [QUOTE]


I disagree. Guns will work against tyranny. The problem for those FDLS members is that the majority of the people don't see the U.S. government as a repressive regime. A small sect of people who want to marry girls within a year of menarche as though they were breeding cattle and not the 13 year old child who should be enjoying eighth grade innocently holding hands with a boy her own age, not having sex with a man her grandmother's age. The majority of people believe the sect is the bigger threat to our social contract, not the government. Therefore, there is no groundswell of support for the FDLS. It's when the government no longer serves the best interest of the majority, and when the tyrrany stomps more down than it lifts up that the armed citizenry would be formidable.

Of course, I agree with you about marijuana. There is no good reason for it to be illegal. The nanny state marijuana laws hurt more people than they protect by creating a distribution network of providers for a relatively harmless illegal drug. They create channels to distribute other, truly sinister drugs into every high school in this country.

[Smiling JOe]

Sorry for the bad analogy. I don't agree with 13 year olds being forced to marry a grandpa, likely their very own grandpa. I intended to simply point out the fire-power of having Sheriff's Departments with tanks, and think about the US military arsenal and intelligence, via satellite, infrared, links to every webcam, email, etc. A bunch of guys with 6 shooters cannot stop that. We'd have more success at fighting our gov't by refusing to pay the gov't any taxes. Who would be left to run the gov't if they weren't being paid? Just a thought.

[wrobert]

Okay. I am not anti-gun. The right to protect oneself with the latest technology available is a sure sign of a free society. The problem is, unlike days of old, we do not educate people in the proper use and care. My granpappy educated me. And, if you choose to believe her, Hillary's granpappy educated her, of course that is another thread I will jump into later.

The problem with this legislation is I am also very pro property rights. I really believe that the employer should be allowed to impose rules against this if desired.

[Smiling JOe]

Do you also believe that an employer should be able to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car? What about the customers' cars? Seems to me that the freaks who would would go postal, don't follow the rules anyway.

[wrobert]

Do you also believe that an employer should be able to tell you what you can and cannot have in your car? What about the customers' cars? Seems to me that the freaks who would would go postal, don't follow the rules anyway.

That is what makes this such an interesting issue. I think the owner of the car should be able to do what they want, but someone who owns property or a business can certainly be allowed to attach conditions on people who are going to enter that property. If everything is laid out then people could just choose to go somewhere else.

But in reality, the criminal is not going to obey a sign or a law, so I do not what the effects will be. According to the NWF Daily News we are going to see massive killings and insurance increases. I plan on being in DC the first week of July so maybe I will just read about the carnage.

[Smiling JOe]

I haven't read the new Law, but I understood it to state the a person could have a gun in the vehicle while on the premises of one's employer. Carrying the gun inside may be a different issue, but in many states, one's person is seen as an extension of their home, and a police officer cannot search without just cause.

Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone feels the need to pack heat. Those who choose to pack heat are likely already doing so. I, too, don't see how the passage of this law will change the status quo. I'm not suddenly going to start carrying just because I can, just like I won't start smoking pot if they legalize it. People who want to smoke or carry, already do.

[SWGB]

SJ here's another way to look at it.

Would you support a law that allowed someone to bring a gun on your property for their personal protection? It's very similar in that an employer generally owns the building/parking lot/parking garage that the employees park in. Why shouldn't they be allowed to tell you what you can/cannot bring onto their property?

[Smiling JOe]

I wouldn't be against such law that allows one to bring their gun onto my property for their protection. I don't think it is currently illegal for someone to do so. As I said, people aren't going to change habits and start bringing a gun onto my property, just because a new law is created which gives them the right to do so.

Maybe I should tell the meter reader that he can no longer bring his meter reader worksheet with him, when he comes onto my property. Who knows what might be in those packages in the Fed Ex truck. Better make them stop at the road, eh?

[SWGB]

Okay, what I'm saying is a law that would over ride your right as a land owner to tell someone they can't bring a gun on your property.

[Jdarg]

I don't understand why a car is an extension of your home, unless you are living in your car.

[Smiling JOe]

Okay, what I'm saying is a law that would over ride your right as a land owner to tell someone they can't bring a gun on your property.

Still, I have no problem with a law which stated that when people rightfully enter my property, they can carry a gun for their protection. As stated previously, there is no law which currently stops them, so I really don't see the problem. I feel like I'm on repeat, but I know no other way to say it. Creating a law giving people permission to carry a gun for protection when they enter my property, will not change people's routine. I know of no one which packs heat when they come to my house, and that isn't likely to change just because the gov't decides to officially grant them permission. I will go back to my marijuana analogy, making it legal to smoke pot in one's own home, isn't going to change the smoking habits of people. Those who smoke will continue to smoke, and those who choose not to smoke, won't suddenly start smoking pot.

[Bdarg]

I haven't read the new Law, but I understood it to state the a person could have a gun in the vehicle while on the premises of one's employer. Carrying the gun inside may be a different issue, but in many states, one's person is seen as an extension of their home, and a police officer cannot search without just cause.

Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone feels the need to pack heat. Those who choose to pack heat are likely already doing so. I, too, don't see how the passage of this law will change the status quo. I'm not suddenly going to start carrying just because I can, just like I won't start smoking pot if they legalize it. People who want to smoke or carry, already do.

Apparently we are in that society now. If people feel the need to 'pack the heat' then let them take the chance, why encourage it by making it legal. If they behave themselves then no one would be the wiser. If they do not behave, then everyone would immediately know that a crazy was armed and on the loose. Under the take your gun to work, or school, laws the gunman at V. Tech would have looked like a normal student, i.e. armed and attending class. No matter what once the fire fight started with all the armed people it would be a free for all. How many dead kids would we have then.

All in all, as much as I hate smoking, I would much prefer someone sitting next to me in class armed with a cigarette, funny or otherwise, than a Glock.

[Smiling JOe]

"signed the controversial bill (HB 503) prohibiting businesses from barring workers from bringing guns to work and leaving them in locked vehicles."

Maybe I missed something. We aren't talking about people carrying the guns into the workplace, or the classroom (although I hear the carry on campus is being discussed.)

[Bdarg]

Wasn't there something in the pappy gun totin’ lessons about keeping a nice cool down distance between the argument and the gun?

With road rage being all the rage, I think it would be a good idea just to leave the guns at home in the first place.

[Jdarg]

Y'all go to bed.

[Bdarg]

Still, I have no problem with a law which stated that when people rightfully enter my property, they can carry a gun for their protection. As stated previously, there is no law which currently stops them, so I really don't see the problem. I feel like I'm on repeat, but I know no other way to say it. Creating a law giving people permission to carry a gun for protection when they enter my property, will not change people's routine. I know of no one which packs heat when they come to my house, and that isn't likely to change just because the gov't decides to officially grant them permission. I will go back to my marijuana analogy, making it legal to smoke pot in one's own home, isn't going to change the smoking habits of people. Those who smoke will continue to smoke, and those who choose not to smoke, won't suddenly start smoking pot.

Why do people need to arm themselves for protection when they come visit you?

[Alicia Leonard]

Wasn't there something in the pappy gun totin’ lessons about keeping a nice cool down distance between the argument and the gun?

With road rage being all the rage, I think it would be a good idea just to leave the guns at home in the first place.

It would certainly help when you needed to merge

[Smiling JOe]

Why do people need to arm themselves for protection when they come visit you?

Excellent question, Bdarg. I guess gayboi will have to answer, since he posed the question. To all my visiting friends: Feel free to bring your firearms when you come to visit, but you would be better protected if you bring some Benedryl for the ant bites and possible yellow jacket stings. Also bring some tweezers to remove the tiny briers from your legs or feet. Sunblock is also a good thing to bring to protect yourself. If you want to live on the edge, also pack some insect repellent to spray on yourself, as the mosquitoes and no-see-ums can be aggravating. You might also want to bring a walking stick to stir the path before stepping. Some of the snakes look much like the leaves and pine straw. One final thing for protection might be a personal flotation device, in case you fall off the dock. If you do end up bringing your firearm and feel the need to use it, please be very mindful of my dogs, neighbors' pets, neighbors' homes and autos, and my neighbors. Bullets will bounce off of water and keep on going, so heed caution, when shooting. Again, feel free to bring your firearms for your protection. Note: shooting my yard creatures is not considered protecting yourself, unless it is a really big gator coming after you. Haven't seen one yet, but I keep an eye out for them and the black bears.

[JustaLocal]

You know, if someone asked me to pick 10 friends or acquaintances to carry around a sealed vial of anthrax around with them for a year I'd have a hard time coming up with a list of people I'd trust with that kind of responsibility. I bet most people would. But if the deadly item is a gun, so many people are so gung-ho that everyone have the right to walk around with the power to dole out death (and by default provide others with that same access by virtue of the gun's presence).

I do not get your analogy. How is a sealed vial of anthrax like a gun? It can kill? So can automobiles but we allow just about anyone to drive one.

Okay. I am not anti-gun. The right to protect oneself with the latest technology available is a sure sign of a free society. The problem is, unlike days of old, we do not educate people in the proper use and care. My granpappy educated me. And, if you choose to believe her, Hillary's granpappy educated her, of course that is another thread I will jump into later.

The problem with this legislation is I am also very pro property rights. I really believe that the employer should be allowed to impose rules against this if desired.

Couldn't the employer just make the parking lot off limits except when arriving or leaving?

Apparently we are in that society now. If people feel the need to 'pack the heat' then let them take the chance, why encourage it by making it legal. If they behave themselves then no one would be the wiser. If they do not behave, then everyone would immediately know that a crazy was armed and on the loose. Under the take your gun to work, or school, laws the gunman at V. Tech would have looked like a normal student, i.e. armed and attending class. No matter what once the fire fight started with all the armed people it would be a free for all. How many dead kids would we have then.

All in all, as much as I hate smoking, I would much prefer someone sitting next to me in class armed with a cigarette, funny or otherwise, than a Glock.

I don't think encouraging people to break the law is a good solution. I remember when you could carry an unconcealed firearm. I had a friend that wore his gun on belt holster "old-west" style. I don't recall there being a huge problem with crazy people engaging in mass murder and mayhem. Maybe there was more personal responsibility then.

[rapunzel]

All this talk about granddads teaching gun safety is adorable. So I'm wondering, am I the only person on this board who's ever actually shot someone?

[chrisv]

All this talk about granddads teaching gun safety is adorable. So I'm wondering, am I the only person on this board who's ever actually shot someone?

And here I was all enamored with your talk of the armed citizenry fighting tyrannical government and about to invite you and Skunky to the range to shoot a few 'Homeland Defense Rifles'; maybe fire a suppressed pistol. I'm just scared, now!

[rapunzel]

I do not get your analogy. How is a sealed vial of anthrax like a gun? It can kill? So can automobiles but we allow just about anyone to drive one.

Well, there are many other good uses for a car. Killing isn't it's primary purpose. Like a gun, a vial of anthrax can be used for a deterrent effect, or to kill. Anthrax doesn't work well for hunting, but neither does a handgun.

[Smiling JOe]

The only people I know who shot someone committed suicide, though I've been blasted with bird shot from across the field on many occasions. Who did you shoot, Punzy?

[Mango]

All this talk about granddads teaching gun safety is adorable. So I'm wondering, am I the only person on this board who's ever actually shot someone?

That was you? not Cheney?

[Smiling JOe]

I really don't get the Anthrax analogy because if you opening a vile of anthrax is more like strapping a bomb to one's self, where as carrying a gun has less exposure risk. Anthrax can grow and spread throughout the country or world, where as the bullet slows down and eventually stops, only after being fired from the gun. Guns are very limited on the number of rounds in a gun and the gun can be directed toward a singular target, and doesn't have to be aimed at vital organs. Anthrax kills indiscriminately, without being able to single out a particular target.

[rapunzel]

And here I was all enamored with your talk of the armed citizenry fighting tyrannical government and about to invite you and Skunky to the range to shoot a few 'Homeland Defense Rifles'; maybe fire a suppressed pistol. I'm just scared, now!

I learned the hard way to be very scared around guns.

I did an internship with a regional planning group, and it was housed in an antebellum Greek Revival. I dated the Preservation Planner, and he was charged with keeping the very old house in good condition. There were pigeons roosting in the top of one of the Corinthian columns that were hand carved from single old growth pine trunks. The columns were the most unique feature of the house, but had been designed to actually support the weight of half the roof, and had drainage going through them. They had rot issues, and the pigeon poop was somehow a major threat.

So, the boyfriend (son of an ATF agent, I kid you not) gets his small rifle and take it up to the building on a Sunday. From my convertible, he shoots one pigeon from off the column. The pigeon plummets 25 feet to the ground with a horrid thump, then stands, looks me directly in the eye for about 30 seconds, then makes this horrible agonized sound, and finally falls over and dies. I tell the boyfriend that the pigeon suffered and I will not be a party to this. The boyfriend scoffs at my pity for the flying rat, and takes aim. I grab the barrel and shove it down not realizing he's about to pull the trigger. The bullet went into his thigh.

I drive as fast as possible to the ER (it was really close) while he insists he's okay and doesn't need to go to the hospital. We pull up to the entrance just as he goes into shock. I run into the ER and announce, "I need help, I shot my boyfriend and he's fainted in the parking lot." Did you know they always call the police in such instances? I was only trying to end the needless suffering of the pigeons!

The boyfriend turned out to be okay. They left the bullet in his leg, it had gone all the way to the bone. The only lasting damage was to his pride, because when the boyfriend's ATF dad found out about the incident...well, he sort of went off on the whole "you were raised with better gun safety knowledge."

So, that how I learned not to grab a gun someone is in the act of firing. It's a good lesson. Tell the kids.

[Alicia Leonard]

I learned the hard way to be very scared around guns.

I did an internship with a regional planning group, and it was housed in an antebellum Greek Revival. I dated the Preservation Planner, and he was charged with keeping the very old house in good condition. There were pigeons roosting in the top of one of the Corinthian columns that were hand carved from single old growth pine trunks. The columns were the most unique feature of the house, but had been designed to actually support the weight of half the roof, and had drainage going through them. They had rot issues, and the pigeon poop was somehow a major threat.

So, the boyfriend (son of an ATF agent, I kid you not) gets his small rifle and take it up to the building on a Sunday. From my convertible, he shoots one pigeon from off the column. The pigeon plummets 25 feet to the ground with a horrid thump, then stands, looks me directly in the eye for about 30 seconds, then makes this horrible agonized sound, and finally falls over and dies. I tell the boyfriend that the pigeon suffered and I will not be a party to this. The boyfriend scoffs at my pity for the flying rat, and takes aim. I grab the barrel and shove it down not realizing he's about to pull the trigger. The bullet went into his thigh.

I drive as fast as possible to the ER (it was really close) while he insists he's okay and doesn't need to go to the hospital. We pull up to the entrance just as he goes into shock. I run into the ER and announce, "I need help, I shot my boyfriend and he's fainted in the parking lot." Did you know they always call the police in such instances? I was only trying to end the needless suffering of the pigeons!

The boyfriend turned out to be okay. They left the bullet in his leg, it had gone all the way to the bone. The only lasting damage was to his pride, because when the boyfriend's ATF dad found out about the incident...well, he sort of went off on the whole "you were raised with better gun safety knowledge."

So, that how I learned not to grab a gun someone is in the act of firing. It's a good lesson. Tell the kids.

I had no idea you shot a man in Reno

Punzy, I'll just vote for whoever you tell me to, ok?

[rapunzel]

I really don't get the Anthrax analogy because if you opening a vile of anthrax is more like strapping a bomb to one's self, where as carrying a gun has less exposure risk. Anthrax can grow and spread throughout the country or world, where as the bullet slows down and eventually stops, only after being fired from the gun. Guns are very limited on the number of rounds in a gun and the gun can be directed toward a singular target, and doesn't have to be aimed at vital organs. Anthrax kills indiscriminately, without being able to single out a particular target.

Anthrax is like Ebola -- it kills to quickly to spread very far...and I guess whether or not it kills it's handler depends on how good their throwing arm is...

And with that, I am done defending that analogy.

[Smiling JOe]

punzy, that is one funny gun story. If he was shooting at the house from the car, you probably saved the house from greater damage from bullets.

Back to the right to carry thing. I don't want people to think that I am encouraging people to begin packing heat. That is the last thing I want to see, especially in a place where it isn't needed. Earlier you ask a question of how many people would have been shot if students on VT campus were allowed to carry. The answer varies greatly. Maybe, Cho would have never went on the killing spree, knowing that people might defend themselves with their own guns. Another scenario could be that after Cho fired the first shot at a student, someone could have put him down in returned fire. A third possibility, and very likely one is the one you present, where people hear gunfire and everyone starts pulling out a gun and shooting every suspicious looking person who looks like they want to pull the trigger, creating a chain effect of people shooting the innocent person who had killed the original shooter.

I wish I was good at remembering movie titles, as there is a good story about this, in a somewhat okay movie, made at least 10-15 years ago, where the country goes into a state of panic, and everyone is packing heat, and no one wants to be the last person to pull the trigger.

Carrying a gun, or even keeping one in your home carries much responsibility. I think most people will choose not to take on that burden, and nuts will always be nuts. Unless things change, I'll continue to carry my pocket knife for opening packages, envelopes, beer bottles, trimming fishing line, and if ever needed, for defending myself or others against an armed villian.