Hook686 said:
Unfortunately, I see the gun at your side as a warning that you are not open to reasonable communications, but rather prepared to force your will (even if that will is merely to be left alone) upon another. If I then slip into my fear state, as you have entered yours, I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun with which to deal with you.
The problem is that you're reading stuff into the act of carrying a gun that isn't necessarily the case. How do you know someone isn't open to reasonable communication? You're correct that carrying a gun indicates a willingness to exert one's will through force, but it doesn't say anything about the conditions under which this will occur. As people have been noting, their conditions (which are also the only legally justifiable ones) are the use of coercive, lethal force against them by another. In other words, when someone uses a gun in self-defense, it's to stop another's attempt to force his will on another. Sure, you could argue that it's basically the same mechanism at work (forcing one's will "even if that will is merely to be left alone"), but cutting an act off from its context to such an extent robs it of any meaning; it's like claiming that surgery is mutilation of a helpless, unconscious person: You'd be technically correct, but missing the point entirely.
Then there's the assumption that carrying a gun is a fear-motivated decision, which seems to stem from your response to gun-carrying by others. It's natural to assume that others act for the same reason as we do, but it's incumbent on us to make sure that our reasoning is logical, lest our models of others' behavior become nonsensical. As a rule of thumb, if your explanation for why people behave a certain way is predicated on those people being insane, irrational, or very stupid, there's a chance that your own perception of the issue is clouded.
In defense of the above assertion: "I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun..." I see talk about a "bigger gun" being a response to someone's gun, but that just doesn't make any sense. The size of a firearm has little direct bearing on its utility in countering another person's gun. It's an indicator that you're not getting past the appearance of things.
Finally, there's the troubling bit: "I will naturally look for a bigger, badder gun with which to deal with you." It's understandable that you're seeing force as a means to deal with a threat of force; however, shouldn't this apply in reverse to the hypothetical person with a gun who prompted this behavior, even if his decision to carry the gun is just so he can be prepared for unanticipated violence against him? I guess what makes your stance troubling is that it implies you see forcing one's will "even if that will is merely to be left alone" as universally unreasonable. It's quite possible to posit circumstances where being left alone is unreasonable ("Leave me alone so that I can set fire to this building!"), but others seems to make sense ("Quit trying to stab me and leave me alone!").