So you have a fantasy of blowing up a bunch of gun carry folks with a bazooka?
That's just unintelligent.
So what if someone wants to open carry, if it is in their lawful capacity to do so that is.
By limiting the supply of legally owned guns, you reduce and possible remove the ability to defend oneself from criminals, who will get guns anyway. And if they can't get guns they will resort to other methods of carrying out their plans. Take for example the amount of violent crimes in the UK. You can't buy a gun in the UK, and their "violent" crimes per capita is higher than the United States.
I say "violent" because obviously there are different definitions of violent and different acts may be considered violent in one country and in the other, not.
Read this, sure it uses old data, but its worth it.
http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/fla_model.htm
I'm actually taking a look right now; and in the whole state a Florida, which was the first, widely publicized, shall issue state, has a lower violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants by more than half of that of the District of Columbia.
Florida has a rate of 688.8 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants and the District of Columbia has a rate of 1,437.7 per 100,000 inhabitants.
That's weird that Florida's violent crime rate is less than half of that of DC's and.. oh man, isn't this a coincidence, the District of Columbia will not issue a concealed carry permit.
I mean, almost all of us crazies down in Florida are allowed to own, and.. dare I say it.. carry guns, when legal to do so, and we aren't shooting each other in the faces left and right.
It's because when someone is armed and is legally concealed carrying that weapon they are more responsible.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html