If you follow the gun "debate" at all, you'll very quickly encounter a core meme of gun control advocates: people who carry guns for self defense are paranoid and obsessed with crime, and it sure must be sad to live that way. Inherent in this sentiment--and frankly necessary to an honest anti-gun position--is an acceptance of the fact that violent crime is a risk, but a belief that the correct response to this risk is to essentially ignore it*. Moreover, that taking steps to prepare for the unlikely emergency is the paranoid, psychologically counterproductive, and morally inferior alternative.
Tennessee is on the verge of passing a law that would allow restaurant owners to decide for themselves whether to allow concealed carry on their premises (replacing the current statewide ban), and predictably the antis are in a tizzy over it. That article's comment thread contains an exemplar of the Paranoid Gun Nut Comment species, which has gotten some attention on gun blogs:
Yes, crime can happen anywhere, anytime. But it seems to me that many people misinterpret overall crime statistics and believe that they are in danger 24/7. I choose not be be burdened with that kind of mindset.
I knew a guy in high school who drove without car insurance. Not that he couldn't afford it, but he liked having the extra spending money and didn't see the need to pay for something he'd probably never need. He knew he was a good driver, had never been in an accident, and had never been pulled over. He chose not to be burdened with concerns about what _might_ happen. He took a condescending attitude toward people who _did_ carry insurance: they were pathetic and paranoid, worrying so much about what might go wrong when they should be out enjoying life!
Knowing him has done a lot to put anti-gunners in perspective for me.
Those of you who have car or homeowners' or medical insurance: You know how much you're constantly obsessing over car accidents, natural disasters, and medical emergencies? That's exactly how much the average gun carriers obsess over crime. They put on their holsters in the morning along with the rest of their clothing, and don't give it another thought until they get undressed at night. That's what makes all the pointless "gun free zones" such an issue for gunnies; for the anti, the question is "why do you need to bring your gun to Friday's?" For the carrier, it's more like a restaurant forbidding wallets: it's a hassle, puts your valuable property at risk of theft, and makes a big fat hairy deal out of a mundane thing that you ordinarily don't have to devote much concern to having on you.
[* - Not to say anti-gun advocates don't believe--as self-defense advocates do--in avoidance. We all agree that the best way to "win" a violent encounter is to be elsewhere. But in some cases situational awareness, non-victim body language, and avoidance of specifically risky places can fail. Those are the eventualities that carriers choose to prepare for and antis want to force everybody not to prepare for.]