See, now we can start working out the middle ground where compromise can be found.

We as a nation just have to get past the reflex "if you ain't with me, you're against me" point.

Any arguement for gun control is not an arguement against guns no more than speed limits and driver's licenses are anti-car (may not be an exact analogy but ya'll get the picture).

It's not an all or nothing proposition.

The debate is so polarized that neither side listens to the other or is willing to acknowledge that the opposing position has any merit.

As a citizen, I am willing to carefully and objectively consider laws that would allow CCW in specific circumstances/locations accompanied with very stringent requirements.

I'm just fearful of the blanket strapping on of fire arms to walk around the mall because their scared and angry (or their Viagra has kicked in and they're feeling frisky ).

True, no one has argued that point here (yet) but it will come to counter the "take away all guns" arguement. Both are emotion-driven and get us nowhere.

You make a good distinction between resturants and bars (volume of alcohol being consumed vs food consumed, lingering time, and statistical frequency of location specific violence).

Again, a national debate based on careful, reasoned, objective data and not the knee-jerk "they'll take my guns away over my dead body" arguements that get us nowhere.

For the record, if there was someone arguing to ban all civilian-owned fire arms, I would be arguing against them too.