To carry or not to carry, that is the question. This is one of the few issues in which I agree with the conclusions of those on the left. There is little practical point in owning a pistol, unless one is planning to carry. Where I disagree with the left, is in my belief that it should be a normal, non threatening, and positive thing to have regular decent people arming themselves. We are, after all, a republic, in which the people are presumed to be responsible, as well as being the true source of the government, and the owners of the nation.
    I should first mention that concealed carry is illegal in my home state of Wisconsin, for the time being, so I can hardly hold myself up as an expert in the art. The only exceptions to this are (naturally) government officials, police, and officers of the court (read lawyers). Open carry is legal, without a permit, but is essentially forbidden in the cities. I have carried openly in the countryside, as I am legally permitted to do, and have carried concealed on a few occasions, when I thought it necessary because of some temporary circumstances in my life. Among the fifty states, 48 have provisions for a concealed carry permit, while 37 of these issue on demand permits; two do not require any permit at all. What is meant by on demand, is that permits are issued without question, requirement to show need, or discretion in issuance. In these states, a concealed carry permit is issued on demand, in the same way as a driver's license.
    There are also nine discretionary states. In these states, there is a provision for the licensing of individuals to carry, but there is no requirement for the licensing authorities to do so. In theory, this means that you have to justify your need to carry, In practice, this generally means that you have to be wealthy, part of the system, connected, be owed a favor, or have something to hold over an official with authority to grant a permit. In some cases, it may depend upon where in the state you live, with issuing authorities (usually the Sheriff) of some counties being more friendly than those of others. At best, this is as unequal way of granting permits for what is supposed to be an uninfringable right; at worst, this is an institutionalized system of favor granting for governmental officials. At it's very worst, as in the early days of it's existence in New York and Chicago, this is a system for granting members of criminal organizations the advantage of carrying arms, while disarming their potential victims.
    Concealed carry is illegal in most places, unless a permit is granted. The only exceptions to this, are the states of Vermont, and Alaska where all citizens are allowed to carry, with no permit required. Interestingly, despite the rantings of the anti gun left, Vermont has an extraordinarily low crime rate, as does Alaska. In states where concealed carry has been legalized, two things have been completely predictable. The first is that the anti gun left will rally and rant against the impending violence, and crime wave which the new legislation will bring. The second is, that the first never comes to pass, and that crime inevitably goes down, while individual security goes up. This will be the extent of my comments on the social and legal aspect of concealed carry. I go into a bit more detail, and justification, in my essays on the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, this essay is meant to address the practical, and technical side of personal carry.
    Concealed carry is not practiced by hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, the military, or in most cases, the police. This is what makes the whole issue so important to those who do not care for the idea of private gun ownership, and who are particularly appalled at the idea of someone actually using a gun in self defense. In the places where gun ownership is permitted, but carry is not, the situation resembles that of being allowed to own a car, but being forbidden to take it out on the road. This would limit the appeal of car ownership to racers, tinkerers, and collectors. Most people would see no reason, and have little desire to own a car, since prevailing laws would make them unable to use one in any practical way. Indeed, this was the situation, regarding firearms, everywhere, except for the state of Vermont, and  few of the western states, up until a few years ago.
    Passing legislation to remove concealed carry restrictions on citizens takes firearms out of the specialized world of the hunter, sportsman, and "gun nut", and sets them comfortably within the main stream. It makes the ownership of a pistol, something for everyone to consider. The decision to carry is much easier to make these days, with so many states issuing permits, many of which are shall issue states. It is now possible for the average citizen, with concerns about personal safety, to provide for his own security without being thought of as a nut, and without risking arrest.
    Anyone who regards the citizens of this nation as being in agreement with anti gunners, need only look at firearms statistics. Over half the households in the nation own some sort of firearm; the average firearm owner possesses four guns. Those that assume the average citizen depends on the police for protection should note that, after the September 11th attacks, pistol purchases went up over 500%. There is also the famous court case, in which a woman who sued the DC police for taking over two hours to respond to her call of an intruder entering her house, was told that the police had no responsibility for the safety of individual citizens. She was beaten and raped; the police arrived just in time to do nothing. Similar incidents have occurred in nearly every major city, though Chicago had a couple of particularly notorious cases. Who or what the police are responsible for, I can not say, but it is certainly not us. While it is true that all of the pistols in the world would not have been able to protect the people in the World Trade Center from the oncoming aircraft, had several, or even one, of the passengers on board been armed, the whole story would very likely have been different.
    I confidently predict that within the next ten years, shall issue permits will be granted in Wisconsin. There is a possibility that they will be passed in Massachusetts (presently, non residents can get a permit, but residents can not), New York State (but not nyc), and California. It may happen by default in Rhode Island, and there is talk of rescinding the pistol ban in DC (though talk, particularly in DC, is cheap). The citizens of Iowa do not seem to care, and there seems to be no hope for the degenerate states of new jersey, illinois, and maryland. Still, only time will tell.

65% of the US population lives in "Right To Carry" (Vermont, Alaska, & 37 "Shall Issue") states.
28% in "Right Restricted" (9 "May Issue") states.
6.4% in "Right Denied" (2) states.