USA Today just contacted me to write an editorial on the Zimmerman affair. The editor’s got two bullet points for me to counter. First, Zimmerman shouldn’t have left the car (not much argument there). Second, Zimmerman wouldn’t have left the car if he didn’t have a gun. Her follow-on concept: increasing Americans’ access to firearms is a bad, bad thing. I’ll reject that assertion like Kimberly Vaughan rejected my invitation to date back in the 70’s (don’t ask). And then I’ll point out that concealed carry allows millions of law-abiding Americans to live their lives with less fear—not bravado. That’s a fine line I gotta walk. I’d appreciate a little help. Did the Kel Tec PF-9 “embolden” Zimmerman? What’s the most convincing argument against restricting Americans’ access to firearms?