Salon Surprise

We can always expect from Salon (and her friends) the least reasonable interpretation of "Cause and Effect": she thinks that firearms violence stems from the "Right to Carry" laws ... which  encourages law-abiding citizens to exercise their right  to carry a firearm.

And she thinks that this is a HUGE surprise problem?

Right-to-carry laws lead to more violent crime: Isn’t that a huge surprise? - Salon.com:

One of the most contentious arguments within the larger gun control debate is over whether right-to-carry laws that make it legal for gun owners to carry loaded weapons in public, usually concealed on their person, make people safer. Gun rights advocates argue that packing heat is a prevention against crime and violence, invoking slogans like, "An armed society is a polite society." Gun control proponents, however, argue that a proliferation of loaded weapons is bound to lead to more violence, if only because people have easier access to the means to harm others.

Salon (and I speak of her as a person, for the sake of discussion) assumes that the proliferation of armed citizens is a factor in firearms violence.  I think she's an illiterate dork who doesn't understand the problems of inner-cities violence, where only the strong survive.
 (Or other violence, which needs no other excuse!)

Okay ... the most aggressive survive.

The fact is that people who legally carry a firearm (CHL, or "Concealed Handgun Licensees")  are NOT the progenitors of violence; they are, however, the persons who may be on the scene to counter illegal firearms aggression .... and they may be "there" before the police (who are often less-well trained than the CHL) arrive.

People who don't know about guns raise the question that, when cops show up at the scene of the shooting, they don't know which person with a gun is the "bad guy", and may end up shooting the "good guy".

This isn't a problem; the Good Guy is the one who lays down his firearm as soon as legitimate authority arrives. The good guys don't feel  that they are the equivalent of the police; they just  feel like the guy who plays his garden hose on a house fire until the firemen show up.

They're the Good Neighbor; they don't start the violence, they just want to stop it!
They are more than willing to yield the scene to (tardy) legitimate Law Enforcement Officers.

Good Neighbors just want all the 'bad stuff' to STOP!

Salon, and her friends who assume the worst of honest citizens, offer the suggestion that armed citizens are "A Problem".  

They're wrong

Good citizens care about their family, their friends and their neighbors.  The fact that they have made the exceedingly difficult decision to arm themselves isn't an indication that they are eager to shoot people; it just means that they have accepted the responsibility to protect themselves, their family, and (under the worst circumstances)  their neighbors. 

They may not even like their neighbors ... but are they still willing and able to protect them under the worst circumstances possible?
Think about it; do you like your neighbors enough to risk your life to save them?

And if you haven't decided to arm yourself to protect your family,
how comfortable are you when you decide to denigrate your neighbor because he or she is willing to lay down his or her life to protect your family?