There are a lot of good leads here and I see I have a lot of reading to do now.
Thank you very much for that.
Just to make sure you know what I mean by crimes of passion, let's look at a recent event posted all over the internet.
You probably have seen this fight on a bus between a street thug and the "Epic beard man"
Fist fights and heated arguments are not uncommon. this type of thing happens all the time in every city. But, how would this fight turn out if one or both sides were armed?
Does a man have the presence of mind to take a beating without drawing down on his opponent? After all, this type of incident may not merit the threat of lethal force. Or, suppose one side did draw a weapon to stop the fight. If the other side was armed, they might feel justified in drawing at that moment, having a gun aimed at them. At that point, both sides would have a real and credible lethal threat that they can use to justify lethal force.
I can see this sort of thing happening all the time, and all it takes is someone to upholster a weapon in response to a lesser threat to justify a lethal escalation. So I wonder who actually has the presence of mind to take a beating without prematurely escalating the force?
People are people, so I can imagine this type of thing happening quite a bit, but I can only guess at the frequency.
You only have to look at the 48 states that currently allow concealed carry as proof that this is not true at all. If it were true it would be happening; and it isn't. The mode of carry (open vs. concealed) has no effect on this scenario, only the fact that the weapons are there.
Personally, I am not a constitutional purist. I do not believe in our rights as an absolute, but that each right should be balanced according to a debatable level of safety, and to make sure one person's rights do not trample over another person's rights. For example, we have limits on the right of free speech. I can not slander someone or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.. etc.