It isn't rare, and I wasn't really trying to explain it. I don't need to justify myself to you, thanks. Buh-bye.
Goshin:
I quoted you from this post rather than your OP because it is shorter, leaving me more room to blather on!
Fear, a climate of fear, a mind-set of fear, these are the issues you want discussed. But from which perspective? The POV of a person who opposes unfettered gun ownership and possession or the POV of a person who goes about armed in public with firearms out of choice because of the possibility of danger? Since I don't know exactly which you point of view you mean, I will deal with both. But before I do, some disclosure. I am not an anti-gun advocate nor an unfettered gun rights advocate, so I have a leg in each camp but also stand outside of each camp. I have owned longarms in the past but no longer do.
First the perspective of the anti-unfettered gun rights point of view. Those who own or possess guns can be very responsible or very irresponsible with most falling in the middle. Unfortunately it is often hard to figure out who is responsible and who is not, after just casual interaction. Therefore non-gun-owners reasonably fear the worst of anyone possessing a gun in a public space unless they know them well and know them to be responsible. Thus the carrying of either concealed or openly carried weapons in public spaces alarms folk, creating a climate of fear. That fear degrades the quality of life in the public spaces which creates antagonism between those who do not wish to carry guns in public spaces and those who do. This is not usually a problem if the person carrying the gun is in a publicly recognised and accepted uniform like an officer of the law or a member of the armed forces, unless a community has a history of distrust in such institutions. However private citizens wear no such uniforms and thus induce fear in the public if they are discovered to be armed. So a gun-owner's choice and right to be prepared for a worst case scenario is also the worst case scenario for an unarmed person, because they cannot suss out whether the gun-owners are responsible and competent or dangerous and inept. Your preparation is their fear.
The other perspective. The gun-owner who wants to be prepared for a worst case scenario and takes reasonable steps to do so will cause some alarm to those around the gun-owner but with prudence they can minimise that alarm. However there are gun-owners who parade about in public spaces with very intimidating military-style longarms, with large magezines and many clips of additional ammunition, overpowered sidearms, body armour and frankly silly but also alarming paramilitary uniforms. The behaviour of these yahoos does little to calm the fears that the unarmed public has for gun-owners including the responsible ones. So what may seem to you to be a reasonable precaution becomes an extraordinary provocation if the precautions are taken too far by a less responsible gun-owner. Thus your preparation, if taken too far, can alarm and distress others. Because you are preparing for the worst case scenario, others see you as living in fear and react to your preparations with their own fear. This creates a feedback loop which intensifies the fear to new heights on all sides of the gun rights vs. gun restrictions divide until the fear on all sides takes on an irrational life of its own.
My position is that the Second Amendment was originally written as a collective right to assure that the Federal Government could not infringe upon citizens' gun ownership rights as a back door to disarming state militias. Being a member of a well regulated state militia requires that gun owners not only have rights but responsibilities. The same men who crafted the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights also wrote legislation (Militia Acts) putting onerous responsibilities and obligations on citizens as perspective members of the state militias to present themselves, their firearms, their ammunition and their bladed weapons periodically and regularly for inspection and registration (counting, description and evaluation of serviceability). Thus the Second Amendment implies not only rights but also responsibilities for gun ownership. The 2008 SCOTUS decision protected the rights but severed many of the legitimate responsibilities of gun ownership in America and was a landmark and disasterous decision by that august body of jurists.
There is a need for responsible gun ownership and stricter controls on gun possession in America. Only then will the fear on both sides abate, hopefully to be replaced by respect and trust in members of a well regulated state militias and responsible certified gun owners.
Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.