State endorsed violence

I'm not talking about war or contact sports. I read this CNN article about a bill recently passed by the North Carolina legislature (overwhelmingly evidently) that would (1) require the courts to provide abused spouses with information on how to obtain a permit for a concealed firearm and (2) add protective orders to the list of things a Sheriff should consider in granting a waiver of the 90-day waiting period.

Basically, the North Carolina government is saying to abused spouses, our system is inadequate to protect you, so you are entitled to carry lethal force with you at all times. The gun rights advocates that pushed the bill say they're interested only in giving the message that abused spouses are able to protect themselves "when police can't protect [them.]" I don't care what nuance gun rights advocates slather on this bill, the average person that hears the court say, "We're required to tell you how to apply for a concealed firearm," will draw very different conclusions. They will hear a figure of authority saying, in essence, a gun is the preferred method of dispute resolution because the legal system doesn't work.

Besides the adverse psychological impact of the state endorsing gun ownership as a dispute resolution instrument, advocating gun-toting among people who (a) are in highly-charged and emotionally-stressful situations, (b) have already been subject to violence, and (c) have a specific human target already in mind is colossally stupid.