I grew up in a household that abhorred guns and ‘gun culture’. As a child I was not even allowed to own a toy gun. My only experience with firearms was the shoot-them-ups on the boob tube. When I started working I spent some time in Arizona, which has allowed open carry for at least the last few decades.
It was shocking to go into a restaurant and see multiple individuals with a side arm that weren’t wearing uniforms. I will freely admit that this made me uncomfortable. What made me even more uncomfortable was being on the receiving end of multiple irate citizens when I was explaining what the future road system would look like for their area. These public involvement meetings are always (or nearly so) loud and confrontational. In Arizona, there were always at least a few folks with a gun on their hip during these sessions. I expressed my concern to our client, a public agency in the area, and was told that I didn’t need to worry about it, the most I would receive was what I had come to expect in other parts of the country–getting shouted at and told I was evil… 
After a while it sunk in that these folks were not going to call me out for a duel, or shoot me if they didn’t agree with me (which they most assuredly didn’t). In other words my fears and concerns were based not on reality, but my emotional responses. Emotional responses driven by a lack of experience and knowledge. The same arguments get pulled off the shelf every time a state has passed a more permissive gun law. A couple of decades ago when Texas was considering CHL, we heard frequent use of the argument that “something bad could transpire”, that folks would have duels over road rage. The fact is that such behavior is as rare now as it was before the passage of the new laws.
There is a real problem with letting one groups perceived problems drive our rule making. Since these problems only exist as perceptions in the mind of our members; where do we draw the line? For instance if we have members (and we almost certainly do) who are made uncomfortable by the presence of Muslims, homosexuals, children, Republicans, Lawyers (my personal one ), etc… do we need rules to make these people more comfortable?
I say no, because we already have a rule that applies, and it applies to both sides in every case. “Be excellent” to one another. That translates to is your being a Republican bothers somebody, then trry to avoid them. And if your the one being bothered, you to have an obligation to ‘live and let live’. Just because Republican’s make you uncomfortable, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow them in the space.
Yes that last example is a bit comical, but it illustrates the problem. Do we really want to be passing rules to accommodate members concerns based not upon objective problems (which haven’t occurred yet) but rather upon emotionally driven prejudices and perceptions?
Finally, if we had a member or group of members who chose to have one of these televised ‘gun rights’ events at the space, we already have a means of dealing with that. We ask them to leave. We don’t need a rule or policy on guns to address it. In much the same way that we have asked members who have caused conflicts/drama in the past to 'go home and cool off" for a while we can do so the first time here as well. Only IF this becomes a regular pattern should we be considering a rule to deal with it at all.