Or carrying concealed could be allowed there too. Scanners didn't stop this.

Depends if the French are as disposed to shooting each other as Americans are. Over 10,000 Americans are killed by gun violence every year. This is excluding ~19,000 firearm suicides. Since 9/11, the number of U.S. citizens killed in terrorist attacks each year has never surpassed 75.

According to bjs.gov (Bureau of Justice Statistics), it's been around 11-12,000 gun homicides in recent years, down from around 16,000 a few years ago. Over half of those are black-on-black shootings, mainly gang related.

If you control for these gangland shootings, the per capita rate in the U.S. is about the same as Western Europe and Canada.

The U.S. has a socio-economic problem in the ghetto areas, not a gun problem per se, unless you want to argue that it's too easy for gangbangers to obtain guns.

Law abiding citizens with guns aren't doing most of the shootings. Suicides, that's a different story.

I suspect law abiding black citizens in gangland ghettos aren't doing most of the shootings either. What you've done here is to subdivide the whole American population into a group of "not many shooters" and "Higher proportion of shooters". Of course you can always do that, and always find a more specific group that dominates the statistics for any type of crime. But there's a worrying implication that we should somehow allow non-gang members to have guns but ban them from gang members. Or allow people in rich neighborhoods to have guns but ban them from ghettos. Or even, dare I say it, ban them from black people.

Really we need to ban guns from shooters. But there's no way to identify them without catching a lot of harmless people up in the same net. Even poor black gang members can be harmless.

"Or allow people in rich neighborhoods to have guns but ban them from ghettos."

You have articulated the opposite of what self defense proponents want. Here in AZ proponents of humans being able to defend themselves got a recent (partial) win with United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Talking large groups of people hostage is logistically extremely difficult when even a few % are armed.

And to those who say "they will use bombs instead of attacking armed people"... Should bombs be banned too?

If those gang bangers are felons, it's already banned.

It's also illegal to murder someone, yet that doesn't seem to stop those that commit said crime.

So citizens carrying guns doesn't stop, or even reduce, the level of crime. The only impact on society is gang warfare and more effective suicides. That sounds like good evidence to ban guns to me - the benefit (fewer deaths) would far outweigh the cost (freedom to own a gun that evidently doesn't protect you from crime).