Excelent videos, I've asked for more details about how this sort of thing would actually work before.
On video 2 of the series. What happens when a firm is hired because it has a bad reputation, not everyone is nice ans such a firm could make a lot of profit protecting criminals.
Also, how to prevent this decending into everyone owns a gun american redneck like society.
On your first point: this requires the assumption that people generally want what's best for themselves, which does not include support for those who do not have their best intentions in mind. If a firm can operate as a haven for criminals, this would imply other firms are accepting this firm as legitimate, which would go against what its own customers would want; their only existence is for protection against crime, and thus, if all firms accepted this criminal-haven firm, then people leave these firms en masse and some start their own firms; however, this is an unlikely scenario, as nobody operates a business to lose money. What's more likely to happen, so long as people with bad intent do not encompass the majority of a society, is the firm which protects the minority of criminals cannot draw enough cash to overpower the firms which protect the majority of good-natured people. So, the criminals which use the corrupt firm lose in the end anyway, give up the firm since it's not protecting them, subject themselves to the firms the good-natured majority is using (or don't pay for any firm at all, which may be worse), and thus, the firms which protect criminal behavior fail. This is all under the assumption most people are good-natured; in a society of criminals, the opposite happens. Fortunately, at least as much as I can tell, most of us never intend to live a life of crime. It's similar to a democracy, in a way, except there's no central law-creation entity which is above that law, but several law-creation entities subject to each other's law and at the mercy of its clients.
On your second point: this all depends on the particular society in question. If people generally want guns, they'll get them. If people generally don't want guns, they'll not get them. If you're the type of person who does not like weaponry, you should not be subject to have one; however, to uphold your right to choose on this matter, it is imperative that the person who does want weaponry also be allowed to have his, and not be subject to a ban. In any case, even in America, most homes do not have guns (although the homes that do will, on average, have a lot of them.) Being a Texan, where I assume the rednecks are, I can say it's pretty much like anywhere else in the west; the vast majority of people are unarmed while in public, and if anyone is carrying concealed handguns, I've never seen one pulled personally.