Not to derail this thread, but one thing I never quite understood: my understanding from the family relatives & friends in law enforcement, is that when you’re armed you’re always acutely aware of the gun’s presence. It’s not like you ‘forget’ it’s there - and that yes, someone armed would be prone to draw their gun fairly quickly if they were in a stressful situation.
George Zimmerman says he was assaulted - head slammed on concrete sidewalk etc etc - and yet never once thinks to reach for his gun until he says that Martin saw the gun then started reaching for it. In fact, when Martin suddenly appears in front of him, he says his first reaction was to reach for…his cell phone.
As a gun owner and someone that walks around armed a good part of the time - does that make sense to you?
So, BrainGlutton used the phrase because he or she is referring to firing the weapon at someone, as opposed to at a firing range or hunting. He seems to be saying that carrying a weapon for self-defense means that the owner is subconsciously looking for an opportunity to have to use the weapon for self-defense. I think BrainGlutton is wrong, based on my own experiences, but his terminology doesn’t contitute weasel words: they have a clear definition that supports the meaning he or she’s trying to convey (that it, if I’m interpreting BG correctly).
‘in anger’ is an idiom just meaning ‘in earnest’, ‘for real’ or ‘for the intended purpose’ - for example; “It’s pissing down out there - but at least I got to use my new umbrella in anger”.
Nothing about that case makes sense. His actions were strange and from my perspective not how I would have handled the situation. When I am carrying, my spidey senses are definitely heightened as I don’t want to be in a situation where I may have to draw and fire. I know it sounds strange, but the last thing I want to do after holstering my firearm is to unholster it to defend myself. I prefer an exit stage right over a confrontation any day.
I’d like to think that most other carriers think the same way, but I really have no way to prove it.
I’m sure everyone is different, but I am not always acutely aware of the gun’s presence. Law enforcement probably has a different mentality, because their job, rather than happenstance, might force them into a situation where they must use their firearm. Also, (uniformed) law enforcement carries full-sized pistols in large belt holsters. I carry either a sub-compact automatic, or a snub-nose revolver. The difference in weight and size is dramatic.
The first week or so I carried concealed, I was keeny aware of it, making sure the holster wasn’t shifting around, that my shirt covered it, and such. After that, though, I hardly thought about it. It’s part of my routine when I leave the house to go out: keys, phone, wallet, pistol.
So, yes, Zimmerman’s account makes sense to me. I don’t know if I’d react the same way, but I wouldn’t bet against it either.
I don’t comport myself or act any differently, I don’t have the spidey-sense effect you describe. I was never prone to getting into dangerous situations, so that didn’t change. I fervently hope I can live my full life without ever pointing a firearm at another person, let alone shooting them, but that’s not entirely up to me. If I am confronted by an immediate threat to my life, I dearly want the capability to defend myself.
Law enforcement is generally carrying openly, and as Human Action has mentioned, they are carrying a large, heavy gun. You DO need to be constantly aware of your gun when you open carry, as every passerby can see it and someone might try to grab it. So police train for that constant awareness of “Where’s my weapon? Who’s near it right now?” (Police also carry in special retention holsters to help thwart the possibility of losing their gun, but even with retention holsters they still have to watch out for a gun grab.)
Most civilians with permits are carrying concealed. (Many states don’t even allow civilian open carry.) The guns used are generally lighter and smaller and are completely hidden by clothing, so constant awareness of the gun is not required. After a while it does feel just like wearing a pager or one of those large, old-fashioned cell phones: you’re occasionally aware of it when you move, but it’s not bothersome.
I’m not speaking to the truth of George Zimmerman’s statements, but that does in fact make some sense to me, as it’s been drilled into me that you can only lawfully draw your weapon when you think you’re going to need to use it - and that means you must feel that your life is in IMMEDIATE danger. So just because I spot someone coming my way who’s giving me the creeps, I’m not going to draw on him. I will try to get away from him (listening to that Spidey sense JXJohns mentioned), but until the person does something really threatening, like pulling a weapon on me, my pistol won’t leave its holster.
Agreed, I would never draw unless there was an immediate lethal threat, not the threat of a threat or the suspicion of one. Doing so in itself can be a crime, brandishing.
He who turns and runs away will live to run another day!
The only surefire way to win a fight is to not get into one in the first place. Retreating from a dicey situation when possible is hands-down ALWAYS the best option. (Spoken like the true coward that I am - but then, I’ve seen firsthand what various weapons can do to the human body. It’s not like the movies, not at all.)
Which is exactly the opposite of the picture portrayed by those against concealed carry. Predictions of mass bloodshed, road rage shootouts and other tragedies by permit holders just don’t happen. Locally that noise has changed from the bloody predictions to complaints that permit holders have not been stopping crime. They just don’t get it.