There's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Not everyone who carries concealed weapons is afraid.

Firstly, let me say that I am not defending Zimmerman. I believe as the evidence has come out his story is rapidly falling apart and it seems that he was likely not injured, or possibly even attacked, by Martin. There is very little testimony and/or evidence supporting Zimmerman's case at this point in time.

That said, I want to address your incorrect assumptions about people who carry concealed firearms.

Personally, I think that someone like Zimmerman, a scaredy cat, should be the last person carrying a firearm in public. Now before any right to carry defenders jump on on-board to counter my reasoning, first we all have to admit that it's quite clear that he didn't carry around his weapon to go hunting for game, or for practicing in the biathlon, or even as a nice accessory to his shoes… He carried that gun because he felt that he could find himself in a situation where he thought it'd necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them.

Pardon me, but I think that that's fucking ridiculous.

There ARE people who do walk around, carrying firearms, who could in the course of their business find it necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them… And I like to call these people "cops", "private security guards", "soldiers" and "criminals".

George Zimmerman, when I last checked, was not one of these people. That leaves one other definition that he could fit in; A Fucking Fraidy Cat.

This is a common theme for people against the concealed carry of firearms. That first, the only people who carry firearms are people who are "afraid", and second, that the only people who need to legitimately carry firearms are agents of the state.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not Zimmerman was "afraid". I have no idea what his mental state was, or how long he had been carrying a firearm, nor what his motivations were.

Most people who regularly carry firearms on their person, including police and soldiers, don't do it because they are perpetually "afraid". They do it to be prepared in case of emergency.

Now let's talk a minute about "afraid". Because when anti-gun people talk about people with guns being "afraid", they probably are talking about irrational fear. They want to paint the picture of gun owners as people trembling and timid about the world in an attempt to make them seem irrational.

Everyone makes decisions based on "fear". For example, most people have smoke detectors in their home out of the "fear" that their house might catch on fire one day. This doesn't mean that such people have an irrational fear of fires nor that they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about home fires. It's simply that there is a slight risk of fire and the risk of dying in such rare events is easily mitigated by having a smoke detector.

It's the same rationale that governs decisions about lots of things, from carbon monoxide detectors to fire extinguishers to spare tires to first-aid kits to insurance policies to seat belts. We buy all of these sorts of tools out of "fear".

But probably not the kind of fear that MrScorpio is insinuating. Not many people are probably quaking in fear every time they buckle up or buy life insurance.

It's the same thing for people who choose to carry firearms.

But then there is this notion that regular ordinary citizens should not be able to carry the tools necessary to defend themselves from violent crime. I myself think that is fucking ridiculous.

Agents of the state are almost never present during the commission of a crime. They almost always show up after the crime has already happened, to collect evidence, interview witnesses, and aid in the apprehension and prosecution of the criminal. Agents of the state carry firearms to protect themselves from violent harm. They almost never are available to use them to protect citizens from harm. And in fact, they have no legal obligation to do so anyway, unless you are in their custody.

Even having the gun would increase the danger to himself because it could be taken away from him and used against him. He knows this possibility because he's using it to smear Trayvon Martin. It's ridiculous that he didn't even consider the fact that carrying that weapon around in public could possible create the greatest danger to HIMSELF!

This is another common theme among anti-firearm folks. That having a gun is a waste of time because it could be used against you. Strangely the police continue to still carry firearms in spite of this possibility. The reason is simple: When presented with a violent encounter, most people would prefer to go into the encounter with the edge of having a weapon in their possession at the outset, even if there is a risk of losing the weapon during the encounter. It's better to start out with an advantage rather than start out on an equal footing.