There is a little-discussed parallel between the Zimmerman/Martin case and this one. That's the way the presence of a gun changes the dynamic of the situation.
In the Z/M case, Zimmerman believed Martin was trying to get the gun away from him. Once he succeeded, Zimmerman, quite reasonably, assumed he would use the gun on him.
Meanwhile, Martin, presumably, once he saw the gun believed he had no choice but to try to get it away before it was used on him.
So at the moment of the final struggle, each person believed, probably correctly, that his only chance to survive was to use the weapon on the other.
So the presence of that weapon turned what might have been a fistfight into a life or death struggle where each person believed he had no choice but to incapacitate or kill the other.
Same in the Wilson/Brown case. The major reason Wilson "had" to shoot Brown was the possibility Brown would get his gun away from him and use it on him.
Had Wilson or Zimmerman not been armed, the dynamics of the situation would have been entirely different. The stakes for either party would not have been ultimate, so there would have been some possibility of de-escalation. With the guns, that possibility wasn't there.
Absent the guns, either situation could still have wound up with Wilson or Zimmerman dead, but the chance would have been considerably reduced.
Guns are highly efficient ways of killing people. Which is why we carry them. But their mere presence by definition turns every encounter into one of life or death.
That is, IMO, one of the unintended consequences of carrying a weapon for protection.
I fully support 2A rights, but as with every other right, when exercised it may have negative side effects. I think this inherent escalation of the stakes in a dispute is one of the negative side effects of going about armed.
Well said.