During incidents like this, “introducing” a firearm is a step to defend your life and life of another.
I would not bet my life, or the life of my family, that the enraged doofus coming at me was unarmed.
And, ala George Zimmerman, are you willing to bet your life that the enraged doofus wasn’t going to beat and kick you to death?
Are you willing to bet your life and the life of your family the enraged doofus, after killing you or knocking you senseless, would not do the same to your family?
That is why we have concealed carry—for the lawful person to defend themselves and their families.
“No gun, and there is a fistfight and maybe some relatively minor injuries.”
Like this is some sort of junior high school-yard fistfight? And like I said before, you want to bet your life that all that is going to happen is a “minor” injury?
“Add a gun, for either person, and a struggle immediately becomes a matter of life and death, since whoever doesn’t have control of the gun is likely to die.”
Good for George Zimmerman and countless others that have saved their life or the life of another by using a firearm responsibly.
We also do not "know" that Zimmerman used his firearm responsibly, though the MSM version of events doesn't seem very likely to be the truth.
Let's look at it the other way. What about if the other (now dead) guy had also got out of his car with a gun, and he won the gunfight? Would he have "acted responsibly?" Did he not have reasonable cause for fearing his life was in danger? Doesn't that bring the issue of moral culpability down to a matter of luck and/or skill, neither of which has anything at all to do with right or wrong?
In other words, if two guys get into an armed fight, should the survivor be automatically assumed to have acted in legal self defense? If so, then I guess dueling is legal again.
That is not actually the case, even in Florida. The aggressor cannot claim self-defense, even if the "victim" is armed or if he had genuine reason to fear for his life at the time he pulled the trigger. May not be 1st degree murder, but he definitely shouldn't walk.
My point is that distinguishing between perpetrator and victim is not always easy to do. As you would know if you'd ever seen a barfight escalate.