As usual, I'm a bit late to affairs, but that's no reason to hold back. Mike W. really batted one out of the park the other day with this posting on why, more than many others, the physically challenged need firearms as a self-defense tool.
This weekend I was reminded of this when faced with an aggressive and bellowing college age kid as I was headed into a store. While all turned out well (I simply ignored him and kept on moving), it did remind me of why I feel a particular need to carry - if it comes to getting all physical with someone half my age (or strung out on drugs, or...take a choice...), I'm going to lose with serious injury or death on the table as my rewards for my failure to triumph.
So yes, once the kid started his tantrum, hand was firmly affixed upon Spyderco and my awareness was notably heightened. And I was moving swiftly towards the store, with the notion that crowds can calm idiots. But I'd already figured out that "fighting fair" wasn't part of *any* rational plan.
I'm in my mid-40's, have asthma, and a bum shoulder. Running away or "fighting fair" simply aren't really valid options for me. Others have it better, some have it worse. I have a hard time considering myself disabled, but I know that there are games that I simply can't play. Call that what you will, YMMV.
But Mike W. said it well - "The practical application of such statements would leave the disabled without recourse, as if they were expendable, no more than food for the wolves. Anti-gunners, who will talk about "morals," "compassion," "human rights" etc. are full of shit. Telling the most vulnerable among us that they must walk amongst the wolves without the benefit of an egalitarian, equalizing tool is the antithesis of morality, compassion, or human rights."
Read the whole post. It's worth thinking about, and a point worth mentioning when dealing with the hoplophobic or testifying before a legislative body.