longbough

Of course you don't use recreational drugs, since you're a law abiding citizen - but the people who continue to use them to the point of personal destruction have no problem obtaining them.

In an analogous scenario with guns - the law abiding citizens like yourself and me will have no weapons - similarly it will be the criminals who fuel the black market - just as they do with recreational substances of abuse. And there is no reason to suspect that the ability to stop illegal gun trafficking would be dramatically different from our current ability to stop the trafficking of illegal drugs.

If this were the case I wouldn't be as passionately concerned. But laws of this type rarely work in the other direction. I and many others believe an increase in violent crime will be, paradoxically, interpreted as a rationale for applying even more strict control measures. Take a look at Washington D. C.

It's a no-win situation for law abiding gun-owners. If violent crime decreases - stronger laws will go into effect. If violent crime increases - stronger laws will go into effect.

I don't question the intent of legislation - I only question its methods.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I have had similar experiences - including an incident where I was randomly pulled off a San Francisco Muni Bus on 19th Avenue in broad daylight and beaten in the street by a 7-9 gang members. I was kicked and bludgeoned in the face and body - nobody, even the bus driver, did anything. The police eventually arrived and they fled - but not before I was beaten beyond recognition. I couldn't recognize my own face which was just a cut-up, swollen and bleeding mass of flesh to me. I had kept my mouth closed and teeth clenched so I wouldn't bite off my own tongue while being hit. I said nothing through the whole assault and just kept covered and curled up as I was kicked and hit. 19th Avenue is not a bad neighborhood at all - it's a wide open place full of activity. They had no reason to attack me, not for money or for anything - it was entirely random - and it's pointless to try and make sense out of it. I have no doubt that I would have had more permanent injury if the police hadn't arrived because the beating just kept escalating. I was lucky that the police arrived - but is luck something I have to depend on in the future?

If I got into a car accident and was lucky enough to escape unharmed even though I didn't have my seatbelt on - I'd be a fool to keep driving without a seatbelt.

I understand the principle of "violence begets violence." Like yourself I have studied martial arts since I was young. I have studied TKD, Choi Le Fut and Shin Moo Hapkido for years - mostly for personal interest. Understanding and mastering my personal space through martial arts just gives me the peace of mind to know I have nothing to prove through confrontation.

It is "uncertainty" that creates nervous and provocative "energies" that stimulate adverse confrontation. Martial arts, for me, is a remedy for "uncertainty" and has empowered me to actually diffuse several confrontations before they escalated to violence by maintaining a peaceful "aura." This is a real phenomenon and, as a martial artist yourself, I presume you know what I'm talking about.

In other cases, my training allows me more aware of my surroundings and to avoid situations before they happen. If something doesn't feel right I have no problem changing my walking route or stepping aside to where I'd be farther away from potential danger.

But the utility of a firearm has nothing to do with emotion or anger. It is something I regard in scenarios like the ones I described in my last post. (for brevity I won't repeat them)
It's not an "either-or" situation. I'd like to think I'm doing both.
I'm a physician and I can say my interpersonal skills are excellent. Many patients - even sociopathic ones trust me as someone sincerely interested in their wellbeing. But empathy and social activity doesn't require that I surrender my abilty to protect myself. The use of deadly force does not detract from my social responsibilities to make the world a better place.

It might surprise most people to know that every major Emergency Department has a firearm available for the physicians in case of emergency. That option is very rarely even considered but it is within reach. It makes sense since hospital security is not armed nor do they even posess the authority to physically restrain or assault in the vast majority of circumstances - and police officers (in most EDs) aren't immediately available.

Well, I consider my position similar to that of the ED. It's not an ethical dilemma to have a gun available to ED physicians - nor is it and ethical dilemma for me to both work towards prevention and to be prepared for the worst type of encounter.

I appreciate the candor.
I'm sure you're quite capable of defending the ones you love or yourself with the materials at hand if the situation arises - but the majority of victims aren't physically capable of confronting another person - let alone a violent criminal.

And, as physically prepared as I might be, I can't say with confidence that I can reliably disarm an opponent weilding a knife on a consistent basis - or even the majority of the time - I don't know of a single martial artist at any level who could make that boast.

While the characterization of "super rare" is debatable. It just has to happen once in your life or in the life of a loved one.
-----

I'd like you to consider another type of crime - that is, rape.

I have treated rape victims when I used to work in the Emergency Department on the east coast. Just about every one of them wished to forget about the incident and move on with their lives. Every habitual rapist is aware of that - and it works in their favor. It shouldn't surprise you to know that the vast majority of rape cases will never get reported or recorded in the statistics.

I have yet to know of a single rapist caught who didn't have a history of multiple rapes that were never reported.

In cases of rape, the term "just give him what he wants" doesn't make much sense to me. As a male the fear of being sexually harrassed or assaulted is foreign to me - but I know many women who are forced to consider that possibility every time they enter an unfamiliar place or situation.

My stomach turns when I think of sexual offenses committed against women (who remain in the majority). If I were a woman I would be even more passionate about my right to own and carry a firearm.