Add to the list spinal stenosis, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, and tendonitis.
Im not discounting any of the above issues mentioned, simply pointing out, that for many, "the gun" is the extent of their repertoire, injuries/disabilities aside.
There is that mentality, that many gun people seem to have. Just look at all the arguments over caliber and type. Its as if that "tool" is the solution to all their problems. What happens if you need to initially deal with the situation at hand, by hand, simply to get to your gun?
The proper response to that knife attack, may well be to initially move in "towards" the threat, and control the weapon/deflect the attack, and then back off to go for your gun, than it would be to try and draw against the attack, especially one thats already to close (what happened in Boston last night for example). People who are not, or havent been "combative", tend to shy away and act "defensively", rather than be aggressive, when aggression is in fact the proper response. Then again, you tend to get that from hands on training, or at least, experience.
There is something to the old saying. "I'm too young to die-but-I'm too old to take an A$$ whooping".
I know where youre coming from there. Ill hit 60 at the end of this year, and fully understand the logic. If for nothing than to take advantage of the age issue if something were to go wrong.
Ive always lived a pretty active lifestyle, and remained in pretty good shape over the years. Im actually in a lot better shape than many half my age here. Doing so is simply a choice, and many these days, seem to not choose it.
As you mentioned, Im paying for some of the indiscretions of my past, my body has endured, but Im convinced, staying fit, has alleviated a lot of that, and what Ive seen some of my friends who didnt, have, or are now going through. Again, its a lifestyle choice we all have to make, if it wasnt already made for us.
Choosing to stay fit, and in some cases, moderate some things, makes a big difference towards the later part of our lives. I am convinced of that now. That said, I could well drop dead from a heart attack tomorrow, but thats a whole different story, and Ill at least look good on the table at the morgue.
A dangerous perspective, and really not helpful. OldMarksman addressed this, but it bears repeating.
You may be legally justified in using lethal force to defend yourself from an imminent, lethal threat. If the threat ends and you take the offensive, you will have lost your legal protection. Jerome Ersland is an example of someone who didn't understand that and is now serving a life sentence for murder.
I understand your thoughts on this, I just think my thoughts here are being somewhat misunderstood here.
Once the attack starts, the person being attacked, short of gaining a solid defensive position that can be reasonably defended, gains nothing, by being defensive in nature. They should gather all their aggression and put the attacker on the defensive, to the point its either ended, or they break off the attack. At the later point, youre right, you need to break off as well.
I do think its a mistake, to put the worry of the "law", and any hesitation it might bring into your head, ahead of your life, when it comes to a response though. You need to have resolved that ahead of time, or at least consider it, but once it starts, winning should be your only goal. This "everyone wins" mentality being taught in the schools these days, has no place here. First and foremost, Im going to do my very best, to make sure the other guy loses.