Depending on Others for Protection
by Oleg Volk
Since some division of labor is necessary, some people choose to delegate the task of assuring personal safety to others. Such view is akin to saying: "I won't brush my teeth. That's what my dentist is for."
When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence." Right.
Sometimes avoiding a criminal attack is not possible. Fortunately, elementary precautions enable us not to become helpless victims of such attacks. Consider being armed a form of immunization.
In the event that you do manage to ask for help, your savior may be too long in coming. When the source of danger is right next to you and the police cruiser starts from ten miles away, it isn't likely that the cops would do more than take in evidence. Counting on your neighbors is far from certain, either. Kitty Genovese and many others have learned the hard way that bystanders dislike getting involved in confrontations between strangers.
Police officers know that they cannot protect us at all times. That is why most of them recommend that people get the training and the tools for protecting their own lives.
You do have a first aid kit in the house, don't you?
Reasonable people have smoke alarms, wear seat belts, buy insurance. They plan against the eventualities of life. No one looks forward to calamities, even if they would validate the necessity of the preparations. Likewise, people who get arms and training wish to avoid situations in which they would become necessary.
Some people wouldn't pick up arms to defend themselves even if presented with such a choice in the hour of need. They do not wish to use force because they feel that it makes them into barbarians just like the attackers. In my view, they are missing the difference between initiation of violence and using force to stop violence.
Some of the people who would be willing to perish rather than fight change their minds when the lives of other innocents are at stake. Parents have an obligation to their children, spouses and friends to each other. Yet efforts to protect family members are likely to fail if the protectors have neither tools nor training with which to save lives.
Some say: "I would not use a weapon even to protect my family." These same people have no problem with calling in police officers who carry guns; and who would shoot criminals to terminate attacks against innocent people. For some reason, they have no objection to deadly force so long as it is used by a uniformed agent of the state.
How many times have you heard: "If accosted by criminals, give them what they want and be a good witness"? Do you think you can be an observant, impassive witness if your family or friends are under attack? Wouldn't you rather have an option to render assistance?
Ironically, some people who loudly proclaim their self-sufficiency deliberately avoid being able to protect themselves. They regard that ability as a trait peculiar to their oppressors, weapons as a hallmark of uncivilized savages. Some even state that they consider being a mangled, abused corpse a more dignified state than resisting with a gun. Do you think that is a logical position?
Giving up, surrendering to evil is not a guarantee of safety. On the contrary, it encourages criminals to attack again. It is like throwing hamburger into shark-infested waters: conditioning predators to expect easy pickings at your expense.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/dependonothers.html.
