Rethinking It

This is a carry over from Vox’s. Where I said:

“Winston believes that non gun owners rely on gun owners to provide their safety since they expect men with guns to come and help them out if the situation arises. Thus they are dependent on the provision of others for a basic human need, ie parasites.”

I do believe it is the right and duty of the individual to provide for their safety and security. I do not recant that basic premise. However, I have to reconsider my conclusion. Thimscool raised good points that deserve consideration. My summation of these points:

1. Gun ownership isn’t the sole means of securing ones safety.
2. Paying taxes for police and military protection, isn’t parasitical.

I concede point one. A person is able to take steeps to ensure their safety and not own a firearm. Firearm ownership is (from my point of view) the best, last line of defense but the lack of a gun doesn’t prove the individual unable or unwilling to provide for their safety.

I am forced to concede point two as well. I don’t believe you can count on the police or armed forces to take care of this need for you. In fact under our system of government and law; neither group can be held accountable for not taking care of you, even if the circumstance in which you find yourself is one in which it is their job to address.

Unfortunately for me in this debate my belief, however well founded, doesn’t change the intent of the protectee. The intent of the protectee is to trade money in exchange for the assistance of the protector. One cannot be a willing party to an exchange and be a parasite. In the case of a trade, one party is exchanging something of value in order to obtain something of value; therefore they are not a freeloader.

I’m wrong about a non-gun owner being an automatic parasite.