If violence is ubiquitous among homo saps then protection against it must be ubiquitous too. Except it isn't. Why?

Not all homo saps have or believe in "protection" if by that it means owning and using guns.

They are subjected to the same potential for violence as the guns yet feel more revulsion for the gun than they do for being without one. THE WAY OF THE GUN is absolute among the guns. Eschewing a gun is absolute among the nonguns. What do they have in common elsewise otherwise? Not much.