You are a reincarnation of Shakespere, and just using the modern colloquialisms as he did his!
To take your last point first, because I suspect this is an important part of your not understanding.
If /you/ feel that you could not kill someone, whatever the provocation, that is your feeling (and I feel an admirable position, Ghandi for example was another who felt the same way). I would certainly not try to persuade you to feel any differently, and I hope (and if it is ever up to me, try to ensure) that you are never put in that position.
So for you to hold it as an absolute is fine, is wonderful, is a Good Thing. Please don't change (unless you want to!).
The other points...
Ooh, you've caught me. Because I said elsewhere that "pre-emptive attack" is wrong, and a gun could be taken as that used in defense (because the defender obviously isn't dead yet). I don't think that applies, though, if someone is clearly aleady shooting at me (or mine) and just hasn't hit yet. In that condition, remember that a gun is a distance weapon. You interpret that as meaning that it can't be used for defence. I disagree. In order to take out someone using a distance weapon against which you can't use a passive defence (because it isn't possible to armour every part of the body, even mediaeval knights found that -- and even modern armour is not unpierceable) the only way is to use another distance weapon.
Oh, and on your "oh well, it was the only thing I could do, so I was obviously right to do it." Justified is not the same thing as 'right'. Under Old Testament laws I would be justified if someone hit me and I hit them hack ("an eye for an eye"), but even at that time it was considered more 'right' to not retaliate. Because fighting is never "the only thing [one] can do", it is a choice to do it or not. Perhaps if you don't fight back the attacker will stop, perhaps he will kill you, but that's his choice.
no subject
To take your last point first, because I suspect this is an important part of your not understanding.
If /you/ feel that you could not kill someone, whatever the provocation, that is your feeling (and I feel an admirable position, Ghandi for example was another who felt the same way). I would certainly not try to persuade you to feel any differently, and I hope (and if it is ever up to me, try to ensure) that you are never put in that position.
So for you to hold it as an absolute is fine, is wonderful, is a Good Thing. Please don't change (unless you want to!).
The other points...
Ooh, you've caught me. Because I said elsewhere that "pre-emptive attack" is wrong, and a gun could be taken as that used in defense (because the defender obviously isn't dead yet). I don't think that applies, though, if someone is clearly aleady shooting at me (or mine) and just hasn't hit yet. In that condition, remember that a gun is a distance weapon. You interpret that as meaning that it can't be used for defence. I disagree. In order to take out someone using a distance weapon against which you can't use a passive defence (because it isn't possible to armour every part of the body, even mediaeval knights found that -- and even modern armour is not unpierceable) the only way is to use another distance weapon.
Oh, and on your "oh well, it was the only thing I could do, so I was obviously right to do it." Justified is not the same thing as 'right'. Under Old Testament laws I would be justified if someone hit me and I hit them hack ("an eye for an eye"), but even at that time it was considered more 'right' to not retaliate. Because fighting is never "the only thing [one] can do", it is a choice to do it or not. Perhaps if you don't fight back the attacker will stop, perhaps he will kill you, but that's his choice.