Violence is an attribute of the weak.

Violence and using force are for the weak. I have noticed that when I have a problem I want to resolve, I can almost always use violence and brute force to achieve this end. Now, this may create more problems in getting to the desired solution but no one is to say that I won't be using violence to climb these newly created rungs of the problematic ladder. Maybe I successfully do climb this ladder to the very top, maybe I don't. But in any case, my focus today is not on the violence but on me, or any person for that matter, that uses violence to achieve his or her ends.

Basic violent thinking is "I create BANG....I get attention, I get what I need." How can you call this way of getting attention and realizing your ends weak? I call this weak because it is an easier way that might be favorable for one, but is harmful to many. This way is tried as a substitute to the other way where you don't really see the result in the near future, but you don't see immediate and moral harm to humanity as well. It is a difficult feat to accomplish. A weak person is easily apprehended. In this case, he is scared of the fact that he does not have an immediate result. A weak person lacks confidence in himself. In this case, he is inconfident of his capability of achieving the result that might not be immediate.

For example, I want to create my own traffic signal system that I see more sense in than any other. I am a powerful personality that has almost unlimited access. I decide to start my system in the new island that I have secretly discovered. Now the island already has a democracy, so I need to convince the majority that my system works better than whatever they have. I get about 90% resentment since they are unwilling to change their customs. Me and my 10% clearly see that ignorance is holding people back from seeing what I see. I tell myself, "If only they could see what my new system can bring to them...." I have two options here: Either I can shoot some of them down and apprehend a society unwilling to accept, or I can try to keep persuading them and finding more ways to make them see sense.

If I used the gun, they would accept my system almost immediately (considering I am more powerful than any force on their island) and would then see the sense I was talking about. But the sense would come at a cost of the human beings that were shot down in the beginning, and this would be a permanent dent in my effort that will never be repaired (You can't bring back dead people to life). When I try to use the other way, I see little, if any progress for the next year. But I know what I believe in is correct, and if implemented, it will work towards the greater good without any moral disobedience or dents. So I decide to find ways to get support by small scale demonstrations and such. I am now about 85 years old and on my deathbed and still the persuasion exists. There is little visible change in the traffic system as I say my final goodbye. But whatever little progress I made does pay off in the long run and the traffic system changes. And the society realizes what it should've realized 100 years ago.

In both cases, I am working towards what I believe is right. When I use force to impose this belief, I am not strong enough, or not capable enough to solve the problem without killing or hurting my own kind. If I die without seeing results, I would be incapable of making the society realize something good instantly. In either case, I would be weak in one way or the other, right?

Not really. The first alternative resulted in death of a human being. This would mean I was weak as I was not able to respect an individual's basic right to live against the power of a gun. Also, the fact that I decided to kill a particular human being over another is not justified. Considering the killing was meant for the future betterment of the society as a whole, why did person A have to die in particular over B? There is no sure answer. There is no justification. You are weak because you will be unable to explain the widow why she in particular had to become the widow against her will.

For the second case, I have not inflicted direct harm on the society. Yes, a lot more people died due to the bad traffic system that I was unable to change compared to the few that would've died if I were to pull the trigger a couple times in the beginning. But I am not directly responsible for this loss. I was strong enough to respect the right of an individual human being over the power that I had at my disposal. What happened to the society was a result of the decision of the society. It was in my hands to try to convince them while respecting their individual rights which I did.

There are other points at which it can be further reinforced that a violent action is a weak action but I will hold off on formulating this any further since it is 0442 and the fact that long walls of text are usually not very much appreciated.