Everyone has the capacity to commit violence under the right circumstances. Anyone who says they won't kill in order to immediately save their own lives is sorely fooling themselves. Survival always has been and always will be the first instinct.

I do believe we should work for peace and to "change the way people think", I also believe that in the lack of an immediate, universal solution people should be able to protect themselves from those who do not subscribe to the peace in our time philosophy. In the end, Ghandi's non-violence made him a martyr. His death did not bring about change, and there's been more violence in the world since then, with no end in site. He would would have lived a lot longer if he'd had an armed bodyguard.

Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article regarding Ghandi's application of non-violence during WWII: Article

"Sometimes his prescription of extreme non-violence was severely at odds with the prevailing view of a situation. In 1940, he wrote an open letter to the British people in which he offered them the following plan of action for the second world war:

"I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty's government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal." (From Stanley Wolpert's "Jinnah of Pakistan.")"

So in other words, in order for non-violence to be satisfied we must all submit to horrible violence...is there not a contradiction here??