Not at all.War and killing is a part of life with death.Soldiers...

Not at all.

War and killing is a part of life with death.

Soldiers get trained to kill for a reason no questions asked.

Killing people is part of the choices for humans, it is a market option .

Some people will kill and are happy to do so and deal with the consequences even where it is death themselves.

The trouble is with some like yourself too disconnected to see the reality, embrace it and manage the circumstance.

For example, a politician elected would have to consider they could be killed as part of the role.

Lets compare the reality of the situation.

A soldier kills 50 in VIetnam, Port Arthur massacre, the swedish massacre on the island, and Hiroshima, and the USA school massacres.

Now, Hiroshama had a lot more killed. Port Arthur person and the Swedish guy were jailed and the school massacres culprits were jailed and if they did not kill themselves. But those in the army are off scot free if for the right reasons.

So objectively speaking, killing is not the issue, the reason for killing is presumably

If we looked at this objectively if Byrant killed a heap of people that were going to be killed by somebody else if they were on death row to be killed one minute later by another person would there be a problem? It is interesting some victims kill themselves in recent web articles of massacres out of guilt they did not die.

So I think we can agree, generally speaking, the issue for society in general seems to be not the killing but the reason for killing in terms of social acceptance and law and order. May kids kill bugs and what not as they grow up and do not go to jail. Law of the jungle kicks in.

Now in this regard, I seriously doubt there could not be one person who felt justfiably able to kill May at an opportune time to make the point of ignoring the will of millions of people. This one or more person may be happy to accept death on principle and action as well based on their believe system and reason for living, purpose etc... The question is, is that reason more acceptable to the social palate than the Port Arthur massacre, school massacre or Hiroshima? Either way, it may be irrelevant if that persons view at that point in time is such they are prepared to carry the task out and prepared to accept death after the event even by suicide, presumably as others have, because they feel the end justifies the mean presumably. Now most people will think killing school children never justifies any end and they could not even contemplate what the end or principle was. What would society think if May was taken out???

I was speaking to a friend not long after Steve Irwin was killed and we sort of accepted it was not unexpected given the risks he took whether accidental death was justifiable or not it certainly was a wake up call for those wanting to take certain risks of the possible consequences for doing so. Natural law is based on science and physics, this reality cannot be ignored to maintain environmental harmony!!