Since we seem to be dwelling on this dynamic of how we justify our reactions(or over-reactions) to perceived aggression, I'd like to dig deeper on this subject.
My root philosophy:
-If a man lacks the capacity for violence, he cannot choose non-violence. Because non-violence is his ONLY option.
-A strong and virtuous man has the capacity for violence, yet is very discriminatory in it's application.
As @Deleted User has said, training and experience are vital. By experiencing violence, in small doses in controlled environments(martial arts/sparring), we grow in our capacity to not be intimidated, to protect those close to us and to project our dominance when the situation calls for it.
In my view a virtuous man is:
1)Physically strong. This deters aggression from others, and increases your competency.
2)Martially skilled with his own body. ex. Martial arts, Grappling, striking etc..
3)Martially skilled with the tools of their time. This would means firearms.
