Doubt that to be honest. In theory maybe, but in a real life scenario I don't think there are many people who let themself (and their loved ones) to be killed than to kill. Even though I have a lot of respect for Ghandi, I am not sure if I could respect someone who would let his family murdered, out of a moral point.

Here's how I see it: I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions. I'm going to be held accountable for my actions. I'm not going to plan ahead to make it easier to kill someone in some as-yet hypothetical self-defense scenario.

"I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions"

I agree, you are not. You are responsible for your own actions. So if you choose a life of non-violence - that is allright and it allways depends on the real situation, so I am not saying you should buy a gun. Because there is also this old proverb "Live by the sword, die by the sword" meaning I guess you also think that the more someone spends energy with something - like preparing to shoot someone for self-defense - the more likely it is, that he will have to do it at some point, so you just completely refuse it. Well, there is some truth to it, but on the other hand - I for example train martial arts since I am young, but I never had to use it for real - even though there were many situations where I was glad, that I could - I never had to back off in critical situations. The knowledge that I could probably beat the aggressor, gave me the confidence to defuse the situtation calmly.

My point is, you should be aware, that there are indeed many bad persons around and if you choose the path of non-violence than you will have to rely on other people to protect you. And even if you never encountered violence, than this will just mean that those protectors (usually police) did allready a good job of keeping the violence away from you.

Do you think that safety is possible without funding police, justice systems, defense, etc.?

Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?

Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them?

How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place?

You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.

If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends).

My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead?

http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

The answer can be both or neither, or an variable amount of "to approach an (as in 'one possible') answer let's get a whole lot more specific"

That is the essence or morality (at least to me).

Very interesting link, thanks for sharing! :)

Yes.

What about your children?