It's bizarre this is even considered, because this whole thread is filled with revenge fantasies about bullies. Why would you think the bully is just going to think "oh yes, zhuge omarion lionhearted is the superior fighter, I concede" like in some corny kung-fu movie? If you hurt a bully, they are just going to plot out how they are going to hurt you worse the next chance they get...

Finally, if violence is truly the answer, why not just go all-out Columbine from the beginning? There's no more bullying when the bully is dead. Then the problem is truly "solved," right?

It doesn't work like that. In practice, the bully will take the path of least resistance and pick on someone else. Which sucks for them, but the hierarchy has now shifted - the original victim has moved up, but the capability/social capital of the new lowest member of the group is still higher than theirs was. It doesn't take many iterations of this cycle before the bully will either meet their match or have a critical mass of the class openly against them.

This happened in my primary school, actually, the bully in this case was a kid who'd been held back from a higher year. Eventually simply no-one would talk to him. Problem solved.

yhe above simple logic and my own personal experience fighting back is what this is based on, not some corny Kung foo movie.

Don't put words into others mouths, its rude and unnecessary.

Re your going columbine troll, the response should be limited to what's required. Snd, obviously, violence is already the supreme authority and final resort in society - that's what police and the military are for.

Bullying isn't about you to the bully. Its about them, and picking on someone. The someone isn't that important, and when you become the someone who is more expensive to screw with, they leave you alone usually.

(And I think this sort of thing as an adult is stupid and a good way to go to jail, but at 10, it works fine).