If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:

I never said “political ends”. I was reasonably specific “fewer people dying in the long run”.

Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.

I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”. When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump’s case, he’s now literally the commander in chief of the US military.

I also want to point out that I don’t even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn’t that I simply want to “take out the trash” or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.