> Don't go there.
Which is it? Discuss or don't go there.
Sure violence is "a problem" - it is also a symptom that something is wrong in the context which created it. With the conflation of "reasonable" and "non criminal", or "non reasonable" and "criminal", you went into bad waters.
> cowardly down-voter
You have to understand that we sometimes downvote and then go composing instead of "I'll compose now and downvote later", for practical reasons. So, while potentially unnerving (especially from the frequentistic expectation in a forum full of snipers), you have to give it some time.
My core objection you received almost immediately.
> Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power
That sounds like something taken straight out of a 'progressive' party program.
If anything those groups receive preferential treatment, at least where I live (Sweden, Europe). State subsidies, positive discrimination, hiring quotas, publicly funded facilities and festivals and more. Far above average representation in public media and culture.
> All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.
'harm' is also a word often seen in 'progressive' discourse where it seems to serve the purpose of enabling those who use it to equate minor inconveniences like dirty looks to physical and (in this case) lethal violence. In the current discussion on public executions of 'AI' (etc.) execs I don't think the term is applicable.