So when a person minding their own business is aggressed against by another individual, they have the right to the use of violence to protect themselves – to do whatever it takes to remove or neutralize the threat. This is not a violation of non-aggression, because they were not an aggressor.

Also, since they have the right to self defense, they may also delegate that right to another – so an individual can rightfully hire protective services.

The non-aggression principle is not a “non-violence” or pacifist principle, although the individual suffering aggression may choose a nonviolent or pacifist response.

I should write a post on this. It is a common reaction for many when they first learn of the NAP, to not understand the role of self defense.