I believe the point isn't to deliver a painful death but instead a sure one; you can fight an enemy you know but the ones you don't know about are the most dangerous; their threat must be removed once they are discovered.
I mean whether or not that’s the point, there’s no escaping that being shot to death is significantly better than being beaten to death
Yes, the point is that you need to prioritize dealing with traitors, and that there is practically no such thing as "too much" when using force against traitors when discovered. The enemy can be engaged in the field, and when you do so, you must be confident that you don't have any long knives waiting for your back, metaphorically or literally.
Funny observation- does @altident think being shot twice wouldn't hurt? Comment, Mr. altident?
Let me ask you, if I had you tied to a chair and gave you the option:
I can put two bullets in you, or I can hit you with my gun until you’re dead.
Which would you choose?
You're taking the metaphor way to literally. I get it- you have a ferocious hatred for the notion of disloyalty, and you can probably come up with all kinds of horrible ways to kill them.
Point is: Deal with traitors first, with extreme force, then you can engage the enemy. That's the "big picture" application of this idiom.
(post is archived)