the difference between the two people is that Martin Luther King Jr. is famous for "nonviolent resistance" where as Malcolm X is known for the opposite--he encouraged violence to achieve necessary means (i guess to end segregation)
I agree with the view of Martin Luther King Jr. because using violence to end violence would only end in destruction. If everybody attacked, trying to "defend" themselves, there would be nothing left, and violence would not stop, but rather increase. This is very similar to the gun issue; if all ppl had guns to "protect" themselves, then if one person attacks, everybody would attack and perhaps each other. (who knows? people with guns feel that they have power or something and attack innocent ppl so how do u know what are they going to do with such destructive weapon?) In conclusion, at least one side has to stop and not attack to "end" destruction--that's why Martin Luther King Jr. was successful with his approach to nonviolent resistance--ppl listened to what he had to say; if the leader attacked ppl then they wouldn't listen and also start attacking and thus create mayhem.
