Hesitation is Indeed a Vice, Maybe Not

One may criticize Hamlet for his hesitation and constant procrastination in regard to carrying out his revenge for his father. However, one must also remember what this revenge is. Hamlet's revenge constitutes killing the newly-elected King, who also happens to be his Uncle. Killing a King is an arduous and daunting task because it has the possibility of bringing pain and suffering to the perpetrator. On top of the fact that Hamlet is to kill a King, he must keep in mind that the King is also a family member and is dearly loved by his mother. If he does kill the King, he will bring sorrow to his mother and will bring hell upon himself. One can see that Hamlet has a lot of information to think about before executing such an act. This accounts for and explains his hesitation. Anyone would be hesitant in killing a person in the first place, but to kill a King is a much more frightening task. Of course Hamlet is going to dawdle due to fear and confusion over what to do. He has been approached by a ghost of his father for god's sake. What is he supposed to glean from that interaction? I think that Hamlet's hesitation and inability to act is most certainly well-founded when one observes the circumstances.
However, there are many problems with hesitating with decisions. One must decide what to do and follow through with it, or else consequences could follow or your opportunity will cease to exist. Shakespeare makes a statement of this by killing off everyone. Most of these deaths, if not all, can be attributed to Hamlet's inability to act. If he had killed Claudius immediately after talking to the ghost of his father, none of these other terrible acts would have occured. Ophelia would be alive and in love with Hamlet, as would her brother, father, and Hamlet's mother. Hamlet, understandably so, wastes time, however, and sets this series of unfortunate events in motion. Hamlet does eventually succeed in his task however. He does pay a price, his own life, to achieve this goal. Could it have been avoided had he acted earlier? Most likely yes. There would have been the possiblity of repercusions for killing the King, but Hamlet most likely would have found a way around that.
Perhaps Shakespeare is making a statement about inaction, saying that it leads to worse things than decisions made quickly, and possibly in haste. However, at the same time, I feel that Hamlet's inaction was completely justified considering what he was dealing with. I think either way, consequences would have taken place. Shakespeare may also be making a statement in saying that too much thinking can lead to problems. He may be trying to get the message across to simply make a decision, and once that decision is made, act upon it. I still feel that bad events would have occured had Hamlet killed Claudius immediately. Shakespeare may be trying to show that it's best to make a decision, and when that decision is made, to act carefully upon it. Your actions need to be the well-thought out parts of the whole affair. Your thoughts should go either one way or the other. It is all quite confusing and I'm not sure I see a clear relationship or point Shakespeare is trying to show.