Of course it's different. My point is that it's justifiable to kill a murderer- more so than someone who is attempting murder.
Killing in self defense comes from the notion that you have a right to life and the right to defend it. Killing for punishment comes from the notion that some crimes
deserve certain punishments. One is based on natural rights, the other is based on ever-changing social beliefs. Punishments vary, the right to defend your life has been consistent throughout history. Hell, even governments exercise the right to self preservation. So no, "your point" that it is justifiable to kill a murderer is not more justifiable than killing to defend your life. Again, in order for your argument to make sense:
- You'd have to explain why you have a right to punish through killing.
- You'd have to explain why this right supersedes the right to defend yourself.
Here is how the argument will end:
We will realize that you
don't have a right to punish people through whatever measures
you find reasonable.
We will realize that governments
don't have a right to determine that death is a reasonable form of punishment.
We will realize that the death penalty is a
fad and governments who claim they have a right to carry it out can suddenly abolish it, and citizens caught trying to enforce their own justice can be charged as criminals.
How many Americans have been
found guilty of acting in self defense? None.
How many Americans have been
found guilty of killing people who killed others? Quite a few.