If we punish lethal self-defense, we punish the preservation of the lives of those that do not initiate force for not allowing those that initiate the force to fully enact the crimes that we give them life in prison (or in fact, even the death penalty) for. In some cases, only lethal self-defense can save someone’s life, which is obviously preferred compared to letting the murderer murder an innocent life: comparatively, it is better for the victim to live than the murderer. Absolutely, it would be better for them both to live, but absolutely, it would be better if there were no murderers, and in fact, even no death at all.
In other words, if we punish lethal self-defense, and instead justify the murderer murdering someone who cannot defend themselves to the extent of lethal force legally (justifying them because not allowing the killing of them for self-defense defends them at least on some level, suggesting that their right to live is more important¹ than the victim’s right to live if murdering gives you the same legal right to live as not murdering, which is saying that killing deserves life just as much as not killing deserves life, which is paradoxical: why should the killer deserve life, the opposite of what he is doing to people, as much as the non-killer deserves life, who is not taking that away from other people? To say that “Well none of us are perfect” as to suggest that legal punishment is unnecessary because we are all sinners is to suggest that legal punishment is unnecessary if I were to rape you or steal your money or another one of your possessions; the fact that we are all sinners does not diminish the purpose, nor the justice, of law (but that does not mean that all laws are just)), then we accept that the murderers will, in fact, murder, and we accept that murdering them afterwards is justification, instead of saying that the justification is for the victim to attempt to preserve their life at all costs against the initiator of the violence, even if violence still occurs.
In other words, in one instance, we are punishing the initiator of the violence and the retaliator, and in the other instance, we are only punishing the initiator.
If we punish self-preservation, then that means that murder isn’t a big deal anyway if self-preservation becomes a crime. Because if self-preservation becomes a crime, then murder eliminates that potential crime (because destroying is the opposite of self-preservation, meaning if self-preservation is a crime, and one is destroyed, then one cannot preserve oneself, meaning that one cannot violate that particular statute even though the one is dead), and if initiated force becomes a crime and forceful retaliation becomes a crime, then instead of either dying or living free, our alternatives become either dying or living in prison, and it’s obvious which is the preferred outcome if we use logic.
To suggest that murder and self-defense are completely equitable just because someone dies in each case is illogical.
1. More important because either we can legally allow for the victim to live at the expense of the murderer (a “victim” being one against whom lethal force was used; a murderer being the initiator of lethal force (or “potentially” lethal force in the case of an “accused” murderer), the victim “living at the expense of the murderer” meaning that if a murderer is intent on killing me, it may come down to it that the only way for me to live is to kill my attempted murderer, meaning that my life “came at his expense”) or allow the murderer to live at the expense of the victim (if lethal force cannot be used legally in self-defense, then the law states that the murderer’s “right” to murder is equivalent to the use of lethal force in self-defense, as they are both equally punishable by law if self-defense becomes illegal (even if there is a variety in punishment, the fact that they both have punishment suggests that they are similar and related, which they are not: the only difference is that someone dies in each case, but one involves the initiation of violence while the other is self–preservation: an obvious difference, even if you believe that the punishments should be the same because someone dies in each case). And likewise, if he is going to attempt to kill me, it is more than likely that I am going to retaliate with potentially lethal force, meaning that his life would “come at the expense of mine” because I could kill him while preserving my life before he could kill me); suggesting that his life is “more important” than mine because making self-defense illegal would suggest that when faced with a murderer, I should be punished for defending myself with lethal force, or if I don’t want to go to jail for using potentially lethal force, I should either use less force (which would potentially increase my odds of dying, (as, not being a murderer, I’m only going to increase the amount of force as a last resort because I do not enjoy killing people) suggesting that if they don’t want me to use as much physical force, they don’t care if I increase my odds of living or not, meaning that they value me not killing the murderer more so than the preservation of my own life, meaning that in the moment, they value the murderer’s life more than mine) or I should just not use any force at all, almost certainly increasing my odds of dying; if a murderer attempts to kill me without any provocation whatsoever, I doubt that he will begin to stop doing so if I do absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.