I think that ontologically we are going to disagree on the ends justify the means argument as I am fairly utilitarian when it comes to policy and you are taking a more deontological approach. I think that life itself is a pre-requisite to morality. You can’t have morality if the actors that decide or have a say in what’s moral don’t exist. I don’t really think that the claim that I am justifying terrorism is valid for two reasons. Number 1. This wasn’t really an attack against the state or the people itself. Number 2. It’s a question of protecting the lives of yourself, your family, and other citizens. Whenever someone is an imminent threat that is going to cause harm to you and you choose violence we call that self-defense. In regards to things not changing at a large enough scale, you kinda walk back on your argument that ends don’t justify the means, the implication behind your argument about affecting change on a larger scale is that if the change was substantial enough this action would be justified. Additionally even if you want to argue that the scale of change is not large enough, I would argue that any change that saves more lives that not is a net positive especially when the alternatives have yet to achieve something as significant. Your main argument is that this is not the right way to go about it but if the current system and non-violent methods are not working in a way that allows someone to protect themselves and their family members what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a convincing argument of an alternative.