I always refer to Penn Jillette who says, "As an Atheist, I have raped and murdered exactly the number of people that I want to rape and murder... that number is zero"
You're saying it's okay to murder as many people as you want.
As long as that number is zero.
No, that's not what he said.
He said the only reason he's never murdered anyone is because he's never felt like it.
The number is currently zero, but it could change to any number based on the same principles.
Actions are determined by personal desires, if someone has a desire that is over-ruled by another desire, they are still doing as they desire (or like). Jillette is a fool in some respects (just like everyone, the difference is that Jillette is a very public persona and is not shy to present his opinions in a forceful and illogical way), but he is saying that he is solely in command of his own actions.
It is common for any person to have conflicting wants/desires, that persons behaviour can reveals the dominating want/desire.
It's the same as if a Christian did murder someone, their desire over ruled any other desires which would have prevented the murder.
God gave free will that a person is solely in command of their actions, Jillette claims he has free will and is solely in command of his own actions. That also suggests that anyone who believes in free-will also is "admitting that he lives by the same rules that murderers live by."
But what are these "rules that murderers live by"? Is there such a thing beyond the philosophic veiwpoint of free will?
According to his own words, the only difference between himself and a murderer is a mere difference in taste or personal preference. He likes blue, murderers happen to like red instead. He does whatever he wants to do, and so do murderers. He's admitting that he lives by the same rules that murderers live by.
Murderers just have wrong thoughts, but he is pure and perfect.
That's why he's never murdered anyone - because he doesn't want to.
What if he did want to kill someone?
His solution for immoral behavior seems to be "never have any immoral desires".
Since he can't back that up logically, you'll have to abbreviate it to "anything you want to do is good."
This needs further investigation. You make unsupportable claims.
"anything you want to do is good" is not a self evident conclusion.
Your claim "never have any immoral desires" seems logical, because that follows from a lack of immoral behaviour (murder) is congruent with "I have raped and murdered exactly the number of people that I
want to rape and murder"
However the claim that any personal morality is good does not seem relatable but seems contradictory.
For anyone to make such a claim (as Jillette seems to) it follows that "rape and murder" are immoral.
But if your claim were true, then it would be irrelevant for him to claim a lack of immorality as your claim suggests he would then accept immoral behaviour as good.
Your claim has some validity with some philosophic viewpoints.
Burden of proof falls on your court that Jillette is sympathetic to "anything you want to do is good".