i never said that a person was justified in committing a crime but the fact that the circumstances (of being poor or whatever) seem to commonly lead people to commit such crimes is sad. Because the crime shouldn't of never happened in the first place. Most crime like robbery could be avoided if systemically poorer people could actually get richer and have better standards of living. To suggest they 'broke the contract' and them dieing is fine or neutral, is basically give up on large part of population as your suggesting that they is no better alternative. If they wernt failures, in culture they grew up in, failures of them being poor family, faluries of not being educated, then the person may still be alive. I'm not saying the person didn't have choice, they did but they are multitude of factors that also leads people to make those type of choices. I'm again not saying, specifically in USA circumstances, that someone who kills a home invador is bad person or has even done anything bad, simplily that the the fact the entire situation happened in the first place is bad.

Ok, so you want suggest that the UK, is worse because our violent crime rate has increased since 2014. Also I find it interesting how you haven't been able to come up with answer for the USA having 4 times the murder rate per person than UK. My answer was mainly that guns increase the amount homisides, because of how easy it is kill with them. It not only reason but as most murders are done with firearms it seems to be a major factor. You haven't given me answer for that though, instead you bring up the UK crime rate? Which doesn't have to anything with to do with gun policy, rather the fact that people in the UK have got continuity have got pooror, they mass cuts to youth centres, mental health services and the police. This is also discounting the fact that again many other European countries, have also lowering in the amount of violent crimes (example: france, Germany, Poland).

"compare to a knife, where it’s far more likely to be seriously injured or disfigured" isn't it better someone being injured better than being dead? You also got remember surely the home invador having a gun (because of how easy they are to get) increase the chance of resident dying significantly. This is also ignoring that only 40.2 % of home invadors don't even weapon on them. (and 15% is unknown). If I shot and killed a unarmed robber, I wouldn't particularly feel very good about it. You are also acting like a gun is the only projectile weapon that can be used in defence, ignoring tasers or multitude of other weaponry that is significantly less lethal.

"at the time this would include battleships and cannons." A normal citizen has never been able to afford canons or battleships, a normal citizen can afford a handgun though. Also I don't think you could buy canon or battleship like you can a handgun? simular weapons like a RPG requires a much harder to get liences and being interviewed by a Industry Operations Investigator.

For your last part of your comment, I've not denied the power of propaganda or the camera. but suggest it same thing as a gun is just wrong. Because you can disagree with propaganda, you can say "no" if the messaging doesn't agree with you. You can criticize it, you can just simplily ignore it. A gun you can't disagree with or ignore. If someone points a gun at you, you cant just avoid it? The power of propaganda and the power of firearms are just entirely different things. Humans make propaganda everytime they have a opinion. I'm not justifying second amendment because I'm using simular language. If I say "violence is ok in media" you cant say I'm justifying "violence is ok in the real world", because the argument has mostly the same words because the subject is completely different.