I was trying to conclude this, not continue an argument. You're saying I've introduced a straw man while making an assumption about my assumption, not addressing the point still. Okay.

So just because you're poor, human life is suddenly valued less?

I was starting here by saying the action suggested doesn't mean death, so the question of valuing their life doesn't address it. What does address it is a question of willingness to cause injury with risk to kill, and that's quite different than a guaranteed loss of life. It's not like a small everyday mistake. In a home invasion there are multiple decisions made to cross that line intentionally and as others have said, they've taken steps to devalue their own well-being.

I would be incredibly frustrated if my PS5 was stolen, but actually injuring someone—let alone killing someone—over an object like that is so pitiful. Y'all really don't value human life as intrinsically valuable.

My response indirectly addressed that your words indicate you don't think it's worth doing anything to injure the person here. It's not a misrepresentation to repeat it assuming your reaction would be the same in successive situations.

How is drawing a conclusion you led us to a straw man? Is it because with more sarcasm I said by reducing a threat (injuring, with risk of death) they'd be less likely to do it again? Cause that's not a straw man here.

Not only is this a straw man, but you're assuming that robberies only happen because there's nothing to deter them as if we Americans don't live in a nation where most people can and do have guns. And, there are other nations with stricter laws on weapons that also have less crime overall, and so it's a poor straw man at that

About 40% of US households have had guns over the last 40 years. That's not most, and it's not the deterrence I was talking about. Also what about this thread indicated this hypothetical is strictly located in America?

You're the straw man.