But no care for the lives of crime victims. They're just supposed to die.
Who said anything about crime victims DYING? This is a thread about a BURGLARY.
Homicide is much, much, less common than burglary. Oh, wait - EXCEPT in the USA, where they occur at comparatively similar rates. I wonder what could cause that?
The lives of crime victims are very important. But as they are not typically at risk at all during a burglary, it seems pointless to introduce lethal force into a situation where it would otherwise not be present - and no matter how little you care for the lives of the perpetrators of crime, there is no such excuse when it comes to the lives of innocent bystanders.
Self defence does NOT need to mean 'use of a gun'; and when use of a gun is "basically impossible" without endangering innocent third-parties, a person who is being assaulted needs to find an alternative means of defence.
Having guns does not appear to make people safer from burglars. Take a look at the graph I presented earlier:
View attachment 6484
The burglary rate shows no significant difference between the 'gun' and 'no-gun' jurisdictions here. But there is one other notable difference between the two countries - in the UK, robbery is far more common; while in the USA, those robberies are substituted with homicides.
I am not at all sure how you can consider it to be better for someone to kill you, than it is for him to merely steal your wallet; But I have every faith that you can come up with some kind of apologetic for this - or with a bullshit reason why we should disregard the actual data in favour of your wild imaginings.