[softcactus]

Burglaries are not self-defense cases. According to that website about 12% of burglars are armed, and in states without "stand your ground laws" you're only going to be able to justify your self-defense case if they presented a clear threat, you attempted to flee first, and then you found yourself without an exit before firing. So of the 3.8m burglaries, one third of which have a person present, one eighth of those have an armed intruder. Which leaves 160,000 potential cases for self-defense. Which is certainly not the "millions" initially claimed.

[akomtu]

Well, using your own words, 1/3 of the 3.8m burglaries happen with a homeowner present. It's a lot better to have a gun in such situations. Whether the intruder is armed is irrelevant: being sliced with a knife, beaten with a shovel or raped by a unarmed dude isn't a great outcome. As for those laws that protect the burglars from homeowners, they have to be changed. But even if you lived in such a state, first you defend yourself and your family with a gun, shooting the intruder if necessary, and then find a lawyer, in that order. Regardless of the laws, I find it appalling that some people embrace this submissive attitude to "burglar's rights in your house" and try to impose this attitude onto others.