Getting this back on track
I think the easiest answer to the debate is to look at violent crime statistics in the US.
You will quickly note that crime rates are invariably higher in areas that have the strictest gun control laws.
The question then becomes are the strict laws the result of high crime rates, or are the high crime rates the result of a disarmed populous?

As for the right to defend property, that is a cornerstone of our civilization. It is what “the pursuit of happiness” refers to in the declaration of Independence.
Wealth that you generate through labor is your property and cannot be taken from you by law. (OK ignore taxes) Your property is your own and the state should defend your right to it, but if it fails to do so you still have the right to defend it.
Common sense must apply of course, (such an uncommon phenomenon in this day and age) You can’t shot unarmed six year olds for stealing lollypops. An armed assailant attempting to steal by use of force however is an entirely different matter.

A point of agreement seems to be that most here would allow you to use force to defend your life or that of others. It’s heartening to see some agreement in such a diverse gathering.

Yours
Mad Lews