I am not as prepared for all eventualities as I would like, even when it comes to more probable problems, to say nothing of civil unrest or nuclear war. I am better prepared than most, though, I suppose.
I wonder if they prepared for that eventuality?
That is the root question supporting "castle doctrine." It is perfectly rational to assume anyone breaking into your home while you are present intends to deal with you, so even lethal force is justifiable when facing intruders. A "duty to retreat" neglects to account for responsibility to protect others, whether legal or moral.
There is much hand-wringing over arrogant, greedy people who value their stuff over the lives of burglars, but why do those burglars value my stuff over their own lives? Why should I assume they value my life and the lives of my family when they already demonstrate so little regard to what I have spent my life trying to earn?
I'm glad your door was sufficient deterrent to whatever scumbag wanted your stuff.
You raise some good points indeed, and I agree. It's not about stuff for me, it's about my life and that of others I'm responsible for. People who do such things, break-ins and home invasions, generally are not the types to have a conscience; if they did, they would not break the law in the first place. I would have no hesitation in responding to any and all threats that present themselves in my home or to my person, or someone with me, if I am outside of it. I am not the victim type.