No, read it again, I believe you’ll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.
My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text)
Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say “you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him,” like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it’s a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don’t force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn’t be charged with either for defending his home.
And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don’t applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That’s what I’m saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you’d meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.