An intruder in an occupied home is NOT "normal".
Most intruders upon realizing someone's home want only to escape.
Those who, knowing someone's home, and still keep coming, are DANGEROUS, and are NOT "normal".
You don't trust you and your family's lives and safety to an abnormal stranger.
Under these circumstances, morally and legally it doesn't matter if they live or die.
THEY chose the encounter, and in effect, "punched their own ticket".
Only the very worse fool shoots "to wound" or shoots "to kill".
You shoot to STOP. To stop the person from doing whatever he was doing.
If he lives, morally and legally that's fine, and if he dies, morally and legally that's regrettable, but it was HIS choice, not your's.
How many times have we read about a mortally wounded person who still manages to kill his killer?
Do you really want to allow this abnormal criminal a "fair chance" to take your life?
NEVER ascribe to a victim the wrong doing of a perpetrator. This foolishness is the same mentality that blames the victims of terrorist attacks and rapists. "Well, they MUST have provoked it, somehow".
If you find yourself in a situation where an intruder is advancing in a home they know is occupied, you are under NO legal or moral constraint to give them any benefit by placing your life in the hands of an unknown and abnormal person.
Not using the MOST effect weapon you can handle is in the same vein as using a .22 to defend yourself from a ravenous lion, because you don't want to kill him, just scare him off.
To quote the late, great Bill Jordon, "There is no such thing as shooting someone "just a little. If you HAVE to shoot someone, shoot him GOOD".
.