Sorry, but that is two questions which you have "intertwined" One should have no bearing on the other.
I entirely disagree with this assertion. Insurance and right to defend property with lethal force are almost certainly intertwined in my mind. I am not talking about a TV. If someone steals your TV and you shoot them there is no moral excuse even if it is legal. I am talking about things that will affect your long ability to support yourself and family. If someone shoots an arsonist attempting to burn down their uninsured house , I have a hard time judging them. Same goes for a vehicle that takes them to work. I am not talking about someone who is rich and can easily replace these items, but the working poor who could be sent into a downward welfair spiral by the loss.
Maybe some of you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in liquid assets and are over insured so can't understand what I am saying, think about those who do not and the hardship a stolen car represents for them.