How does a weapon help you protect property when the law does not permit a citizen to use deadly force in the protection of property? If someone throws a Molotov cocktail at a store, you can't subsequently gun them down and claim self-defense. I don't believe "Castle" doctrines would apply here.

The gun ultimately only protected him from an insane person seemingly provoked by the gun in the first place. That's not to say that the provocation was remotely justified, but guns have a way of causing problems whenever they are introduced into a situation, and ultimately end up being used to justify their own existence. Criticisms of over-policing aside, Breonna Taylor would be alive now if her boyfriend hadn't been armed and so quick to fire without even seeing what he was shooting.