I appreciate that some people attribute a great deal of sentimental value to personal property and there is an obvious financial value loss when you are robbed.

But if there is no obvious physical peril in the situation why risk creating some for yourself over something that can eventually be replaced or the loss of it rationalised? I can't think of any inanimate object I own worth using violence to protect.

If you can prevent the situation by any non-violent means it makes sense to try but if the theft is going to happen and only an act of violence can prevent it why bother?

The criminal may get caught, or may not, notch it down to experience (sometimes unpleasant things happen).

If there is a risk to life and limb, things which can not be replaced, then there is an argument to be made for a physical response if it's possible and then if possible that response should be moderated by the conditions of the threat (you could make things worse than they need to be by over-reacting).

Tax money (and we pay enough of it) should go towards paying professionals appropriately and training and equipping them well to prevent crime and catch criminals. We should take appropriate steps to secure what we would rather not lose and set something aside if we do need to replace those things should we lose them.

Something Mr Gibson should have considered before throwing his weight and words around (I imagine he could afford a lawyer and insurance and the police would investigate any fraud they had evidence of).

Untrained, unequipped, inexperienced people (generally speaking) make lousy law enforcers.