Sample bias - sorted on deaths not uses of firearms. Naturally, people who are only trying to defend themselves or their property are much less likely to kill a perp, than to just scare them away. The rest is similar hash (e.g. "victims who resist are typically killed" is not borne out by any of the facts cited, nor is it remotely true on facts we do know from elsewhere). Anybody submitting this sort of reasoning in a statistics class would get a failing grade.
There is another element that is forgotten in the issue of firearm deaths. A criminal or person who is engaged in a criminal act with a firearm has brought that firearm with them with the intent of using it on the victim(s), if necessary, not just as a threat. In many cases, the intent is to use the weapon regardless if a threat exists. In Florida, under the Three Strikes law and the 10-20-30 Law, if a criminal commits a third felony within a specific period of time, or uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, he/she can get from 10 years to life.
http://www.knightridder.com/papers/greatstories/tally/justice21.html Therefore, what incentive does a criminal have not to use their weapon?
JasonC wrote, . . .people who are only trying to defend themselves or their property are much less likely to kill a perp, than to just scare them away.” I disagree, based on my personal discussions with all of the men in my family who own firearms, my neighbors, and my comrades at both the VFW and American Legion. Those of us who know how to use a firearm will not hesitate to fire at center of mass if we or our family is threatened. As I don’t own a shotgun, which is really the best home defense weapon, I don’t believe in taking a chance. However, you are probably correct if only personal property is threatened.