Not exactly correct. A moral person defends his home - using deadly force if necessary.
If you don't, then you are allowing them to victimize other people later.
So if a homeowner shoots an intruder and then calls police and the intruder receives medical attention and recovers, and the intruder is eventually released from prison and goes back to a life of crime - should the homeowner who shot him be criminally liable for the intruder's subsequent crimes because the homeowner failed to kill him?
you have no duty to retreat from within your home
No one on this thread is arguing that any such fictional "duty" exists.
If they run, you can't chase 'em. If they are outside, you can't shoot at 'em.
Correct.
Once they break in, you are within your Rights to kill them.
Not true. Once they break in you are within your rights to use deadly force to end the threat. There is no right to kill a human being who is no longer a threat to you (for example, an unarmed woman lying on the ground with bullets in her gut and chest).
Advisable too as MN has a long history of people defending themselves and being sued into the poor house via civil suites from the criminal.
This is a new twist to your argument: that avoiding financial hardship justifies murder.
If avoiding poverty is a justification for murdering someone, why isn't it a justification for burglarizing someone?
In this case, it was avoiding being killed by a couple of thieving drug addicts armed with the lead pipe they used to break in with in the first place...
You just never get tired of being wrong do you.