To your point TD, I knew an elder years ago that so bought into WT's take on not incurring "bloodguilt" Re: self-defense, he actually said that if a man broke into his home and began raping his wife, he wouldn't do anything to stop it- because he wouldn't want to be "bloodguilty" by killing, or much less, even harming the rapist.
Or, another elder who was outspokenly anti-gun because WT is anti-gun, who said he keeps a large, heavy-duty Maglite flashlight next to his nightstand specifically for self-defense. If an intruder came into his home, he'd have no problem "beating him to death" with the flashlight. Which takes more intention? Shooting an intruder and maybe killing them? Or, beating them to death with a Maglite? The elder could not in 'good conscience' shoot someone in self-defense but could beat him to death (which at a certain point is no longer self-defense).
This is the absurdity of WT "reasoning" that gets in the way of common sense.