The analogy is between suppliers of a commodity which has a demand and the consumers of that commodity. If the consumer suffers from the use of the commodity, which the consumer was informed about, then part of the blame lies with the consumer.
There is no analogy with a thief who breaks into a house and the houseowner. Obviously the thief is not a supplier of any commodity. Perhaps you may argue the houseowner is the supplier of the commodity that being the house and its contents for the thief as consumer to break into. In which case by your logic the houseowner should be hanged for supplying the house which tempted the thief.
