When a person's home is invaded, there is no time to make philosophical decisions. A person has demonstrated intent to violate your rights, they pose an imminent threat. Attempts to use less-than-lethal means to stop the threat look good in the movies and in retrospect, but in real life, there are too many chances for failure. In any such encounter, the only acceptable goal is to win. The use of lethal force is the best avenue to that result. If a person were to choose something like a baseball bat, there are several unsatisfactory possible results. 1) The bat is ineffectual. 2) The bat is taken away and used on the victim. 3) The bat is effective, and the perpetrator is killed - leading to charges of excessive force. For example, "How many times did you hit the perpetrator (the new victim)? "Why didn't you stop when he was down? Monday morning quarterbacks have lots of time to overanalyze every aspect of their use of what "should have been" a less-than-lethal device. In summary, in any situation of imminent threat of death or grave bodily damage, the use of lethal force is justified, and the best tool is a gun.