In the state I live in, we have a law. It's called a "Castle Law".
Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
I love how it's so ambiguously worded. It can be ANY situation with justification on behalf of the defenders. You can legally kill the intruder for any reason if the circumstance calls for it. I do not own a handgun, but wish to get one soon. Anything can happen given the bad person's rampant belief that the less money they make the more they have the right to thieve from their fellow man. And since some people ARM themselves to make theivery a much easier task...such instances allow one to to amiably practice this law.
Long live Americas ability to own a handgun as well. Combined, this is one of our best laws.
OT - I would grab the knife I own, turn off the lights...and wait for the so called man to come into the house. Afterwards, he has officially forfeited his own life. Even so this is a greater argument for guns. What if he "overpowers me"? What if I cannot, due to my physique, defend myself against a stronger opponent? Such justice calls into fact that the gun would make my chances of survival more equal.