We are going to have to be very careful with this thread, as the site tries very hard to distance itself from any type of violent behavior, 'justified' or not.

That being said, the concept of using 'no more force than the intruder' is going to be very difficult to apply in a courtroom. While on the surface, the two weapons may be compared side by side; however, it's impossible to tell in a dim or dark area whether what the intruder is holding is a CO2 pellet gun or a stolen service revolver. I can hardly imagine in that situation saying, 'oh well hang on just one sec, I see that you are far out-gunned; shall I get my duelling pistols out so we can settle this like gentlemen?'.

I would not want to live with having killed someone, no matter what the reason. There is a certain hubris to it, and it sits badly with me on moral grounds. I think the equal force idea is intended to say that in an emergency situation, one should use the absolute least force necessary to prevent injury to the home occupants.