On a Quaker message board I used to be on, one of the members described what he did when he came downstairs in the middle of the night to find a burglar:
He invited the burglar to sit down at the kitchen table.
The burglar agreed. Coffee was made and they had a long, involved talk. In the morning, he ended up driving the burglar to rehab.
I'm not sure I'm brave enough to respond that way, but I see it as something to aspire to.
I think it's admirable to respond as non-violently as possible, but I also acknowledge that realistically, violence may also be necessary or justified in some cases, and I wouldn't necessarily view usage thereof as indicative of lack of bravery either.
Where I live, there have been cases of burglaries where the burglars killed or severely injured the occupants. With the exception of some parts of the country, it's also almost unheard of for a regular citizen to own a firearm, so the murders and assaults occurred primarily to eliminate potential witnesses or preemptively incapacitate them.
I couldn't see myself faulting someone for using any and all kinds of force to stop a burglar after reading or hearing about such cases, unless they had less violent means to stop them but opted to be excessively violent. Yes, some burglars won't be willing or ready to kill or maim the occupants of whichever home they invade, but some will be. Unfortunately, an occupant responding in self-defense sometimes has no way to know which kind of burglar they're dealing with.