If more or even most gun-defense stories ended this way, I'd be more pro-gun-defense.

The gun owner was responsible, restrained, and lucky.

Notice that she ended up having to walk right past the intruder to get the gun.  If he allowed her to walk right past him, she could just as easily have left and gone for help.  To me, probably the only people vigilant enough to have the gun with them at all times (and thus, when they need it) are likely not going to be the calm, responsible, sane people you want as gun owners.  As far as I can tell, that level of preperation takes real paranoia.

She was lucky that she was able to get the gun before the intruder found it, and she was lucky that the presence of the gun didn't escalate the situation.

Nobody died; because nobody paniced, because nobody over-reacted, and because there were no accidents, and because the gun-owner didn't just blow the kid away because she felt she had a "right" to (which, under a Casstle Doctrine, she would have had the legal "right" to do so).

Now, hopefully the kid will learn from his mistakes to stop breaking into houses.  Hopefully, he will NOT learn from his mistakes to beat the little old ladies into submission so they can't go get their guns...or to bring his own gun along to his future break-ins.

If the people yelling about the right to keep and bear arms, and the importance of self-protection didn't seem so prone to paranoia and panic, didn't seem so eager to kill, and pushed safety and judgement training as much as they pushed "freedom" legislation...I would be a lot more comfortable supporting them.

To me, freedom means the freedom to be responsible, not the freedom to shoot without consequences.

(Hat Tip: Cat)