I might have misunderstood your intent, I’m not trying to argue. I’ll let myself out of this thread.
Bash the intruder with any suitable nearby makeshift object-weapon, and holler and make a lot of noise. I live in a crowded apartment complex and the noise would likely wake up the neighbors, who might call for help.
Apology accepted; maybe I shouldn’t let this get to me.
Have a nice day; NOW I’m letting myself out.
This is vague in the extreme. Which “studies that have been cited multiple times in this thread already” discussed the harm prevented by private gun ownership? Which one(s) discussed the harm caused by it? Could you quote the relevant passages, or is this a “just Google it, I don’t actually have cites”-style response?
One immediate, non-contact, non-lethal alternative is have some sort of very loud alarm. Provided you have neighbors, you can wire up something that you can activate instantly that will alert everyone in the vicinity. You can have panic buttons in every room and have wireless modules you can carry with you for your own personal panic button. Unless the intruder is some drugged out psycho serial killer, they are going to run off as soon as the alarm comes on. You don’t even have to have it connected to the alarm company. Klaxons going off are going to drive away just about all intruders.
Actually, one way to do this would be if you could activate your smoke detector alarms with a remote button. Many smoke detectors now are linked and will all go off if one goes off. If you had a personal controller that could activate those alarms, it would be a great panic alarm. You could have those controllers scattered around your house in case you were ever in danger.
I hold that the police are not generally “extensively trained”. I’m not advocating that “civilians … should all be armed”. One of my previous posts said “I wish everyone was better trained.”
Before this gets too far into the anti-gun debate that will follow I’d like for posters to consider the geographical differences. Not all people are going to react the same in all areas.
If you are in the city or even the suburbs, the cops are probably your best bet. But even then it will take minutes for them to arrive that you may not have to spare. In a rural area like I live, the cops will get there in a half hour or more, enough time that the bodies may still be warm but not fast enough to prevent anything from happening. And then there is the rural culture, where gun fire is more common. I am talking about the US, your results elsewhere may vary. New arrivals do call the cops about gun fire and are routinely told "opening day of elk season, or duck season, or goose season, or maybe it is just Sunday when they go to the range for skeet shoots.
I can walk right out my front door, rip off several rounds during the middle of the night, and I can almost guarantee that the neighbors will only look up for a moment and say, “hmm, I wonder what Jones is shooting at?” They will not call the cops, nor would I call the cops on them, unless I had another reason to think there was trouble.
In many areas of the US you are on your own, and will be on your own until the threat has passed.
My wife has a baseball bat by the bed for when I am gone, and also a 30.06.
As opposed to guns, which require none of those things? So glad to know that any coward with the ability to point a gun in vaguely the right direction and the strength to pull a trigger is able to remain safe against the marauding hordes.
Why should people who don’t own guns be better trained?
To answer the OP, as others have said, I’d run, hide, or grab a blunt object or knife depending on my evaluation of the situation.
But I also resist the assumption that this is anything I have to worry about or prepare for in my life, ever.
Again, you seem to be having trouble grasping what a right is. Even when slavery was legal, you didn’t have a right to slaves…nor did you have a right to kill black men because they looked at a white woman. There was never such a right. Nor the other horseshit you posted. Those were never rights.
Times do change, no doubt, but removing a right is a process, not some arbitrary act by a random poster on a message board who clearly doesn’t even understand what a right even is. Seriously…get a grip and perhaps educate yourself even marginally on what rights actually are. Especially before blithely giving them up for everyone else.
I believe that rational people assume that the offender will be rational. I submit that if he were, he wouldn’t be offending.
I also believe that those of us who have experienced a crime are more likely to want to own a gun. A gun tried to mug my Wife. As he tried to crawl through her car window, he said, “I have a gun and I’m going to kill you.” Not much of a chance to discuss the matter with him. 
Last year there was a group of thieves in the city carrying a sawed off shotgun. Seeing a woman on her front porch, they forced their way into her home and robbed it.
This sort of thing causes me to keep a firearm in the house. I respect the belief of those of us who don’t want one, I understand children and statistics.
Some state Senator is pushing a bill for unlicensed carry. I think that is monumentally stupid. I don’t see why anyone would need to carry a gun around, licensed or not.
Cites have been posted by multiple people in this thread. For example, I was looking at the same “Victimization During Household Burglary – Bureau of Justice Statistics” study that was cited in this very thread multiple times.
I’m not a gun owner (and never have been, and have utterly no interest in becoming one), but I think this sounds about right to me. As Czarcasm notes, I have a lot of other things in my home that I could use as a last-resort self-defense weapon, if it came to that (including a steel rapier, with a very sharp point, from my days working at the Ren Faire).
For the record, I don’t have a problem with people feeling that they need firearms for personal protection. Despite not being a gun fan, I do, in fact, believe that there are a non-zero number of incidents in which gun owners have been able to defend themselves using their guns (though I also suspect that the number is not actually as high as some gun advocates would like to believe, nor is it as low as some gun opponents would like to believe).
However, there are also, clearly, a non-zero number of incidents in which privately-owned guns get misued, as well, leading to tragic consequences. My personal question (and I do not know the answer to it) is whether the legitimate use of guns for self-defense is sufficient to outweigh the injuries and deaths which occur from that misuse.
Would you rather an elderly lady have a bat or a gun to confront a home invader/rapist?
Also, before you put too much stock in bats and other sticks, why don’t you go read a bit about “the spirit of the bayonet?” I doubt you’ll bother, but maybe it will clarify for you that use of melee weapons in close quarters isn’t something that even soldiers do without intensive training aimed specifically at making them aggressive in such combat.
I don’t own a swimming pool but I’d still like my children to know how to swim to help alleviate the chances of an accidental drowning. Even if parents don’t own a gun, children may one day find themselves with one present. Training them, even with the minimal “stop, don’t touch, tell an adult”-type, would help alleviate the chances of an accidental injury / death.
People didn’t have the right to own slaves? I didn’t realize that southern slave owners were acting illegally the whole time. Ignorance fought!
Which portion touches on the harm prevented by private gun ownership?
No, they didn’t have the right to own slaves. Good grief. You don’t understand the difference between a right and something being legal. And you clearly don’t have a very good grasp on even the ‘being legal’ part of the discussion, since even when slavery was legal (which was right there in what you quoted), you couldn’t just randomly shoot black people because you were white.
Sadly, I don’t believe your ignorance has been fought. 
Who should pay for, and who should carry out, this society-wide gun training?