Nearly half of UK householders keep a domestic item, which could be used as a weapon in their homes, the latest research shows.

Two-thirds of these said they would not be afraid to use such a weapon in self-defence against an intruder in the event of a break-in.

The most popular items kept for self-defence was a baseball or cricket bat or a heavy tool, a study by Confused.com reveals.

The findings from the insurance price comparison show that some people will arm themselves with less obvious weapons, including pots and pans or a torch.

Men are more likely than women to arm themselves against an intruder with 54 per cent compared with 45 per cent of women - 18 per cent of which opt instead to use a dog to scare off trespassers.

The rearch also shows many UK householders are taking additional security measures to ensure they are never faced with the prospect of an intruder.

Nearly half of the 2,000 residents polled, have fitted extra door locks to keep burglars out, 31 per cent have installed a burglar alarm and 20 per cent have introduced self-timed lights to deter thieves.

The fear of intruders appears to be backed up by research, which shows that three in ten people in Britain have been a victim of burglary, with 39 per cent in the house when it happened. In Gwent there were 1,874 domestic burglaries between March 2012 and 2013 - a drop in 7 per cent compared to the previous year.

The issue of people defending their properties against burglars is sparking much debate, with the government now also commenting on the issue.

Householders who react with force when confronted by burglars are to get more legal protection, according to comments made by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling last year.

"Grossly disproportionate" force will still be against the law in England and Wales, but the bar will be higher than the current "proportionate" force test.

But the question remains as to what proportional force is and how the courts make judgements on a reaction to someone breaking into someone's home.

Joint advice from the Crown Proseuction Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, says anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.

So long as a householder does what they honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if a homeowner used something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force that can lawfully be use in self-defence.

The force used must always be reasonable in the circumstances.

When defending themselves or others from intruders in the home, it might still be reasonable to use a degree of force that is subsequently considered to be disproportionate, if acting in extreme circumstances in the heat of the moment and they don't have a chance to think about exactly how much force would be necessary to repel an intruder.

It might seem reasonable at the time but, with hindsight, such actions may seem disproportionate. The law will give those defending their home the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances.

This only applies if they are acting in self-defence or to protect others in your home and the force you used was disproportionate - disproportionate force to protect property is still unlawful.

If an action was deemed 'over the top' or a calculated action of revenge or retribution, this might amount to grossly disproportionate force for which the law does not offer protection.

For example if an an intruder is knocked unconscious and then beaten repeatedly, such an action would be more likely to be considered grossly disproportionate.

Residents don't have to wait to be attacked in their own home before taking action if they are in fear for themselves or others. If they have acted in reasonable self-defence and the intruder dies they will still have acted lawfully.

But if the intruder is chased as they run off the a person will no longer be judged as acting in self defence. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable, but acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident before the CPS decide if any charges will be brought.

Very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.