Not sure what you're getting at here. It doesn't matter what they are, it matters what they're carrying.

Sure:
Con: Even if the shooting is justified, I have to deal with the hassle of the shooting, perhaps have to pay for legal defense, and lose all the time and money associated with that.
Con: If I injure and do not kill the person, I think their being shot increases the likelihood that they're going to return fire, possibly killing/wounding me.
Con: If they don't die, maybe they (or their friends, if the intruder does die) will want payback at some point in the coming years.

I'd much rather be robbed than shoot someone. Firing a gun is a last resort. Gun owners need to be trained to that effect.

well, police/military have some sort of authority for making a person stop advancing on them, and the ability to conduct a thorough search of the perpetrator's person to ensure they have no weapons. Crazy McHeadshot had no guarantee that these kids were unarmed, that they would have listened to him had he told them to freeze/stand still/don't move (not that he advised them to do that anyway)

Oh good an appeal to the majority.

Sure, but I value this:

more than time and money for legal defense.

Well, if they get thru a barricade in a dark room, you don't really know if they have a knife/gun/whatever, so maybe they are already planning on physically attacking you. Why else would they be dead set on getting to you? At least you even the odds by having a weapon, instead of being a fish in a barrel.

You're just technically nitpicking here. If you really insist we can use "not carrying" or "visibly unarmed". I know police and military will frequently use "armed" so whatever the opposite of that is.

Just want to make you feel small and insignificant.

visibly unarmed is technically correct.

My larger issue here actually rests on two points:

1) I've discovered while discussing issues involving self defense and Use of Force here that to many "unarmed" and "harmless" or "not a threat" are almost interchangeable. That is incorrect.

2) Many here do not grasp how quickly a visibly unarmed individual can produce a weapon and implement it.

Absolutely, and that's why you fire a gun only when you think you're in mortal danger. Someone in your house does not mean you're in mortal danger.

Again, firing a gun is a last resort. If you've made clear that the house isn't empty, that you're armed, and that the police are on their way, and someone is still proceeding, then you shoot them. Heck if you want to throw in hold them at gun point before shooting them, that's fine too.

The point that I (and I think prana) are making is that, like the police, gunowners should not be firing a gun as their initial action to dissuade criminals. Gunowners should be trained to that effect.

I'm not saying don't shoot anyone, please don't try to pretend that I am.

If I ever get those feelings I'll make sure to go out and buy more guns to compensate.

And you can do so due to the efforts of people like me.

I don't believe that's true, don't assault weapons bans poll well?

what is the police/military authority?

Not when worded correctly, as in "Do you believe certain guns should be banned based on the plastic bolt on parts they have, with no regard to function?"

You'd be correct here, but that's because most people are morons who think that an "assault weapons ban" is actually keeping machine guns off the street.

Ballistics gel is a know quantity as well, and it is an analog to flesh.

this is correct, only a ****tard minority of them do.

nice try tollzilla

Annnnnnd ZERO people in this forum are represented by this statement.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.

People are conditioned from birth to view the police officer as an authority figure.

Now while that may be true that the authority at the far top of the spectrum is just physical violence, it's far more common for a burglar to run when faced with an armed civilian than when faced with a cop (which is odd, because we're less likely to shoot them in the back as they're running away).

A good example; You and I go to a Wal-Mart, hang around outside, at random intervals we both, as someone passes us, attempt to stop them. we are allowed to say nothing more than "Hey, come here" and see how many comply.

I will get instant compliance from nearly every single person when wearing a "Class A" uniform, get a few less when wearing tactical pants and a tshirt that reads "Sheriff" and we'd be about equal with both in civilian clothes.

But I'd crush you in uniform gaining routine compliance from strangers.

There's a lot of carryover to armed encounters there as well.

ummm yeah... get back to me when you or your little protected one spot any.

Every single one except a lunatic would listen when you put a ****ing gun to their head too.

How do armed robbers ever get vaults and safes open without resistance since they don't have the military/police authority guise?!

Sorry, my fault, I should have used automatic weapons as my example, since that polls well. Or gun bans for violent criminals, or mandatory background checks. All examples of gun control.

I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement about that.

The police/military get their authority by acting as agents of the state to, uh, I can't think of the word, but to enforce laws, essentially.

As an armed citizen (in the future), I don't/won't have that authority.

Wow 91% of people approve of a law requiring background check for purchase of a weapon.

Poll Link

Whoops!

So we're to the point where you guys are arguing that shooting is justified because you just don't know if they will listen when you point the gun at their head and say freeze? LOL. This is my issue with guns. The ******ed ass owners. I'm scared to hunt with idiots after reading this type of ****.

Give them a chance to comply and if they don't shoot. You already have the gun pointed directly at them ffs.