The right to fire warning shots

Status
Not open for further replies.
atmay said:
I'm going to go ahead in put myself in the "it's retarded but shouldn't be illegal" camp. Obviously, if you end up shooting someone random, there's got to be consequences, but in the very, very limited circumstances where a warning shot may be prudent and possible, why not?
Click to expand...


That's where I stand on this.

The government should not have a say on whether people can or cannot do stupid things. If you do stupid things - and harm another person - then you should pay the price for that stupidity.

The fact that this is being debated in the fashion that this thread has taken shows how far down the road towards letting the government decide what our actions should be on any given moment we have gone.


Firing a warning shot? I think it's almost always stupid. - But - some people need to hear the actual sound of gunfire before their "oh shit I'm about to get shot" reflex kicks in.

If you fire that shot - and it goes up in the air and kills some girl in a parade - then your butt should go to jail for negligent homicide. If you shoot into your front lawn to get some gang bangers off your property - and it works - then you have avoided killing another person and shouldn't be prosecuted for damaging your lawn.

What we are talking about here is the government legislating the 1/2 inch movement of your finger. Not the outcome.

We have gone away from the 'no harm no foul' version of the way the law used to work in this country - to the ' if you even think about it - you are guilty ' version of the law that is now currently taking hold more and more. There are latin terms for these two ways of looking at the law - I can't remember what they are of the top of my head. But basically one is rooted in the ideas of liberty - and the other is rooted in the ideas of tyranny.

Trying to legislate that being "allowed" to fire a warning shot (either way - yes or no) - is going down the road towards a tyrannical version of the law. As soon as you say it's allowed - you are also admitting that the govt. has the right to say it will not be allowed.

This will of course depend on the whims of whichever group has the reigns of the law making machinery at any point in time. Which is why the Founding Fathers gave us a Constitutional Republic - and not a democracy as everybody seems to think these days.


The proper response of everybody who responded to this thread should have been: "it's none of the government's goddam business one way or the other".
 
jasons said:
Yeah, we know. You're missing the point.



Dumb, yes, but it shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

The law has some merit in both cases.

There is an ethical difference between brandishing in the traditional sense and drawing to fire, but not firing because the threat immediatly retreats.

I have no problem with it being illegal to brandish. It creates a messy messy situation.
I do have a problem with that law being applied to people who make the decision not to shoot.

re warning shots. Its stupid. It puts innocents at risk. Either shoot the bad guy or leave the gun in the holster.
 
I think we should all just try to shoot the gun out of an aggressor's hand. Or shoot them in the leg. Isn't that what the moonbats post in the comments section of every news article about a shooting? Funny how they can't make up their minds about it.

Sometimes I think they make gun laws so confusing and stupid just so that people say "F it" and don't bother trying to carry.
 
Last edited:
dcmdon said:
The law has some merit in both cases.

There is an ethical difference between brandishing in the traditional sense and drawing to fire, but not firing because the threat immediatly retreats.

I have no problem with it being illegal to brandish. It creates a messy messy situation.
I do have a problem with that law being applied to people who make the decision not to shoot.

re warning shots. Its stupid. It puts innocents at risk. Either shoot the bad guy or leave the gun in the holster.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that a "warning shot," even if it causes no harm, should be illegal? And you're OK with the "brandishing" laws in CA?


EDIT: And how do we define a "warning shot" exactly? Could a miss be considered a "warning shot?"
 
Last edited:
Most famously the women out in the western part of the state. She dies of cancer penniless and broken before she was able to clear her good name.
Click to expand...
There is also the case (or it may be the same case inaccurately summarized) where Linda Hamilton RN was convicted for unholstering but not pointing a gun; lost her nursing license; driven to financial ruin as a result; and committed suicide. I think her house was foreclosed on, or at least sold, due to the financial stresses of the loss of her professional license. Her case is an excellent example of the problem created by the elimination of the de-novo system in MA where someone convicted at a bench trial automatically had the right to appeal to jury trial. I am familiar with a theft case where the judge looked at the defendant, declared "I think you did it" and found him guilty. This was in the days of the de-novo system, and he was found not guilty in less than 15 minutes of jury deliberations.

Bench trials can be very dangerous, as only one person needs to be convinced of your guilt. Also, while he is not supposed to consider the penalty when determining guilt, the judge in a bench trial can have knowledge that he is not sending the defendant to jail, just turning her into a felon and dealing with the gun control issue one person at a time. Of course, the loss of her profession was a bonus kill for the system.

It is very likely Linda Hamilton would not have been convicted at a jury trial. Accepting a bench trial was, in all likelyhood, a fatal mistake.
 
Last edited:
Warning shots no but displaying your firearm to make the aggressor/s rethink their actions yes. I don't think that either should be illegal but warning shots could lead to an innocent person being injured. If the sight of the firearm does not stop them then it is time to shoot them.
 
Last edited:
Personlly in terms of who can have the best gun laws, MA and CA are in a desperate battle for last place with NY saying "Me too! Me too!"
 
If I feel threatened enough to clear my holster, my assailant can consider the first round that hits him the "warning shot."

The rest of the rounds, not so much.
 
For me this ranks right up there with considering less-lethal attacks as if they were a full-borne application of lethal force. Just another case of the government restricting the available force continuum for no other reason than that they can. My overarching view is that ultimately intent and results should be the deciding factor - first the "no harm, no foul" principle, and second the idea that if I force you into a situation where deadly force is the only option, then I am responsible if innocent bystanders get hurt as a result. It is well known that human beings operate in a radically different state of mind during the "fight or flight" response, and just as I am responsible for the effects if I slip someone a drug without their notice, I should be responsible for the results if I force them into a "fight or flight" situation.

That said, while I understand why warning shots and less-lethal solutions are generally frowned upon, I also understand their attraction. There are always cases where despite lethal force being justified, the individual in question may prefer a non-lethal solution even at increased risk to their own life - cases where you're dealing with a relative or friend who is drunk/desperate/etc, and who you'd like to give a second chance even if it increases the risk to yourself.
 
jasons said:
So you're saying that a "warning shot," even if it causes no harm, should be illegal? And you're OK with the "brandishing" laws in CA?


EDIT: And how do we define a "warning shot" exactly? Could a miss be considered a "warning shot?"
Click to expand...


I don't know the laws in CA.
I'm saying that if you are justified in shooting someone then by all means draw with the intention of firing. If he immediately retreats and you do not fire, you should be clean legally.
If however, you are not in a situation facing grave physical harm and you can diffuse the situation by retreating, then you are not justified in "displaying" `a firearm.
Said in a different way, brandishing without the intent of, or justification for, firing, should be illegal.

The warning shot fails the same ethical and legal litmus test. Are you justified in shooting the person? If yes, then shoot. If they are retreating, then don't shoot.

If you feel that a warning shot may deter someone who could justifiably be shot, then you have put yourself and innocents at increased risk and ARE NOT mentally prepared to carry a gun.
 
Right to brandish (bear)? Absolutely. Right to warning shot? Uh, no...

Counter productive... Now legally speaking the action of firing the warning shot should be measured by its actual risk to someone, not the mere fact of its firing. If it were fired in such a manner that it put no one at risk, then it should be treated as such... Depending on where it's aimed, its just a loud bang...
 
In IDPA this is called round dumping. It makes it easier when you get to the reload point.

[laugh2]

Seriously, each situation is different and the laws should be loose enough to allow a law abiding citizen to "solve" said problem.
 
Also, keep in mind that as a practical matter, warning shots can do more harm than good. I've been carrying my S&W 3914 and firing a warning shot takes me from 8 available rounds to 7 before I reload.

Since accuracy suffers in an adrenaline-fueled encounter I might need that extra round.
 
Mr Weebles said:
Also, keep in mind that as a practical matter, warning shots can do more harm than good. I've been carrying my S&W 3914 and firing a warning shot takes me from 8 available rounds to 7 before I reload.

Since accuracy suffers in an adrenaline-fueled encounter I might need that extra round.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is doubting the fact that in 99.99999999999999999% of cases, warning shots are dumb. That really shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's prohibited by law, though.

Or would be rather start banning everything we think is stupid?
 
dcmdon said:
I don't know the laws in CA.
I'm saying that if you are justified in shooting someone then by all means draw with the intention of firing. If he immediately retreats and you do not fire, you should be clean legally.
If however, you are not in a situation facing grave physical harm and you can diffuse the situation by retreating, then you are not justified in "displaying" `a firearm.
Said in a different way, brandishing without the intent of, or justification for, firing, should be illegal.

The warning shot fails the same ethical and legal litmus test. Are you justified in shooting the person? If yes, then shoot. If they are retreating, then don't shoot.

If you feel that a warning shot may deter someone who could justifiably be shot, then you have put yourself and innocents at increased risk and ARE NOT mentally prepared to carry a gun.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree. IMHO "brandishing" is one of those BS laws that anti-gun prosecutors use to screw over gun owners. And making additional laws around "warning shots" does nothing except give those prosecutors yet another tool to screw with gun owners. Just because it's dumb doesn't mean it should be illegal.
 
Jose said:
Can you articulate what in this situation would put you in fear of death or severe injury?

ETA: Maybe you should become a little more observant of people so that you do not have to wait to see a weapon before you start moving up to condition orange. And maybe you should work on your draw so that you do not have to pull it out so early and pre-emptively. And maybe you should work on hand to hand skills so that your only response to an unarmed man charging you is not a gun.
Click to expand...


He observed a threat and he is reacting to it. If he feels his life is threatened who are we to judge?
Hand to hand? Are you nuts? Some 50 year old guy should take on a 20 year old street thug with his fists?
Aren't you the guy who says don't write checks your body can't cash?
 
Realtor MA said:
He observed a threat and he is reacting to it. If he feels his life is threatened who are we to judge?
Hand to hand? Are you nuts? Some 50 year old guy should take on a 20 year old street thug with his fists?
Aren't you the guy who says don't write checks your body can't cash?
Click to expand...

Way to take one little snippet out of context to make a point.

red_herring.jpg
 
The potential risks to innocents is indeed a practical argument against a warning shot, but given that shots fired in self-defense often miss, making this argument against warning shots comes close to lending credibility to the anti-gunner's stance on the danger of employing guns for self-defense.

I myself believe in countering moderate force with strong force, and strong force with extreme force.
 
MaverickNH said:
...given that shots fired in self-defense often miss...
Click to expand...

goofycj7 said:
The warning shot is if I miss...
Click to expand...

Brings up a good point. Under the "warning shots are banned" legislation that some folks in this thread seem to be for let's say you draw and fire but miss. You don't shoot him, but it is enough to get the bad guy's attention and he runs away. Are you now a felon for firing a "warning shot" even though it would have been a good shoot had you actually been on target?

We've all seen how the original intent of gun laws has routinely been perverted by prosecutors and other government agents looking to screw over gun owners. Why do we think this would be any different?
 
Last edited:
I think that "brandishing" a firearm to detour an attack to should be a legal defense. Police do it all the time and seems to work for them. Why do we have to kill someone so we don't got to jail. That just seems funny to me.

Warning shots? Dumb. No such thing. It is reckless and dangerous.
 
I am not going to fire a warning shot and give up the advantage I have that the assailant (hopefully) does not know I am armed.

I'm not breaking leather unless I intend to pull the trigger to stop the attack/threat.
 
Glockaholic said:
I'm not breaking leather unless I intend to pull the trigger to stop the attack/threat.
Click to expand...
Every attack is different, but this approach tends to rely on an overly optimistic view of your speed and ability to determine the need to do so without doubt...

Speaking from my personal experience - good luck with all of that...
 
calsdad said:
That's where I stand on this.

The government should not have a say on whether people can or cannot do stupid things. If you do stupid things - and harm another person - then you should pay the price for that stupidity.

The fact that this is being debated in the fashion that this thread has taken shows how far down the road towards letting the government decide what our actions should be on any given moment we have gone.


Firing a warning shot? I think it's almost always stupid. - But - some people need to hear the actual sound of gunfire before their "oh shit I'm about to get shot" reflex kicks in.

If you fire that shot - and it goes up in the air and kills some girl in a parade - then your butt should go to jail for negligent homicide. If you shoot into your front lawn to get some gang bangers off your property - and it works - then you have avoided killing another person and shouldn't be prosecuted for damaging your lawn.

What we are talking about here is the government legislating the 1/2 inch movement of your finger. Not the outcome.

We have gone away from the 'no harm no foul' version of the way the law used to work in this country - to the ' if you even think about it - you are guilty ' version of the law that is now currently taking hold more and more. There are latin terms for these two ways of looking at the law - I can't remember what they are of the top of my head. But basically one is rooted in the ideas of liberty - and the other is rooted in the ideas of tyranny.

Trying to legislate that being "allowed" to fire a warning shot (either way - yes or no) - is going down the road towards a tyrannical version of the law. As soon as you say it's allowed - you are also admitting that the govt. has the right to say it will not be allowed.

This will of course depend on the whims of whichever group has the reigns of the law making machinery at any point in time. Which is why the Founding Fathers gave us a Constitutional Republic - and not a democracy as everybody seems to think these days.


The proper response of everybody who responded to this thread should have been: "it's none of the government's goddam business one way or the other".
Click to expand...

you said it way better than I could. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Canik TTI combat failure to fire.
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
jkelly1229
J
Shots fired in Hyannis, nearby schools are told to shelter in place.
2
Replies
36
Views
836
rogersmithiii
R
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
222
Coyote33
Coyote33
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
382
clampett
clampett
NPR Podcast: throughline: The Right To Bear Arms
Replies
9
Views
665
s&w3913
S
Back
Top Bottom