The right to fire warning shots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jose said:
Then stop watching that stupid, ignorant show.

What are you going to do when three attackers say they want to kick your ass and have no visible weapons but start flanking you? Have you seen what repeated blows to the head from fists and boots do? Hint: they inflict severe bodily injury or death.

What are you going to do when someone pulls a knife on you? IDK about where you live, but where I live assault with a knife is assault with a deadly weapon because you will sustain severe bodily injury or death.

What are you going to do when one or more attackers have blunt impact weapons? Have you seen what a baseball bat does to bones? In my state broken bones and head trauma are severe bodily injury.

In my state any threat that has the means, opportunity, and intent to inflict severe bodily injury or death can be repelled with deadly force if attempts to de-escalate or escape do not work.

So guess what will do in the above situations?
Click to expand...

I watch that show, and I don't recall them every saying that. In fact in one of the training sessions they have a guy coming at them with a bat. Not pulling a gun when the other guy only has a knife, is just pure stupid.
 
calsdad said:
It didn't used to be a problem. When I was a kid - people drove drunk ALL THE TIME.

I have friends who crashed their cars while drunk - and were driven home by the cops.

It wasn't a great thing. And you could get arrested for it - if the cops felt like it. But the general attitude in most parts of society at the time was: " no harm - no foul".


This is actually a good example of what I was talking about in my previous post: - the law has changed in this country to basically forbid things just because they "might" cause a problem. The law used to be understood to be used in cases where one person actually harmed another. Now it is used to enforce behavioral norms.

This IS the road to tyranny.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that don't have any ethical problems with driving drunk.

If thats the case, then we don't have any basis for any real discussions of this issue. You don't feel that people's behavior should be regulated in any way, only that bad outcomes should be regulated.

I'll never agree with that. And I'll never sway you. But we got at the crux of the issue.

I'm not being sarcastic, but by that logic I'm assuming you agree with the following statements:

1) aircraft should not be proactively inspected by the FAA and airlines should not be sanctioned for failing these inspections. They should only be sanctioned if an actual accident or incident occur.
2) there should be no motor vehicle laws in general, only laws that affect how someone is punished after a crash that they cause.
3) there should be no financial or banking regulation. there should only be laws determining the punishment after a harm has occured.

Don
 
Sibb said:
I watch that show, and I don't recall them every saying that. In fact in one of the training sessions they have a guy coming at them with a bat. Not pulling a gun when the other guy only has a knife, is just pure stupid.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I haven't and was taking this:

Originally Posted by JimB
in watching conceal and carry they do not encourage drawing you firearm

unless your confronted with a firearm...
Click to expand...

at face value.
 
The only instance I could imagine where a warning shot would be a good idea would be if I were hiking in the woods (which I do a lot of) and came across a wolf or black bear or even coyote. If the critter were coming a little too close for comfort for me, sure I'd fire a round into the dirt in hopes it'd be scared shitless and run away. The animal doesn't know any better and shouldn't be killed for hanging out in it's own territory. ETA: Hunters excluded of course. Bambi tastes great.

On the other hand if I ever had to draw on a human being it would be because they made the conscious choice to threaten my life. No matter how dumb said criminal may be, they know what the stakes are the nanosecond their intended "prey" shows a firearm. Warning shot is pointless.

Discretion. Warning shot in a Walmart parkinglot for a knife-wielding suspect 5 feet from me? No.

Warning shot in the dirt in the middle of the woods for a chipmunk looking at me funny from a treetop branch 50 yards away? Maybe. [grin]

No it should not be illegal, but there are more circumstances than not where it shouldn't even be considered.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree with the majority here as far as the warning shot goes. Totally useless...waste of one round...potentially dangerous to innocent people whether it be in a parking lot or your own house with neighbor's houses within range. However, I would like to see a little more sense on brandishing laws. I would say in a lot of cases where a threat is encountered the mere act of calmly displaying superior force may de-escalate the situation. The problem comes from the a-holes that would pull their weapon every time someone looks at them cross-eyed or cuts them off in traffic. Having a police officer or judge decide when and if you used proper restraint in a situation might be a little dicey in this state.
 
Brandishing laws are absurd.

Here's my problem with warning shots, if they legalize the practice, then you are going see anti-gun prosecutors asking juries "why didn't the defendant fire a warning shot?"
 
dcmdon said:
So you are saying that don't have any ethical problems with driving drunk.

If thats the case, then we don't have any basis for any real discussions of this issue. You don't feel that people's behavior should be regulated in any way, only that bad outcomes should be regulated.

I'll never agree with that. And I'll never sway you. But we got at the crux of the issue.

I'm not being sarcastic, but by that logic I'm assuming you agree with the following statements:

1) aircraft should not be proactively inspected by the FAA and airlines should not be sanctioned for failing these inspections. They should only be sanctioned if an actual accident or incident occur.
2) there should be no motor vehicle laws in general, only laws that affect how someone is punished after a crash that they cause.
3) there should be no financial or banking regulation. there should only be laws determining the punishment after a harm has occured.

Don
Click to expand...

This is what happens with prolonged government intrusion. The people start thinking that the presence of excessive government is actually accomplishing something, and then they fear what might happen without it. In fact, government interference has done much to screw up transportation and banking (in your examples), and far more harm than good has come from this. In each case you mention, absence of control and regulation would be just fine, and in fact was just fine in the past, assuming other government interference and distortion are eliminated. Don't let your lack of imagination define the limits of free people and free markets.

On topic: warning shots clearly are idiotic, but like most things idiotic should not be illegal unless they result in unjustified harm to people or property.
 
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...

I think you articulated it quite well for him about 3 posts earlier.... Assuming his/her life felt threatened.

Jose said:
"In my state any threat that has the means, opportunity, and intent to inflict severe bodily injury or death can be repelled with deadly force if attempts to de-escalate or escape do not work.

So guess what will do in the above situations? ".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Geez, how is this thread still going. Here's recap. Refer to this before posting:

1. Warning shots should NOT be illegal.
2. Firing warning shots IS stupid
3. Jose would like to see a total collapse of this oppressive American govt.
4. Way too many people on this site are more articulate than me.
5. The population of pansies on this site is surprising.

Thank You...and lock this b**ch up.
 
red87930 said:
I think you articulated it quite well for him about 3 posts earlier.... Assuming his/her life felt threatened.
Click to expand...

Someone running at you in a threatening manner is not reason enough to draw down.

Not unless weapons are already present or the disparity of force is unmistakeable.
 
Jose said:
Someone running at you in a threatening manner is not reason enough to draw down.

Not unless weapons are already present or the disparity of force is unmistakeable.
Click to expand...

Someone running at me in a threatening manner is, for sure reason to draw - I have a bum knee and a weak heart at 60 yrs old. What about the 15-foot (or 20-foot) rule of self defense? That bugger rushes me and gets to 10 feet away, he's perforated!! I'll be drawing my weapon well before he gets that close. At least that will give him the option to turn around and head off the other way.
I'll let a bear charge to 10-feet away, but you can generally trust a bear.
 
I for one am glad to see that most here would rather focus on things other than warning shots. Letting Hollywood dictate gun control since the 60s has led to a major CF of laws. I am sure that letting hollywood notions (warning shots and waving a gun around to scare the bad guy) dictate gun law reform would be just as bad if not worse.
 
We all have our beliefs and mine is no warning shots. I was always taught not to draw unless you intend to shoot - period. If I feel threatened I will reach and put my hand firmly on my pistol grip but will use every bit of contol I can muster to leave it holstered until or unless I have to use it. And yes, I would not hesitate to let an agressor know that I have my hand on my pistol and I will only shoot to kill - That would be the only warning I would give anyone.
 
44marty said:
Someone running at me in a threatening manner is, for sure reason to draw - I have a bum knee and a weak heart at 60 yrs old. What about the 15-foot (or 20-foot) rule of self defense? That bugger rushes me and gets to 10 feet away, he's perforated!! I'll be drawing my weapon well before he gets that close. At least that will give him the option to turn around and head off the other way.
I'll let a bear charge to 10-feet away, but you can generally trust a bear.
Click to expand...
Did you read the second sentence of my post?
 
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
837
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