We all know once you’ve pulled the trigger, you own the bullet. In the holster it’s a pistol, pull it in self defense, it becomes a weapon. If you fire a warning shot have you admitted being in fear for your life, is it justified? If so, why wasn’t the weapon pointed at the source of the threat instead of being directed towards the unknown. Can you claim; beyond a doubt, the shot was safe, with out reckless disregard? Do you fire to wound and take a chance of missing or, take a safe shot at center mass? Always, so little time with so much to conceder. Just a thought, boar out.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Warning shot, or not...
- Thread starter wild boar
- Start date
I think using a firearm to "wound" could be construed as inhumane.
It should only be pulled from the holster to use deadly force as an absolute LAST resort. You shoot to stop a threat, you don't shoot to "wound" someone. When defending life, limb, or eyesight (and that of someone else) you don't aim at the legs or arms, you aim center mass to ensure you stop the threat. If it isn't a true threat then you don't use a firearm.
It should only be pulled from the holster to use deadly force as an absolute LAST resort. You shoot to stop a threat, you don't shoot to "wound" someone. When defending life, limb, or eyesight (and that of someone else) you don't aim at the legs or arms, you aim center mass to ensure you stop the threat. If it isn't a true threat then you don't use a firearm.
Grant Guess
Regular Member
If I am forced to pull mine out of the holster, I will be pulling through on the trigger instantly. There won't be any wasted ammo on warning shots.
Jay Gatz
Regular Member
If you're justified to fire a warning shot, you're justified to use deadly force. If you're not comfortable with the thought of taking a life to defend your own, I would recommend you not carry.
Most states will consider a "warning shot" a negligent or dangerous discharge and charge you for it regardless of the damage done/justification. Shooting to wound will often be considered malicious wounding. All legal issues I would not want to get tied into. If you're in fear for your life shoot center of mass until they stop, you stand the best chance of survival and the lowest chance of prosecution.
Most states will consider a "warning shot" a negligent or dangerous discharge and charge you for it regardless of the damage done/justification. Shooting to wound will often be considered malicious wounding. All legal issues I would not want to get tied into. If you're in fear for your life shoot center of mass until they stop, you stand the best chance of survival and the lowest chance of prosecution.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
"If in danger shoot the stranger" - Instructor Yellow Cat, Utah CC Permit Class, 2011
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
If you are justified in drawing your weapon, then the threat to your life must be imminent. You should not have the luxury of firing a "warning" shot. By doing so you are demonstrating that the threat was not so imminent and there was not a need to "stop the threat".
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
I agree a warning shot is a bad idea. In the time that it takes to fire a warning shot your attacker could close the distance and make it a wrestling match.
Good Golly, Miss Molly! NOt a disagreement in the bunch!
But then this has been hashed out here and just about everywhere else that folks talk about self defense - regardless if they are in favor of or oppose the concept. And the answer has always been the same as what you are getting here.
So, tell us why you feel the need to gather the wisdom of the internet on this subject.
stay safe.
But then this has been hashed out here and just about everywhere else that folks talk about self defense - regardless if they are in favor of or oppose the concept. And the answer has always been the same as what you are getting here.
So, tell us why you feel the need to gather the wisdom of the internet on this subject.
stay safe.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Everyone knows everything posted on the internet is true.
Plus I got to say "If in danger shoot the stranger".
M
McX
Guest
this matter is situational. depends upon the situation. i as a rule dont give warnings. if time and opportunity are there, and i am condition 3, pulling, racking the slide, and going to the low position on the firearm is all the warning i would offer, along with a hand extended, and the verbal command to halt. if no time is allowed, pull, and fire. there are no right answers unfortunately.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Warning shots for what??
Do you want to warn the assailant that your aware of them committing a crime?
Are you saying you would like the give them a "fare chance" to shoot you back?
Do the though of pulling your weapon and demanding them to the ground no come to mind?
Warning shots are a mistake when crime is in process.
Pull your weapon and make your demands, if the assailant fails to comply then I see no reason to "warn" them.
Do you want to warn the assailant that your aware of them committing a crime?
Are you saying you would like the give them a "fare chance" to shoot you back?
Do the though of pulling your weapon and demanding them to the ground no come to mind?
Warning shots are a mistake when crime is in process.
Pull your weapon and make your demands, if the assailant fails to comply then I see no reason to "warn" them.
littlewolf
Regular Member
I would have to concider the 1st shot to the chest the warning shot. anything after that the I told you so shot...
XDFDE45
Regular Member
SigGuy23
Activist Member
Warning shots are NEVER a good idea. No matter what the situation is. Never mind the legal ramifications. It's the law of physics. What goes up must come down. That "warning shot" will come down at almost nearly the velocity it was shot. Who knows where it will land. It could hit the person who fired it in the first place. Way to go smart one, you shot yourself instead of the badguy. Warning shots also take to much time.
NEVER shoot to injure. You are not shooting to injure or kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. Once they are no longer a threat, you stop shooting. If they live, then good you didn't kill someone. If they die oh well, at least you're not dead. Also not everyone who owns or shoots a weapon is a expert marksman. Add adrenaline to the factor and you still think you can shoot them in the leg or arm? Shoot center of the biggest target area. It increases you chances of landing your shots and making sure you're coming out alive. This ain't the movies.
That's all I have to say about this.
NEVER shoot to injure. You are not shooting to injure or kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. Once they are no longer a threat, you stop shooting. If they live, then good you didn't kill someone. If they die oh well, at least you're not dead. Also not everyone who owns or shoots a weapon is a expert marksman. Add adrenaline to the factor and you still think you can shoot them in the leg or arm? Shoot center of the biggest target area. It increases you chances of landing your shots and making sure you're coming out alive. This ain't the movies.
That's all I have to say about this.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Well, I hope not. There could be circumstances when having your gun in your hand is a good idea while you're assessing the situation. But it could turn out to be a "no shoot". Otherwise there will be a lot of dead or injured innocent people, cats who knock over a lamp, and unnecessary holes in somebody's wall. The "be sure of your target" rule may not apply as strictly during a military engagement, but for the rest of the world, it does.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
No warning shot... If there was time I would make sure a VERY LOUD warning shouted vocally (borderline scream) would be cause for pause for the BG... thus giving me an opening..... Or not... either way... No warning shot.
Outdoorsman1
Outdoorsman1
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Warning shots
Warning shots are not a black and white situation. Like everything related to carrying and using a gun, there are pros and cons, compromises and tradeoffs. On the whole, I'd say warning shots are not recommended, but they do have potential benefits also.
On the plus side, a warning shot:
1) Could stop a person's aggression without having to punch a hole into their body.
2) Could serve to get another person's attention.
3) Could "buy time" in a situation
On the negative side, a warning shot:
1) Could hit an innocent person, if not placed properly.
2) Could hit the attacker when you did not intend to hit him or her, if not placed properly.
3) May cause another person to shoot unjustifiably.
4) May cause property damage.
5) Definitely will leave you with less ammunition. (e.g., leave you with 5-shots in a 6-shot required situation)
Warning shots are not a black and white situation. Like everything related to carrying and using a gun, there are pros and cons, compromises and tradeoffs. On the whole, I'd say warning shots are not recommended, but they do have potential benefits also.
On the plus side, a warning shot:
1) Could stop a person's aggression without having to punch a hole into their body.
2) Could serve to get another person's attention.
3) Could "buy time" in a situation
On the negative side, a warning shot:
1) Could hit an innocent person, if not placed properly.
2) Could hit the attacker when you did not intend to hit him or her, if not placed properly.
3) May cause another person to shoot unjustifiably.
4) May cause property damage.
5) Definitely will leave you with less ammunition. (e.g., leave you with 5-shots in a 6-shot required situation)
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
I came in here to post this. Why do you think the odds are that you'll have a good backstop into which you could fire a warning shot? You could waste precious seconds trying to figure out a place to fire your stray round when the only good place to fire is into the baddie.
Either shoot the baddie or don't shoot at all.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Why do you assume you'll have a good backstop when you're firing at "the baddie?" Do you assume that all of the rounds that you fire will hit the bad guy and furthermore, that none of them will pass straight through him? Based on the empirical evidence of thousands upon thousands of shootings, none of these assumptions appear to be reasonable.
Even when you're firing "into the baddie" it is better if one has awareness of what or who is in the vicinity behind "the baddie." It is not unreasonable to surmise that this requires approximately the same amount of thought and time as choosing a spot to place a warning shot. If it is taking "precious seconds" to figure it out, maybe one should consider the possibility that one is too slow, mentally, to be carrying a firearm for defense. In a gunfight, the critical decisions and actions are likely to be measured in fractions of a second. (Although thanks to the psychological phenomenon known as "time dilation" it may seem like it took much longer.)