Who here would give a warning shot?

[babe]

This is something I don't talk about and I'm not sure if I should talk about it with a bunch of unknown "internet people," but here goes...

A few years ago, my wife and I were asleep when we were awaken by some noise in our house. We heard voices, and it was the TV. I get my 12 gauge shotgun (Mossberg 500 with 00 for those who want to know) and my wife calls 911. I go out to the living room and there is a 16 year old kid that lives up the street watching our TV and drinking my beer. I yell at him, "What the Fxxx are you doing here go home and drink your own beer!"

He gets up and starts walking towards me and, not saying a word, pulls a screwdriver out of his back pocket. Remember, I have a shotgun pointed at him, so I don't think he is going to do anything to me, but he walks right up and stabs me in the chest. I kicked him away and yelled, "What the Fxxx is wrong with you, I have a shotgun pointed right at you!" Weird... I actually don't remember saying that, but it could be heard on the 911 tape.

He then starts walking towards me again. This time I pull the trigger and killed him.

Turns out he was on some "legal" drug being sold as "herbal bath salts" of all things. No charges were filed against me, but the family sued, then changed their mind after the drug tests came out.

That really messed me up for a couple of years. I sold all of my guns, moved to a different county (to be closer to other relatives) and I couldn't work.

Like I said, that was a few years ago and I'm better now. I worked it out that there was nothing else I could have done, unless I wanted my wife to be a widow.

Over the last year and a half, I have been buying guns again and got my CCW. I feel I can handle it now.

I know this story doesn't answer the question of, "Would you fire a warning shot?" but this thread got me thinking about that incident and whether a warning shot would have helped. I don't think it would have. If the person knows you have gun (shotgun in my case), and they still come at you, they are probably not in their right mind. I got lucky, he missed my heart and lungs, so I was not injured as badly as I could have been. More mentally than physically.

Kwaek...what an amazing and personal story. I really appreciate you sharing that, albeit anonymously. You said your story doesn't answer my question, but in a way it does better than any other.

First you were affected traumatically by the shooting. I think the same, and probably much worst would have happened to me if I had gone through that. But you paused. You spoke to him, both consciously and unconsciously. You gave him a chance to the point of putting your own life in mortal jeopardy. As much as others might say you were tactically foolish I think it says something profound about who you are.

[babe]

How many ways does this have to be presented to prove that a warning shot is never a good idea under any circumstances? What part of "no" is unclear?

I take it you didn't do very well in reading comprehension in school. The question was never if a warning shot was a good idea. We are all in agreement thst tactically and legally, it isnt. My question was who here would consider firing one under any circumstances. And I've already counted 4 yes's. So the only person who isn't 'clear' on things is you.

[AceGirlsHusband]

If you've announced your have a gun and the intruder keeps coming, you no longer have the luxury of deciding on having a potentially deadly confrontation. The BG has made that decision for you.

At that point a so called warning shot is likely going to set off a hale of bullets headed somewhere in your general direction. Unless you live alone you just increased the danger to the rest of your family 100X.

After your announcement is ignored and the threat has been identified, you should post yourself in an advantageous position and shoot his or her gun out of his/her hand(s) - then make a citizen's arrest and give the would-be assailant first aid.

[babe]

I think this is the root of your entire question. Correct me if I'm wrong. But you're basically asking everyone, "Don't you want to use EVERY option before potentially taking a life?"

I think that's a great question, and I think that in all honesty you'd get a wide range of answers. Everything from; "no, if they meet the criteria for deadly force, they're going down" to "absolutely, I have no desire to cause anyone harm."

Personally, I fall more along the lines for the latter. I don't have any desire to use force on anyone. That's just me. However, I can't and WON'T use EVERY option, because some options aren't good options. For me, a warning shot falls in that category. It isn't smart, it isn't safe, it isn't particularly legal. So I won't do it. PERIOD.

What I will do is use every tool and tactic I know to de-escalate a situation and try it resolve it in the best way possible. But at the same time, I recognize that my desire to avoid violence can be a deficit for me. So I've personally established clear criteria for when I will and will not shoot. Once the criteria (line in the sand) is crossed, I've pre-determined that the bad guy has taken the decision out of my hands and put it in his hands. He has forced me to react to his actions. I can't be responsible for others peoples actions or the consequences they bring on themselves.

Also, the line in the sand changes based on who's threatened. If my wife and daughters are involved, that's a lot different situation for me personally than if I'm alone at work, etc. I simply can't gamble as much with their lives and take risks that I could take by myself. If that makes sense.

Wonderful response. You should be a mediator or diplomat. I think you give great advice and I empathize with your emotional response. I also believe my emotions are weakness, but I haven't been able to establish that 'clear criteria'....in fact I don't know that it exists.

[Wnick308]

After your announcement is ignored and the threat has been identified, you should post yourself in an advantageous position and shoot his or her gun out of his/her hand(s) - then make a citizen's arrest and give the would-be assailant first aid.

No, we should offer our assistance to help the assailant because they're the true victim.

[babe]

The warning shot is the one that hits center mass.
The perpetrator can decide to go down, or expect more warnings.

Interesting point, which leads me to think about the 'shoot them in the arm, leg or gut' crowd....wanting to stop a threat but trying to avoid being fatal.

[Sniper3142]

Kwaek...what an amazing and personal story. I really appreciate you sharing that, albeit anonymously. You said your story doesn't answer my question, but in a way it does better than any other.

First you were affected traumatically by the shooting. I think the same, and probably much worst would have happened to me if I had gone through that. But you paused. You spoke to him, both consciously and unconsciously. You gave him a chance to the point of putting your own life in mortal jeopardy. As much as others might say you were tactically foolish I think it says something profound about who you are.

Who he is can be described in 1 word... LUCKY.

Had that attacker hit something vital with that screwdriver, the situation probably would have resulted in him and possibly the rest of his family killed. And THAT is the point you don't seem to understand Babe. Confronting an attacker with a weapon that you aren't totally prepared to actually use is probably the absolutely worse idea possible. You and everyone else needs to decide what they are willing to do in a similar situation. Protecting Human life is always important. That includes YOUR Life.

If you're willing to be a victim rather than harming another person, then owning a firearm is probably a very bad idea for you.

[Mr Wizard]

I know it's the 'wrong' thing to do. The only legitimate reason to shoot is to stop the threat. I am personally prepared to shoot someone to save the lives of myself and my family and I'm ready to live with the consequences. But I think those consequences, and the trauma of killing or horribly injuring someone will be life changing for me.

If someone broke into my home, I would not be the homeowner waiting to line up the perfect kill. I think anyone who has been on this site awhile knows there are many gun owners who have already decided...if you break into my home...threaten my family...you are dead. I'm not that person.

So if I hear the crash in the night, I'll be yelling 'go away! I have a gun!' And if I still hear the footsteps charging up the staircase, I would still want to do all I could to avert a deadly confrontation. If it meant adding some level of personal risk by taking the chance the intruder might be quick enough to overpower me or 'shoot first', my conscious might make me take that risk. I could see myself firing a warning shot to give the damn fool one last chance to end this peaceably

I don't think anybody really knows what they'll do in 'that' situation until they've come upon it. But when I try to look into my own soul, honestly...this is what I see. Is there anyone out there who feels like me? Am I a bad gun owner? Should my feelings make me reconsider being a gun owner?

Sorry, but you asked a question of us and then want to debate our answers and opinions. I do believe if someone breaks into my house, young or old, they are a threat to myself and family. End of discussion. I will deal with my conscience/legalities later.
Yes, I believe you should not own a firearm. Yes, I believe your hesitation WILL get you or a family member injured or worse.
Maybe you should post a sign on the door that reads, "Do not enter, 'cause I will not shoot you".
Prayers sent for your family.

[MrOrange]

Interesting point, which leads me to think about the 'shoot them in the arm, leg or gut' crowd....wanting to stop a threat but trying to avoid being fatal.

Congratulations, you've been declared a winner of the rare and exquisite Infinite Double Face Palm award.

I take it you didn't do very well in reading comprehension in school. The question was never if a warning shot was a good idea. We are all in agreement thst tactically and legally, it isnt. My question was who here would consider firing one under any circumstances. And I've already counted 4 yes's. So the only person who isn't 'clear' on things is you.

If you were truly only interested in "yea" or "nea" then you wouldn't be arguing so blindly with everybody that disagrees with you. And maybe you should've put up a poll.

[454CA]

Lady you don't get it

Babe (OP's statement)
"So many people keep falling back on if someone breaks into my house, they deserve to die and I have the right to kill them. It's like the castle doctrine and 'stand your ground' laws. You're under no 'legal' obligation to walk away from a violent encounter. I support the right, but It's almost like so many of you are waiting to kill, once given legal authority. And that's a scary side of human nature of those who are supposed to be the good guys.

I feel some of you are akin to the people in my neighborhood who drive 35 in the 35mph zone, even when they see a bunch of 4 year olds chasing balls between parked cars. Hey, I'm abiding by the law and if their dumb parents are stupid enough to let their kids chase balls into streets, it's not my problem...there's a game coming on at 5pm and I don't want to miss kickoff. I'm not slowing down.

I've traveled to lots of places in the world and I know everyone doesn't feel like you guys. Americans feel this way though. Probably why we're so dominant. "

If you are going to do whatever it takes to put yourself and others at risk including a warning shot then that is your very bad choice which you are making to benefit someone who means to do you and others harm.
If they end up dead after clearly being aggressive to the point they are a deadly threat you can cry tears if you are alive after that encounter.
It has nothing to do with legality or 4 year olds who play near streets and people who have judgement avoid hitting with cars. If you don't have the judgement to use lethal force so you can stay alive then don't try, or just give your life up, everyone will be safer without your intentionally stray bullets flying around.

[CandG]

you don't seem to understand Babe.

Sniper gets very flirty when he argues

[DSB]

Interesting point, which leads me to think about the 'shoot them in the arm, leg or gut' crowd....wanting to stop a threat but trying to avoid being fatal.

That "crowd" you're talking about all live in Fantasy Land. There's no such thing as "trying to avoid being fatal" when you fire a firearm at a person.

You should seriously consider a pair of running shoes and pepper spray as being the most appropriate tools of self defense in your arsenal. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that -- it's just that a firearm is not the best choice for every person or for every situation.

[orangeusa]

Maybe OP could spray himself to kill this thread.

[CandG]

That "crowd" you're talking about all live in Fantasy Land. There's no such thing as "trying to avoid being fatal" when you fire a firearm at a person.

You should seriously consider a pair of running shoes and pepper spray as being the most appropriate tools of self defense in your arsenal.

Not to mention, it's hard enough for most of us to hit an arm or a leg on a stationary paper target with first shot at 15ft. Intentionally trying to take such a "wounding" shot on a moving target under high-stress means you will almost certainly miss. In those situations, many people need 2 or 3 shots just to make a center-mass hit.

[njineermike]

I take it you didn't do very well in reading comprehension in school. The question was never if a warning shot was a good idea. We are all in agreement thst tactically and legally, it isnt. My question was who here would consider firing one under any circumstances. And I've already counted 4 yes's. So the only person who isn't 'clear' on things is you.

Oh, I'm perfectly clear there junior. You want people to validate you. We wont. It's a bad idea, most of us are smart enough to know not to do it, you not being smart enough to grasp that isn't our problem. Making it into a moral/ethical delimma shows how fully you don't get any of this.