Who here would give a warning shot?

[A-J]

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?

I can sympathize with your feelings on the matter, but the law is not on your side. Firing a warning shot in CA will, in all likelihood, get you a good amount of jail time and bonus you lose all your guns and gun rights. The locked doors and windows are all the warning an intruder will get in my house.

[RAMCLAP]

It's not my job to avoid the threat. When the BG comes into the house he has declared himself a threat to my family. He does not get a warning. He gets dead. I am a husband and a father. It is my job to protect my family at all costs. That means the costs to me. I don't let my family get hurt or dead so I can feel good about myself.

[-hanko]

Who here would start a thread like this?

[djhall]

It's not that I can't fire the shot it's that I don't know if I could live with myself if I didn't feel like I did everything I could to try and avoid it. I know in most cases a warning shot wouldn't be practical. Front door kicked in, person charging up the stairs, etc. But my question is if the appropriate scenario presented itself, would a warning shot that might head off a confrontation be something you would consider.

You keep coming back to the idea that the discharge of a firearm can be used to prevent, discourage, or head off the use of actual lethal force and/or the need to actually shoot someone. We discussed this during use of force training when I attended a California police academy. To summarize my memory of it, our instruction on the matter was this:

Under CA state law, there is no such thing as a "warning shot". Any discharge of a firearm during an encounter is the use of deadly force and any "warning shots" are treated as if you attempted to shoot the person and missed. Deadly force can only be used as a last resort when great bodily injury is imminent, meaning that you had to fire when you did or the injury would have resulted. If you fired a warning shot then you didn't believe the threat was imminent enough to actually shoot the person, which means you used unjustified deadly force and you can be arrested and potentially charged for it. Additionally, you now own all the many possible consequences of the intentional and unjustifiable discharge of a firearm. And you are definitely going to spend some time behind bars if that "warning shot" accidentally hits an innocent 3rd party.

If a warning shot is an option then you have no legal justification for firing the gun. If you can legally fire the gun then the time when warning shots were a viable option has passed. You may be morally justified in thinking that the risk of firing a warning shot is outweighed by the potential benefit, but you almost certainly can't legally justify it.

There are certainly people whose conscience and moral beliefs compel them to accept significant personal risk in order to spare the life of someone who is attempting to do them significant injury. However, I suspect the majority of those people don't spend any significant amount of time discussing use of force scenarios on gun enthusiast message boards.

There are also people who believe that the person who perpetrated the situation owns the consequences of the situation they created and they, as the innocent party, have no moral duty to accept significant personal risk in order to spare the perpetrator from the consequences of their actions. That position is probably a bit over represented in this group of people.

The law attempts to straddle those positions by allowing deadly force but requiring you to withhold its use as long as possible. The desire for a clear requirement to withhold as long as possible, the need for a clear distinction between intentional warning shots and unintentional misses, and the concern for the safety of others who might be injured by stray warning shots all combine to make the scenario you are describing morally compelling but legally impermissible.

[heidad01]

Who here would start a thread like this?

A moron, D-bag and a sick professional Troll on crack.

Read his other threads and it is easy to figure out.

[BennyAdeline]

You keep coming back to the idea that the discharge of a firearm can be sued to prevent, discourage, or head off the use of actual lethal force and/or the need to actually shoot someone. We discussed this during use of force training when I attended a California police academy. To summarize my memory of it, our instruction on the matter was this:

Under CA state law, there is no such thing as a "warning shot". Any discharge of a firearm during an encounter is the use of deadly force and any "warning shots" are treated as if you attempted to shoot the person and missed. Deadly force can only be used as a last resort when great bodily injury is imminent, meaning that you had to fire when you did or the injury would have resulted. If you fired a warning shot then you didn't believe the threat was imminent enough to actually shoot the person, which means you used unjustified deadly force and you can be arrested and potentially charged for it. Additionally, you now own all the many possible consequences of the intentional and unjustifiable discharge of a firearm. And you are definitely going to spend some time behind bars if that "warning shot" accidentally hits an innocent 3rd party.

If a warning shot is an option then you have no legal justification for firing the gun. If you can legally fire the gun then the time when warning shots were a viable option has passed. You may be morally justified in thinking that the risk of firing a warning shot is outweighed by the potential benefit, but you almost certainly can't legally justify it.

There are certainly people whose conscience and moral beliefs compel them to accept significant personal risk in order to spare the life of someone who is attempting to do them significant injury. However, I suspect the majority of those people don't spend any significant amount of time discussing use of force scenarios on gun enthusiast message boards.

There are also people who believe that the person who perpetrated the situation owns the consequences of the situation they created and they, as the innocent party, have no moral duty to accept significant personal risk in order to spare the perpetrator from the consequences of their actions. That position is probably a bit over represented in this group of people.

The law attempts to straddle those positions by allowing deadly force but requiring you to withhold its use as long as possible. The desire for a clear requirement to withhold as long as possible, the need for a clear distinction between intentional warning shots and unintentional misses, and the concern for the safety of others who might be injured by stray warning shots all combine to make the scenario you are describing morally compelling but legally impermissible.

Great explanation!

To be lawful, you shoot when your life is danger and you shoot that bullet at the threat.

There are strong believers on both sides of the coin. It is a topic where a lot of emotion and thought are used. How you act under stress has personal and legal ramifications. I suggest everyone draw their own lines that they can live with.

For me:

I'll shoot anyone who looks to grossly injure me or those I care about.

The gun only comes out when it is going to go bang.

Once the threat is done, I am done. I will not execute a wounded assailant who is no longer a threat. I will call emergency medical services. If the assailant is still conscious, I will give him towels to compress his wound. Neither myself or family members will touch the assailant or provide any type of medical care for fear of contamination.

If in the home, I will not shoot a retreating invader.

Those are the parameters that will allow me to sleep well after the incident. I also believe they will keep me in clear legal waters.

[njineermike]

Great explanation!

To be lawful, you shoot when your life is danger and you shoot that bullet at the threat.

There are strong believers on both sides of the coin. It is a topic where a lot of emotion and thought are used. How you act under stress has personal and legal ramifications. I suggest everyone draw their own lines that they can live with.

For me:

I'll shoot anyone who looks to grossly injure me or those I care about.

The gun only comes out when it is going to go bang.

Once the threat is done, I am done. I will not execute a wounded assailant who is no longer a threat. I will call emergency medical services. If the assailant is still conscious, I will give him towels to compress his wound. Neither myself or family members will touch the assailant or provide any type of medical care for fear of contamination.

If in the home, I will not shoot a retreating invader.

Those are the parameters that will allow me to sleep well after the incident. I also believe they will keep me in clear legal waters.

Bolded text is the entire point. If the gun comes out, it's because there is a need to use it to stop a lethal threat. If brandishing or a "warning shot" were effective, the threat wasn't lethal to begin with.

[CandG]

Read his HER other threads and it is easy to figure out.

FIFY, fyi... read HER other threads and it's not hard to figure out that's he's a she.

In before all the hypocritical apologies start rolling in