Are Warning Shots a Good Idea?

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Ahhh yes, yet another ........I'm all for guns and the right to bear arms except for those I personally don't think deserve them. .... anti gunner lite.

What is really the scariest is knowing some people that would take a warning shot are walking around my town, or where my loved ones, live.

Yeah... a warning shot might make the bad guy run but sending a bullet off somewhere is very risky.... but then... that "somewhere" doesn't apply to those experts who, during the stressful time of being confronted by a bad guy, took the time to look for an impact zone where that bullet had no chance of ricochet, couldn't possibly hit an innocent (whether that innocent were nearby or a half mile away) and would go into a safe backstop...

so your point is that you can without question take down a bad guy in the heat of battle with a single shot and never miss.. which would be against all statistical documentation of professional law enforcement.. as I said recently, two Ohio cops shot 56 rounds in a city street at a bad guy 20 feet away, armed with an AK-47 while he was not under any cover or concealment in the open, wanting to commit suicide by cop. Of those 56 rounds the two cops fired only 6 hit the bad guy , of the six 5 were non lethal and one was a kill shot. in civilian life a kill shot is not called shot placement, it is called luck... Wonder where those 50 other shots went, ??? these two were professional law enforcement who have to qualify quarterly. One was a tenured Sargent.. chances are slim to none that you are going to take down a bad guy with a single controlled well places shot.. OH and BTW learn some reading and comprehension skills , and read what I had to say about the when and if of a warning shot.. IM tired of all the bull$hit stories and addendums you add to my posts. There are all types of people on this forum, and thank God IM not one of those blindness immature cowboys who think killing someone is a macho thing. everyone I have on my ignore list would never pass the psych evaluation on a State law enforcement test.

Please note the part of your quoted post above I put in bold and large font for emphasis.
Yes... learn some reading and comprehension skills.... show me, and I'll quote my own post below, where I said anything about taking out a bad guy with just one shot.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

Originally Posted by ET View Post
I don't know, I shoot 50 rounds a week at my range just to keep my edge, at my age.. and I'm not starving. But a human life must be worth less. then? Seems like that's what you are saying. And the cost of taking that life will be much much more costly than the 60 cents for a single warning shot. Even if a kill shot was within the law. Way too many John Wayne's and Audie Murphy's carrying guns in our towns and cities. Ill take a warning shot if I can avoid killing someone and still be able to walk away. This forum can get very scary with some of the stuff I read here, and the logic that accompanies it.. the scariest is that some of these people might be walking around my town, or where my children or grandchildren live. Im all for guns and the right to bear arms, but not the right for 40 year old mindless adolescents to have them.

Ahhh yes, yet another ........I'm all for guns and the right to bear arms except for those I personally don't think deserve them. .... anti gunner lite.

What is really the scariest is knowing some people that would take a warning shot are walking around my town, or where my loved ones, live.

Yeah... a warning shot might make the bad guy run but sending a bullet off somewhere is very risky.... but then... that "somewhere" doesn't apply to those experts who, during the stressful time of being confronted by a bad guy, took the time to look for an impact zone where that bullet had no chance of ricochet, couldn't possibly hit an innocent (whether that innocent were nearby or a half mile away) and would go into a safe backstop...

Please note the part of your quoted post above I put in bold and large font for emphasis.

I'm not just tired... I'm sick and tired of reading posts where some arrogant nit sets themselves up on a pedestal wanting to control the right to bear arms for other people according to their own personal opinions and standards.

**Edited to include the entire quote....

 

[NavyLCDR]

There are no absolutes in life, especially in self-defense. There are just so many more things that could go wrong and odds of one of those things going wrong with a warning shot that it just isn't worth it, for me personally, to fire one.

 

[Arc Angel]

Only if you hold COM, and aim for the heart! :wink:

 

[BC1]

It would be nice if we were always that close. What do you do if can't shield them? Bottom line, would you rather watch your family die than take the shot?

We can play hypotheticals all day, you can assume you will have all the other options available to save your loved ones, but what happens when you don't have those options? You can't shield them? All you have left is the shot to try and save them, your confidence the background looks clear, but the possibility that someone maybe hiding out of your view, or maybe the round hits a large bone and ricochet 30 degrees to the side. There is always that possibility. what then? What shot doesn't involve risk?
.

.

Take the shot to save your family, is it worth the risk knowing that each round may hit a bystander, since there are no guarantees, there is always a possibility for each round to go off course. For me, I'll take the risk of financial ruin and jail if it means my son, wife, brothers, parents etc stays alive.

If you have to go to the extremes of thinking one goes wild wild west, or shooting the place up, then I don't see you having a point.

The average non gun owner isn't scared of anything, they don't think anything bad will happen to them to begin with. Their logic is of no concern to me.



Bottom line is not about you, it's about watching your family die and choosing to do nothing about it because a shot has the possibility of hitting a bystander nearby.

Would you say it is better that the lady at Libbys dinner watch her parents die, than for her to take a shot to save them even though that restaurant was crowded? Do you side with her, or do you think it is better she was unarmed so she didn't harm more people, with her parents as collateral damage...

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

The classic mistake in your post is trying to create a situation... with forethought. Life doesn't work that way. If one gets attacked and places an innocent in danger to save his life he would be a coward. Period.
.
In fact that's the biggest issue PP instructors deal with... what if scenarios? I can't say for sure what I'd do because one can't respond to a hypothetical. Sometimes its best to run or retreat to cover if available. My reaction, or that of another person, could be almost anything. If he's defending himself with shots placing my family in danger and there's a clear background I may drop him, The law allows this in NY. He better get moving. If he choses to endanger my family by shooting without a clear background he's possibly placed his own family in jeopardy from me. I may or may not have any regard for his family if forced to make the choice between mine and his. Now he has two people shooting at him; me and the original attacker. That's a loser.
.
Regardless, the aftermath would end life as that shooter knew it. Criminal charges for any injury or death. An absolutely brutal lawsuit will surely follow. Self-defense insurance policies don't pay when a crime was committed. They also don't pay when the defender has been negligent or is engaged in a mutual combat agreement. The policy won't indemnify you against shooting an innocent of your actions were negligent or unreasonable. Read the fine print. You can't endanger other people's families to save yourself. That's just plain cowardice. Indefensible, egregious behavior. Get familiar with the wording "but not for" cause it's gonna be in the wrongful death civil suit.

 

[BC1]

Only if you hold COM, and aim for the heart! :wink:

It doesn't work that way though. Target is moving, hands are shaking, adrenaline & epinephrine dumped into your blood stream, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation. Much different from training.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The classic mistake in your post is trying to create a situation... with forethought. Life doesn't work that way. If one gets attacked and places an innocent in danger to save his life he would be a coward. Period.
.
Regardless, the aftermath would end life as that shooter knew it. Criminal charges for any injury or death. An absolutely brutal lawsuit to break the shooter. Self-defense insurance policy don't pay when a crime was committed. You can't endanger other people's families to save yourself. That's just plain cowardice. Indefensible.

When a shooter is shooting up a restaurant, school or mall they will likely only stop when:

1. If they have preselected targets - when those targets have been shot and/or killed.
2. When they run out of ammo or their firearm jams.
3. When they are faced with deadly force themselves.

Here is where your statements regarding cowardice, in my personal opinion, are just plain backwards. When the shooter is shooting - EVERYONE is ALREADY in danger! If I attempt to stop the attacker when there is a possibility that I might also hit an innocent bystander, the innocent bystander is only in danger from me until the threat has been neutralized because that is when I am guaranteed to stop shooting. If I let the shooter keep shooting because I might hit an innocent bystander, the innocent bystander remains in danger from the shooter until one of the three conditions above are met. I say it is cowardice to allow the shooter to keep shooting out of fear of the potential repercussions of hitting an innocent bystander because by doing so not only am I and my family still in danger from the shooter but the innocent remains in danger as well.

 

[BC1]

When a shooter is shooting up a restaurant, school or mall they will likely only stop when:

1. If they have preselected targets - when those targets have been shot and/or killed.
2. When they run out of ammo or their firearm jams.
3. When they are faced with deadly force themselves.

Here is where your statements regarding cowardice, in my personal opinion, are just plain backwards. When the shooter is shooting - EVERYONE is ALREADY in danger! If I attempt to stop the attacker when there is a possibility that I might also hit an innocent bystander, the innocent bystander is only in danger from me until the threat has been neutralized because that is when I am guaranteed to stop shooting. If I let the shooter keep shooting because I might hit an innocent bystander, the innocent bystander remains in danger from the shooter until one of the three conditions above are met. I say it is cowardice to allow the shooter to keep shooting out of fear of the potential repercussions of hitting an innocent bystander because by doing so not only am I and my family still in danger from the shooter but the innocent remains in danger as well.

I'm not talking about a situation where you don't take the shot out of fear. I'm talking about a scenario of people moving about while shooting with a backdrop of innocent people. Most people are going to miss, repeatedly. I've been an instructor for a long time. My experience is that the average Joe can't hit the ground with their hat. And they all think they're Davey Crockett. There are no definite situations. Your response depends on who's shooting at who and why. Who's moving. Who's behind who. It also depends on what started it. Did some moron interfere in a robbery and cause a shoot-out? Did some moron get involved in a mutual combat agreement between two gang bangers? Did Mr. Sheepdog just endanger the entire restaurant? Anyone who fires in my direction is a threat, no matter who they are. The response would be based in training not forethought or afterthought. You can't create a scenario and then evaluate a proposed behavior or response. There are thousands of variables in every encounter. I can teach my students a skill set but can't ever tell them what an encounter might look like. But that restaurant shoot-out is exactly why some of these places don't want guns. I personally don't want some moron to get involved. Give them the money. That's what employees are trained to do. For those who want to play sheepdog; get a good lawyer and be prepared to go down financially. Be prepared to lose it all. Never draw a gun until the situation is so bad one must ruin their life to save it or another's. You can never explain-away hitting a bystander. It's a loser no matter what hypothetical scenario you create. One can never absolve themselves of liability.
.
My statement stands. Anyone who would endanger the life of an innocent to save their own is a coward.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My statement stands. Anyone who would endanger the life of an innocent to save their own is a coward.

That's fine, it won't bother me one bit to be a living coward with a still living family.

 

[BC1]

That's fine, it won't bother me one bit to be a living coward with a still living family.

Won't bother you to kill someone's innocent 6 year-old girl to save your own life? Isn't that exactly what the gangbangers do? Personally I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I would rather die than harm your daughter or wife. I feel a great responsibility to do no harm to an innocent person.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The classic mistake in your post is trying to create a situation... with forethought. Life doesn't work that way. If one gets attacked and places an innocent in danger to save his life he would be a coward. Period.

Then there are thousands of cowards every year. The majority of carriers don't have training, don't check the background, and still defend themselves without harming innocents by taking the risk and shooting. Even with the utmost confidence the background is clear, humans can't see through objects that bullets can pass through. They're is always a risk of putting innocents in danger with every trigger pull.

In fact that's the biggest issue PP instructors deal with... what if scenarios? I can't say for sure what I'd do because one can't respond to a hypothetical. My reaction could be almost anything.

But you can call people cowards for saying the same thing when it comes to defending their family or themselves.

If he's defending himself with shots placing my family in danger and there's a clear background I may drop him, The law allows this in NY.

I would do the same.

If he choses to endanger my family by shooting without a clear background he's placed his own family in jeopardy from me. I may or may not have any regard for his kids if forced to make the choice between mine and his.

Now you're changing your view...before you would never take that shot...now you may or may not have regard to an innocent bystander? That's exactly what I'm saying...but somehow, it's wrong when it's my children I'm forced to defend, and right when your defending yours? What makes your family more important than mine?

Now he has two people shooting at him; me and the original attacker. That's a loser.

That's life, it's unfair, if I'm forced to defend my children and you decide I'm a threat, then we deal with it. If you're forced to defend your children and I think you're a threat, you deal with it too.

.

Regardless, the aftermath would end life as that shooter knew it. I would seek criminal charges for any injury or death. I would commence an absolutely brutal lawsuit to completely break the shooter. A self-defense insurance policy doesn't pay when a crime was committed. And if I'm not happy with the lawsuit? Oh boy. You can't endanger other people's families to save yourself. that's just plain cowardice.

You blame the victim of a violent crime for being forced to defend themselves, instead of the violent offender that caused the problem. Call them a coward, take them to court, take me to court and call me a coward, my family is more important to me, and nothing will change that.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[NavyLCDR]

Won't bother you to kill someone's innocent 6 year-old girl to save your own life? Isn't that exactly what the gangbangers do? Personally I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I would rather die than harm your daughter or wife. I feel a great responsibility to do no harm to an innocent person.

Could you live with yourself watching a criminal kill an innocent 6 year-old girl while you hid behind a table or run for the nearest exit?

 

[Firefighterchen]

You can never explain-away hitting a bystander.

I would take below, as a very good explaination of why a bystander was hit.

Never draw a gun until the situation is so bad one must ruin their life to save it or another's.

I'm not talking about a situation where you don't take the shot out of fear. I'm talking about a scenario of people moving about while shooting with a backdrop of innocent people.

Then we are talking about very different situations. You are envisioning someone who is not forced to shoot.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[nogods]

Real men fire a warning shot into their own foot, then tell the perp "either back off or the next shot is going into your foot."

That is as valid an idea as firing a warning shot. And just as dumb.

 

[Arc Angel]

It doesn't work that way though. Target is moving, hands are shaking, adrenaline & epinephrine dumped into your blood stream, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation. Much different from training.

Actually, it depends upon how mad you are. Me? I'm starting to suspect that I might be a little bit neurotic because I usually don't experience any of those physiological reactions. :laugh:

 

[BC1]

Then there are thousands of cowards every year. The majority of carriers don't have training, don't check the background, and still defend themselves without harming innocents by taking the risk and shooting. Even with the utmost confidence the background is clear, humans can't see through objects that bullets can pass through. They're is always a risk of putting innocents in danger with every trigger pull.



But you can call people cowards for saying the same thing when it comes to defending their family or themselves.



I would do the same.



Now you're changing your view...before you would never take that shot...now you may or may not have regard to an innocent bystander? That's exactly what I'm saying...but somehow, it's wrong when it's my children I'm forced to defend, and right when your defending yours? What makes your family more important than mine?



That's life, it's unfair, if I'm forced to defend my children and you decide I'm a threat, then we deal with it. If you're forced to defend your children and I think you're a threat, you deal with it too.

.


You blame the victim of a violent crime for being forced to defend themselves, instead of the violent offender that caused the problem. Call them a coward, take them to court, take me to court and call me a coward, my family is more important to me, and nothing will change that.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

Chen, these posts have zero credibility and make no points at all. Yes, the world is full of cowards. In fact I believe there are more cowards than hero's in the world.
.
Hypotheticals are the work of inexperience or lack of training. I can teach a skill set but can never tell a student how the event will unfold. You cannot make a statement about how you'll handle a shooting situation because no two are the same. They will unfold differently. These confrontations are not static, they're fluid. The perp is likely moving. People around both of you are moving. Traffic behind everyone is moving. In every direction is a person or a glass wall on a building. If inside a public location the backdrop is uncertain. And no matter how good one thinks they are they can't possibly absorb all of this.
.
Then there's the act that is causing the incident. How did it begin? Who was the aggressor? Was he targeting you? How far away is he? Does he have a knife or gun? Is he charging. Is he taking cover/concealment behind innocents intentionally. Was it a robbery? Is it a mutual combat agreement. Are there gang bangers involved? Is it actually your fight or are you defending another? Can you get to cover? If you shoot in the direction of an innocent will one or two more law-abiding citizens cap you for putting them in danger? The number of variables is so great that no one can answer how they'll react. When studying to certify as a PP instructor these topic are all covered very extensively.
.
Anyone who makes a comment that they'll shoot without knowing any of this is uninformed on the subject. They THINK they know and that's the fallacy. And yes, if one thinks killing an innocent child to save their own life is permissible they are a coward. An absolute coward. Try giving your own life to save an innocent. WOW! And people think I'm always posting about me? No innocent person is dying at my hands.
.
Someone... anyone... find me a respected PP training academy that teaches them to shoot where innocents are at risk. You can forget the big ones... Thunder Ranch, LFI, GFH, Gunsite... all teach "no shoot."

 

[BC1]

Actually, it depends upon how mad you are. Me? I'm starting to suspect that I might be a little bit neurotic because I usually don't experience any of those physiological reactions. :laugh:

Then again, wee you being chased by a couple of guys bent on cutting your throat? Neurosis is psychological. These aren't psychological reactions, they're physiological reactions. Primitive brain function. Fight or flight. This is the reason we teach self-defense using only gross motor skills. Take a good PP course and learn about this. While my hands don't shake during the average encounter, nor have I even been nervous during a fight, a rapid, deadly encounter is much different. And for some people it takes more. Anyone ever jump-out and scare you? Even as a kid? Did your heart jump. Did you react involuntarily and pull back. Did your eyes widen? Did you focus-in on the person who scared you? Did you forget for one split second about the world around you?

 

[BC1]

I would take below, as a very good explaination of why a bystander was hit.





Then we are talking about very different situations. You are envisioning someone who is not forced to shoot.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

But your life is still over. The lawsuits will break most everyone. A civil jury does not care that you felt you were forced to shoot. You were still negligent in the discharge that struck another. Negligence can be one element of a crime (criminally negligent homicide). Negligence will definitely cause you to lose everything in a civil action based in wrongful death. Always remember the term "but not for."

 

[Firefighterchen]

Chen, these posts have zero credibility and make no points at all. Hypotheticals are the work of amateures. You cannot make a statement about how you'll handle a shooting situation because no two are the same. They will unfold differently. These confrontations are not static, they're fluid. The perp is likely moving. People around both of you are moving. Traffic behind everyone is moving. In every direction is a person or a glass wall on a building. If inside a public location the backdrop is uncertain. And no matter how good one thinks they are they can't possibly absorb all of this. Then there's the act that is causing the incident. How did it begin? Who was the aggressor? Was he targeting you? How far away is he? Does he have a knife or gun? Is he charging. Is he taking cover/concealment behind innocents intentionally. Was it a robbery? Is it a mutual combat agreement. Are there gang bangers involved? Is it actually your fight or are you defending another?
.
Anyone who makes a comment that they'll shoot without knowing any of this is ignorant. And yes, if one thinks killing an innocent child to save their own life is a coward. Try giving your own life to save an innocent. WOW! And people think I'm always posting about me? No innocent person is dying at my hands.
.
Someone... anyone... find me a respected PP training academy that teaches them to shoot where innocents are at risk. You can forget the big ones... Thunder Ranch, LFI, GFH, Gunsite... all teach "no shoot."

You are just as guilty as bringing in hypotheticals into this discussion as I am. Nor has anyone said they would shoot without trying to obtain knowing that information. My statement is a mindset, not a plan of action.

I'm boiling it down to this:

If he choses to endanger my family by shooting without a clear background he's possibly placed his own family in jeopardy from me. I may or may not have any regard for his family if forced to make the choice between mine and his.

What makes your family more important than mine? Why do to get to shoot with no regard to innocent life, but I can't risk (there always a risk) shooting the threat to save my family?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

Could you live with yourself watching a criminal kill an innocent 6 year-old girl while you hid behind a table or run for the nearest exit?

Now commander you changed it. No one said anything about running for an exit while a criminal kills a child. You know my background right? No child will ever be harmed in my presence. In fact I'd rather lose my life to save that child's. To me, my life means little when compared to that little girls.
.
What we're talking about is being the coward who kills the little girl with an errant shot because he can't hit the ground with his hat. Because his shooting sucks and he has no PP training at all. But he thinks he's Davey Crocket. .40 caliber bravado. Taught a lot of students. Found the vast majority aren't very good. More have zippity knowledge or experience in high stress defense.
.
Find me any PP course from a reputable academy that teaches you to take the shot when there's no clear background. One! Then I'll concede. Until then, I'll defend your child to the point of losing my own life and would never do anything to endanger her. Much too precious.

 

[Firefighterchen]

But your life is still over. The lawsuits will break most everyone. A civil jury does not care that you felt you were forced to shoot. You were still negligent in the discharge that struck another. Negligence can be one element of a crime (criminally negligent homicide). Negligence will definitely cause you to lose everything in a civil action based in wrongful death. Always remember the term "but not for."

I'll risk my fortune and freedom for the life of my family.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app