This is a discussion on Would you fire a warning shot? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Captain Crunch Are we detecting a pattern here? I definitely see a pattern forming!...
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton Jr
According to my wife a "warning shot" is a shot fired into a BG that warns other BG's that they will be next if they come between her and her kids. (I love that woman)
So if that's what you mean then yes, if not lemme just say my gun only breaks leather for a few occasions.
3. to make bad things dead.
-Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill.
NO. Just like the gun itself, you also own the bullets, weather you shoot them or not. Especially if you shoot 'em. Your sidearm AND the ammo have only one purpose at that point.....and a warning shot isn't that purpose.
no....... that "warning shot" is going to come down somewhere and possible hurt some inicent person.
"It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep."
- Italian proverb
I wouldn't fire a warning shot. I would only draw and fire if, in my opinion, my life or the life of someone else was in jeopardy. If such was the case, then I would shoot COM until the threat stops.
"Bad spellers of the world - untie!"
DAV Life member, NRA Life member
Springfield XD 9mm Sub-Compact
Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm
I was originally going to say, "if by warning shot you mean 2 to COM, then yes", but since that's been overdone already, I'll take the opposite position. In the case you are describing, no, I would not fire a warning shot. It would just let make the BG think that I really didn't want to shoot him and probably inspire a rush.
Unlike other posters though, I can imagine when a warning shot would be necessary and appropriate. I recall the thread where there was a BG on top of a woman continually stabbing her. That is a shot that might be too chancy to take due to the GG and BG proximity. So, I guess to answer your question, do defend myself, I would probably never fire a warning shot. To defend somebody else or to draw attention to myself to get a better shot, I might. And before all the flames start, I know I wouldn't generally want to attract attention to myself from a BG comitting a felony, but I also couldn't stand there and do nothing. If a warning shot was the only way to get a pause from the BG, or to cause him to look up, then I might fire a warning. But it's impossible to know for sure without being in the middle of the situation.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
Absolutly not!!!! I would give a very strong verbal warning but if I have to draw, its to shoot.
So I'm confused on everyone's position...
--never fight with an idiot, for he'll bring you down to his level and beat you by experience.--
"Stupid is forever. You can't change stupidity." - Temple's Basketball Coach John Chaney to the home crowd
No warning shot.
The first warning is verbal, the last warning is the sound of steel sliding from leather.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
There IS one situation where I'd CONSIDER a warning shot.
It's not uncommon for us to run across a bear family while out mountain biking. In the past, the sound of a shot fired has been enough to send mama and babies packing. If mama seems to be lingering and upset that we rode up on her babies, she'll get a warning shot, although typically, despite all the stories, they all just run off as soon as we get close.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.