-
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
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
I wish everyone was 10th level Gunkata or more. And Obama distributed rainbows and unicorns and smiles like he promised.
Last edited:
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
never shoot to wound...shoot to stop the threat.
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
all valid points.
I guess I should have pointed out that, while you could quickly surmise the safety of the background to your target (the baddie), taking your attention away from the baddie to try and figure out an appropriate backstop for which to fire a round, not fired in battle, would seem to me to be a waste of time.
I think you'd have a tough time explaining the destruction of property from your warning shot when, after it's all over, it turns out you didn't have to shoot in the first place. IMO, you should either not shoot at all, or shoot knowing that any stray rounds may hit an unintended object, but that as long as they landed in a relatively safe place you'll likely be forgiven once the gravity of your situation is learned.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
This is why only serious practitioners of Gunkata should be allowed to own firearms. A level 10 Gunkata does not even need a firearm by the way. A level 10 can dispense rounds simply by throwing them. A level 10 Gunkata does not concern themselves with what is behind the target. Because the level 10 Gunkata IS behind the target. All rounds let out by Gunkatas land in a relatively safe place. The target's body. Higher level Gunkatas understand the gravity in any situation. Although the laws of gravity do not apply as Gunkatas can fly using their minds.
Gunkata. It's not just a myth.
Last edited:
M
McX
Guest
gunkata? is that like Gun-Fu? i think i saw the movie once.
'snatch the revolver from my hand grasshopper"
i goo-gunned it, and found the following movie titles:
enter the dra-gun, released in America as enter the .45
the gun connection
way of the dra-gun
return of the dra-gun
gun of death
the big gun boss
gun of fury
'snatch the revolver from my hand grasshopper"
i goo-gunned it, and found the following movie titles:
enter the dra-gun, released in America as enter the .45
the gun connection
way of the dra-gun
return of the dra-gun
gun of death
the big gun boss
gun of fury
Last edited:
NEVER a warning shot. A verbal command is your warning, if it's not headed and you feel your life is at stake, shoot. If your not prepared mentally or financially to do so, leave your gun at home. You shoot until the threat has ceased. Just remember, ever bullet has a lawyer attached so don't miss! Also anyone worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
ROFL. That's going in my sig.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Gunkata with a capitol G please.
Gun-Fu is for wannabees who worry about caliber size, what button down shirt to wear while OCing, and such nonsense.
Practitioners of Gunkata do use warning shots. By traveling back in time and destroying the target's ancestors. And yes, James Cameron stole that for the Terminator movies. The hack.
Grant Guess
Regular Member
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
I think we agree that the prevailing opinion is that warning shots are generally ill-advised. It's my hope that everyone looks at the issue from all sides and can then make an intelligent decision. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by "didn't have to shoot in the first place." Under Wisconsin self-defense law, one is not necessarily penalized for making a mistake. One only has to have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The fear may turn out, in the end, to be based on a falsehood (example, someone attempts to kidnap you while pointing a realistic toy gun at you.) In that situation it may turn out that one didn't HAVE to shoot, but still one would be justified shooting under those circumstances. Wisconsin's self-defense law has some interesting things about "unintended harm to a third person" while protecting yourself or another person. One is still held liable when acting in a negligent or reckless manner while acting in self-defense. Destruction of property while in the act of defending? I don't know, I guess that's what insurance is for.... yours, and the property owner's.
Grant Guess
Regular Member
Draw first and then assess? Geesh....
Grant Guess
Regular Member
Unlike the town sheriff and the good guy cowboys on TV that fire shots in the air or draw, then assess if they really even need to have their 6-shooter out...we carry lethal force to immediately preserve our own life. Once you have a weapon pulled on you or feel in imminent danger of losing your life, there won't be any warning shots or anything else. You will have a blinders-on-focus on the opportunity to eliminate that threat, post haste. Once you see that opening, if it exists, you must act deliberately and decisively without hesitation. Then, you draw.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Yet, people keep talking about firing warning shots, and they happen all the time. Why is that so? Part of understanding the nature of the armed citizen, right or wrong is hidden in such things.
Warning shots are fired because:
o Inexperience;
o Threat is not 'grave' nor extreme;
o Influence of TV and media;
o Ignorance of the law;
o Moral or social or societal compunctions;
o Ethical "reasons";
o Relation of threat to the victim;
o Poor precision/accuracy;
o Hostage situations;
o Other.
Are any of these bullet points a justification, and by that I mean a legal justification? Here's a rule forNJ LEOs:
If a LEO can't fire a warning shot, I know I sure as heck can't do it.
Legally you must be able to clearly articulate the reasons for your actions in this regard. Imagine the BG's attorney making a mockery of your actions should you fire such a shot, let alone accidentally hit his client with that round.
In addition, say you have a 6+1 carry (or a revolver) and you left your spare mag/strip at home. You're going to need all of your rounds defensively, and you must not waste a round as a warning shot.
IMO, the main reason warning shots are fired is that people are too quick to shoot, and shoot at a threat that was not of the 'gravest extreme'. Never, ever shoot unless that's the case (or your loved one is at risk for bodily harm).
$.02
Warning shots are fired because:
o Inexperience;
o Threat is not 'grave' nor extreme;
o Influence of TV and media;
o Ignorance of the law;
o Moral or social or societal compunctions;
o Ethical "reasons";
o Relation of threat to the victim;
o Poor precision/accuracy;
o Hostage situations;
o Other.
Are any of these bullet points a justification, and by that I mean a legal justification? Here's a rule forNJ LEOs:
If a LEO can't fire a warning shot, I know I sure as heck can't do it.
Legally you must be able to clearly articulate the reasons for your actions in this regard. Imagine the BG's attorney making a mockery of your actions should you fire such a shot, let alone accidentally hit his client with that round.
In addition, say you have a 6+1 carry (or a revolver) and you left your spare mag/strip at home. You're going to need all of your rounds defensively, and you must not waste a round as a warning shot.
IMO, the main reason warning shots are fired is that people are too quick to shoot, and shoot at a threat that was not of the 'gravest extreme'. Never, ever shoot unless that's the case (or your loved one is at risk for bodily harm).
$.02
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Did I advocate acting without thinking? I don't believe so.
My mindset is to do what it takes to prevail in a violent encounter. If you advocate always leaving your gun in your holster up until the final moment that you realize you need to shoot at someone, good luck. I can't in good conscience teach that to anyone who comes to me for instruction.
Personally I don't see the point of handicapping yourself and increasing the time it takes to get your gun on target. Unfortunately due to the laws of physics, it is impossible to fit doing more actions into the same amount of time it would take if you did not include the extra motions. If, for example, the fastest you can point and shoot with a gun that is already in your hand is 1/2 of a second, it will be impossible to add another element (i.e., drawing the gun from the holster) without increasing the overall amount of time it takes.
There is an old saying that "the fastest draw is having your gun in your hand." Whether your win or lose may be decided by the difference of a fraction of a second. I demonstrated the difference a fraction of a second makes in a violent encounter when I was invited to speak to the UW medical students and I demonstrated getting 3 or 4 shots off when charged by a person armed with a knife from 21 feet, versus getting one shot off at the very moment my attacker reached me because I had to whip off a glove first before drawing my gun. The 1/2 of a second added by having to remove the glove could have made the difference in living or dying in an actual situation.
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
that's the point I'm trying to make. If you feel that fear, you should shoot into nothing else (that's the idea anyway) but the BG. Your mistake (hitting a fence, a parked car, door, whatever) won't necessarily be penalized, as you said.
BUT, if you don't feel that fear, and shoot one of those objects on purpose with nothing other than the intent to scare the BG, you likely WILL be penalized. Since you didn't feel the need to shoot the BG you'll have a hard time explaining that you felt fear for your life, and may likely be charged with brandishing, GATTOP, assault with a deadly weapon, or any number of other charges if it is found out that you weren't in fear of your life. trying to find an expendable object with which to put a warning shot would be a waste of time considering the possible consequences.
tl;dr: we are in agreeance. I have another reason why you should fire a warning shot.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
No. Not every self-defense situation is the same and necessitates a one size fits all response. It takes good deal of assessment to make the decision to remove the firearm from the holster while one further assesses if lethal force in justified. If one waits until the lethal force is justifiable, when the likleyhood, but not yet immenent, of it is present, one may not have the time to draw when it is immenent. Many threats are stopped with the firearms drawn and not fired. Drawing a firearm does not require that it is discharged.
One situation may come on so fast that one has to draw and fire as fast as the can, and keep firing unitl the threat has stopped. While another situation may prompt a person to draw and that stops the threat, and if does not, then that person is ready to fire.
Not every situtation will be the same. Geesh.......
Last edited:
Grant Guess
Regular Member
Brokensprocket, anyone can talk a good game, but you'd have likely learned something on Saturday. However, your attitude would not have been welcome.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
If in danger shoot the stranger.
Grant Guess
Regular Member
And you fancy yourself a "qualified" personal defense instructor?
You have obviously never been involved in a life or death situation involving a deadly weapon have you?
I have....