[dudester]

I read thread on Glocktalk about a scenario where a guy with a ccw came up on two men beating up another man. He was getting beat pretty bad and there were girls screaming and what not so he yelled something at them. At that time they stopped beating on the other guy and approached him. Supposedly when they were at 15ft he told them to stop and they kept coming at which time he drew his weapon and ordered them to get on the ground and he held them while someone called the cops. There's more to the story but someone said that it might have been a good idea to put a warning shot in the dirt in front of the attackers to prevent them from advancing toward you. I don't personally think this is a good idea but it got me wondering, is there ever a scenario where it would be "ok" to fire a warning shot?

Here's the thread on GT for those interested http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1053301&page=2

-Frank

 

[MPDC66]

"Warning Shots" were an old Police thing, made more widely known by the movies. All modern PDs I can think of have absolutely stopped the practice for obvious reasons. Only shoot when you want to hit something. Riccochettes are the common result of rounds put down in front of you.

 

[T.S.]

Warning shots are NOT recommended ....

http://blog.robballen.com/p2853.post

A warning on warning shots John Gutmacher explains

Got an email today, and I thought I'd better give you a quick warning about warning shots -- just in case you haven't already read my book, and don't know. A warning shot is always the "use of deadly force" in Florida, and therefore unless you can lawfully use deadly force at the time the warning shot is fired -- you could be arrested and charged with a felony (normally aggravated assault) that carries a twenty (20) year mandatory minimum sentence vs. the three (3) year mandatory that would normally be the penalty if the firearm was not discharged. In essence -- if you decide to fire a warning shot -- you must have had the option to legally shoot the assailant -- but opted on a less drastic measure. Sometimes a very tough choice -- but if you don't know how serious the repercussions of a warning shot can be -- you could get in one heap of trouble!

Legal issues aside, warning shots are a bad idea for several other reasons.

For starters, you are responsible for the projectile. Who actually aims their warning shots at something they are willing to destroy as well as knowing what lies beyond it? There's been quite a few stories of people killing others unintentionally when firing a warning shot.

Another drawback is ammo loss. Life isn't the latest shoot 'em up video game, reloading involves more than just touching the ammo icon. Plus, in real life, few people have thousands of rounds of ammo on their person (this guy probably being the exception to the rule). Even with high capacity magazines, there is very little room for waste. A warning shot uses up a round you might need later.

Finally, in some instances such as nighttime and inside a closed area, a warning shot can disorient you with the noise and flash. No need to do that until absolutely necessary.

If you're concerned about being able to deescalate the situation without lethal force, you need something besides a warning shot. At least here in Florida, you can see the warning shot = deadly force. For home use, I suggest a pump action shot gun. Nothing says "you're in the wrong house, bub" than the loud CHACHUNK of a round being chambered. It lets the perp know you're armed without wasting ammunition or endangering others with an unaimed warning shot.

These, of course, are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect reality. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

 

[Al Lipscomb]

Doing something in anticipation of something that has not yet happened puts you in a bad position if things go south. You just started a gunfight.

Is there ever a situation? We had a small riot near the Gandy bridge one night. A couple of large groups into it. They started going after a small group of males and a guy fired a shot to slow them down. Was it the right move? He is alive.

 

[Paladin]

The only time that weapon should be fired is to put someone down.

It isn't for warning shots, to get some one's attention or to impress people.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Steve48]

+1. Only fire for effect.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

+1. Only fire for effect.

+1 and it has been a long time since I heard that phrase

"fire for effect"

 

[Mac45]

I agree. Warning shots are usually not a good idea, for all of the reasons stated above. And one more. You never know how someone is going to react to a gunshot. People may react totally contrary to the way that you might expect. In the case of police warning shots, the suspect ran even faster more often than they stopped.

 

[Paladin]

+1 and it has been a long time since I heard that phrase

"fire for effect"

When I was in basic training they didn't really teach us to shoot at individual targets but rather to lay down fields of fire.

 

[Mac45]

"Fire for effect" originally was, and still is, an artillery term. You fire for effect once you have ranged your guns and no longer have to fire ranging shots.

 

[T.S.]

When I was in basic training they didn't really teach us to shoot at individual targets but rather to lay down fields of fire.

" Fire Surpression " and " Fire Superiority " .....

 

[Old Guy]

As a general rule, +1 on the "No warning shot". As they say, "There's a lawyer attched to every bullet you shoot" or something to that effect. And, as has been pointed out, there's no way to know if your shot will ricochet and where it'll go.

There may be a situation where a warning shot is all that's needed. But for the most part, I've always felt that if I need to pull the trigger, make sure the front sight is COM.

 

[Steve48]

"Fire for effect" originally was, and still is, an artillery term. You fire for effect once you have ranged your guns and no longer have to fire ranging shots.

Yes indeed. I'm constantly surprised by the number of young men working with me who have never heard the term.

 

[820Larry]

Many years ago (mid 50's) I asked my father, a fairly high ranking police officer in our area, why do police officers fire "warning shots" when they only have 6 rounds in their gun ? This was in the days before 9mm and .40s&w police weapons. He put his hand on my shoulder, smiled and said to me "Son, they're not "warning shots" as the media says....They were MISSES. Those words stayed with me through 30 years of law enforcement and made me work on the fundementals of shooting so if I ever needed to draw my weapon there would be NO WARNING SHOTS.

 

[MPDC66]

"Fire for effect" originally was, and still is, an artillery term. You fire for effect once you have ranged your guns and no longer have to fire ranging shots.

Repeat?:rolf:rolf:rolf

 

[MPDC66]

Errrr...........I guess that should be, "Say again".

 

[T.S.]

.... and remember the ever important : " Check your fire!! Check your fire!! "

 

[Paladin]

Yes indeed. I'm constantly surprised by the number of young men working with me who have never heard the term.

I'm familiar with it. My father-in-law was a Lt. Colonel with 23 years in the Army almost all in artillery. Now he has hearing problems from those big guns and he has been out for 40 years now.

 

[XD-Man]

The only "warning shot" (actually at least 3) I would fire would be to put one perp down and let any others know that they were next. I cannot see drawing my gun to warn anyone - it's only going to come out when I decide it's time to stop a threat to my person or my family.

 

[PM667]

I am not sure how others feel but I think military training isn't geared toward this encounter, i think it gives you a better chance to adapt if your mindset is in that zone but I guess the same could be said of a cop dropped in a war zone. As to a warning shot or even a wound shot, I dunno what I'll do until that situation occurs.