I think ‘warning shots’ are a bad idea, that bullet is going somewhere and YOU are liable for it...if the weapon comes out it’s because you or yours are in grave danger it’s not supposed to be some sort of talisman that wards off evil by it’s mere presence.
For those who support warning shots, Just as a matter of philosophy - because I don’t believe in warning shots - in states where it’s not legal, it’s a fair defense to claim one tried to kill the attacker with the shot but missed. Let ‘em prove otherwise.
I prefer to say that the first one in center mass was the warning, the second was because the warning didn’t work.
Warning shots are a waste of ammo you might need when they decide to ignore your warning, not to mention you’ve got no idea where that bullet is going. Verbal warnings are fine, warning shots are just plain stupid always.
I agree, though many don't. Situational awareness is critical so you know what is needed; is there room/time for the possibility that the person need not be killed :: Is there a safe place for the shot to be spent without a ricochet or having the round go through something and hitting an unintended target :: Is it going to get you into more legal trouble than a kill shot would?
Most of the arguments I've seen against it assume that you are stupid and will inadvertently kill/harm someone else - make me wonder about their own situational awareness abilities and whether or not they are just waiting for their first chance at taking a "trophy".
Me personally, I will kill if necessary to protect me and mine, but I won't do it just because I can legally get away with it. Not only is life sacred, but I prefer to think that, if a person hasn't been saved, and I have a choice, I don't want to be the one that ensured he won't ever be saved.