Here are my thoughts. First, a quote from the article:
If you’ve never seen the Sergio Leone film “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,” one of the characters admonishes a would-be assassin “When you have to shoot, shoot; don’t talk” after having dispatched him. Something like that exact sentiment is why warning shots, verbal warnings and other attempts to dissuade a violent attacker are a bad idea.
This is far too simplistic a view of reality.
Sometimes situations such as this happen, often they don't.
I am not going to write an essay to explain it, but the world is much more complicated than the simplistic vision put forward.
Notice police almost always give verbal warnings, and seldom fire warning shots. Conflating verbal warnings and warning shots is a silly simplification.
Self defense situations are complex, and often have subtle differences that call for different actions.
You should act differently if your assailant has a knife, instead of a gun.
You should act differently in your house instead of outside.
There are simply too many variables to make the kind of sweeping generalizations made in the article.
I have used the Tuco quote while teaching, myself.
It is good advice.
The hard part is determining when it is time to shoot.
Statistically, warnings are far more useful than not warning.
The vast majority of defensive gun uses are where no shots are fired.
Shooting someone is not a win/lose situation. It is a lose/lose situation.
With luck,you survive, but most of the time, you still lose a lot.
Thank you. Well stated.