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:
The NJ Attorney General has made it very plain to NJ LEO's. According to the NJ Use of Force Rules ......
"A law enforcement officer shall not discharge a weapon as a signal for help or as a warning shot."
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