Brandishing and firing off a shot?

[Lexington]

An intruder in my home isnt getting a chance to explain himself, especially an armed one... outside my kids bedroom. If the jury doesnt like that, then so be it. Im not playing games with my family's safety.

Where did you get that it was outside his home?

The camera footage from the video in the article.

[GunLawyer001]

Someone on here argued that firearms can be used to de-escalate a hostile scenario, especially with laser sighting. Hopefully they don't come around anymore, because that was probably the dumbest thing I ever read. Drawing on anyone certainly escalates the situation, especially if you have a dot on them. Your life is either in danger or it isn't.

Millions of examples to the contrary argue against your position. Weakness by European nations encouraged Hitler and caused WW II, and the worst of the riots in the last 10 years were caused by clear signs that the govt was unwilling to use force against mob violence. The Baltimore riot was caused by the city govt issuing stand-down orders to police; by way of contrast, Ben Shapiro just gave a speech at Berkeley and there were no substantial riots, because the cops were unleashed and there was no encouraging sign of weakness for the mob to exploit.

A show of strength quite often causes predators and bullies to back down, and "backing down" is an essential element of "de-escalation", isn't it?

In fact, I would argue that the only reason a sane predator would advance on the armed victim would be that the predator doesn't believe that the victim is able and willing t pull the trigger; a shot in the air proves both. And physics tells us that a falling bullet is nowhere near as lethal as a direct shot, so the risk may be a rational trade-off, to refuse to be a victim and to decline to shoot the aggressor in favor of a shot straight up into the air.

The legal system may disagree, because of ignorance of physics, prejudice against gun owners, or other bias. But the fact remains that defensive displays of firearms prevent more harm than defensive shootings do.

[marinville]

The camera footage from the video in the article.

If thats the case, I retract my criticism. I did not watch the video, and the text I read seemed to me to indicate that the guy was inside his house.

[RockIsland]

Millions of examples to the contrary argue against your position. Weakness by European nations encouraged Hitler and caused WW II, and the worst of the riots in the last 10 years were caused by clear signs that the govt was unwilling to use force against mob violence. The Baltimore riot was caused by the city govt issuing stand-down orders to police; by way of contrast, Ben Shapiro just gave a speech at Berkeley and there were no substantial riots, because the cops were unleashed and there was no encouraging sign of weakness for the mob to exploit.

A show of strength quite often causes predators and bullies to back down, and "backing down" is an essential element of "de-escalation", isn't it?

In fact, I would argue that the only reason a sane predator would advance on the armed victim would be that the predator doesn't believe that the victim is able and willing t pull the trigger; a shot in the air proves both. And physics tells us that a falling bullet is nowhere near as lethal as a direct shot, so the risk may be a rational trade-off, to refuse to be a victim and to decline to shoot the aggressor in favor of a shot straight up into the air.

The legal system may disagree, because of ignorance of physics, prejudice against gun owners, or other bias. But the fact remains that defensive displays of firearms prevent more harm than defensive shootings do.

Thank you for using the proper terminology.

"Brandishing" is more of a pet peeve of mine than CCW.

[Lexington]

If thats the case, I retract my criticism. I did not watch the video, and the text I read seemed to me to indicate that the guy was inside his house.

The article isn't written all that well, which led me to watch the video for clarification. Had it happened inside the home, then I'm with you. Someone kicks in my door knowing full well the home is occupied, it's "weapons free" time.

[Bang]

Nations armed with many ICBMs are demonstrating having the ability to prevail. Pretty much the same psychology applies to a gun in hand.

[internet troll]

Millions of examples to the contrary argue against your position. Weakness by European nations encouraged Hitler and caused WW II, and the worst of the riots in the last 10 years were caused by clear signs that the govt was unwilling to use force against mob violence. The Baltimore riot was caused by the city govt issuing stand-down orders to police; by way of contrast, Ben Shapiro just gave a speech at Berkeley and there were no substantial riots, because the cops were unleashed and there was no encouraging sign of weakness for the mob to exploit.

A show of strength quite often causes predators and bullies to back down, and "backing down" is an essential element of "de-escalation", isn't it?

In fact, I would argue that the only reason a sane predator would advance on the armed victim would be that the predator doesn't believe that the victim is able and willing t pull the trigger; a shot in the air proves both. And physics tells us that a falling bullet is nowhere near as lethal as a direct shot, so the risk may be a rational trade-off, to refuse to be a victim and to decline to shoot the aggressor in favor of a shot straight up into the air.

The legal system may disagree, because of ignorance of physics, prejudice against gun owners, or other bias. But the fact remains that defensive displays of firearms prevent more harm than defensive shootings do.

And that was the main question in the op. Should it be legal or not to "brandish" and fire a warning shot. I understand the possible downsides to both, but do think that they can have a part in the self defense schema and gun owners should not be prosecuted for doing so. I know Pa does not have "brandishing laws" but some states do iirc. Warning shots is more of a gray area. It can end a bad situation, but brings in other problems. A person should always know what is beyond a target and potentially putting others in danger is no small thing. In the second article I posted, it mentioned someone going to jail for firing at a car thief and hitting a neighbor. The situation is different because you can argue that him not being in immediate danger affects the situation. There are too many variable to me to say that "brandishing" is always bad or firing a warning shot is always bad and a person should be prosecuted for doing so.

If a threat is immediate and shooting the threat is the only way to end it, I say pull the trigger. But I can't quite grasp the concept that things can only go from no danger to kill the other person without any in between actions involving a firearm. I do appreciate people posting both sides of the argument.

[itchinesu]

Millions of examples to the contrary argue against your position.

You are forcing a response one way or another by drawing a weapon, which may not elicit the response you hoped for if you are unprepared to use it.

I don't see how that helps de-escalate. I know you argue for sport but a warning shot only cements that you had options other than taking a life.

[Bang]

Does the Navy fire a warning shot across the bow? That could endanger any life in the water. This shit's gotta stop.
(signed) PETA

[Lexington]

And that was the main question in the op. Should it be legal or not to "brandish" and fire a warning shot.

I'm in the "should be legal" camp. If a show of force can resolve a situation, then great. If actual force has to be used, then so be it. Animals bare their fangs at a threat in order to get the threat to back off. Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.