that seems like a lot of speculation. As I've stated before over and over again, you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight. i think tipping your hand on assumptions is not indicated in any scenario.
It's no more speculative than assuming that they are carrying concealed and acting accordingly. You should know already that emotionally-charged catchphrases like "you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight" don't do much for me, Rev. First time I saw it I fond it slightly humorous, now it's just old. It isn't nearly as profound as you may think.
Because if the other person doesn't have a gun, you were never
in a gunfight. You just shot someone. I can go around pretending I'm in gunfights all day long by just going around shooting people, it won't mean I was in a gunfight.
If someone is incapable of making smart and calculated decisions about the situation they find themselves in, they really shouldn't be in possesion of a gun. This is because without the ability to make intelligent choices, they are more of a danger to themselves and those around them than they are to actual threats.
Now, generally, I don't think warning shots should be issued at all. But there may arise a situation where it
is the best option available. I think it is folly to eliminate it as a potential resource simply because one really really likes pithy catchphrases.
Well, guy could be armed, on drugs, or maybe just real horny for you. you don't know.
If someone is not capable of assessing the situation, they probably shouldn't possess a gun. I'm not saying there should be a legal prohibition, but if they cannot accurately recognize the level of threat they are facing, they are not going to be safe to themselves or others while they wield their firearm.
rest of your life, gun fight.......
Shooting someone who does not have a gun is not a gunfight.
Which unless you are in the mind of an agressor, how do you know. If brandishing said weapon is not enough of an impetus to cause the agressor to egress the situation, the opinion that a warning shot will, are in my opinion, left wanting.
I'm assuming that there is little to no time between the brandishment of the weapon and the firing of the weapon. In fact, you are contradicting yourself here, rev. Did you not say "If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it."
Waving it about ain't using it. If I pull a gun, as a civilian, it
will be fired. I would
never point a gun at someone and not fire it. I'm not a cop or a soldier. I'm not making a movie. Therefore, I have no legitimate reason to have my gun out and
not fire it.
So the theory behind a warning shot would be a visual
and auditory cue to get the **** out of dodge for an aggressor when you are fairly confident the aggressor is not carrying a firearm of his own. Granted, I probably wouldn't use it myself, but I would not automatically exclude it as a possible action simply because I feel that the situation it would be useful in is unlikely.
The general rule of thumb I have is that if I'm pulling a gun, it's going to be fired, and if I'm pulling a gun, I'm in deadly danger and no warning shot would occur. But I do not automatically exclude the potential situation where a warning shot might be the best tactic.