In your home is a bad example for this discussion. If he's in my home, with my kids, there are no warning shots. Even if I wanted to fire a warning shot, I have two kids bedrooms above me, my wife in the bedroom behind me, the baby's room to my left, that pretty much leaves the garage. I'm not turning my attention from an intruder to make sure that the warning shots land safely into my lawn mower. As much as that may please
@Laufen.
okay lets just go with the rough facts I'm working with here.
Neighbor 1 and 2 get into a heated discussion/argument.
Neighbor 1 and 2 continue argument in Neighbor 1's home
Neighbor 1 eventually asks neighbor 2 to leave and he admittedly does not, but the argument moves outside just beyond the door
Neighbor 1 states that neighbor 2 then attempts to attack him, so neighbor 1 fires into the air
Neighbor 2 then goes home and waits for police
Neighbor 1 is likely going to claim self defense. the issue comes down to this, even if we accept that neighbor 2 attacked neighbor 1, should the affirmative defense of self defense be available or does the fact that it was a warning shot effectively nullify a claim to self defense? Should we disallow the use of warning shots in cases were lethal force would have been justified?
I talked it over with some friends and some thought people shouldnt be punished for attempting to preserve life(these were generally non gun owners) and others said it promoted careless firearm use and would lead to incidents escalating faster than if we disallowed warning shots (generally firearm owners held this opinion).
I think warning shots don't slow down escalation, but invite escalation before it may be necessary.