[marktwain]

Should we rethink warning shots? They seemed to work in this case. Isn't it a better outcome that nobody died and the police arrested the criminal?

[AlwaysThinking]

The victim got the best possible result. He must have felt no immediate bodily threat.

Under those conditions, I’d consider a warning shot, but ONLY if I have a high capacity mag :)

[gwjack]

Surely you jest? I think all warning shots should be fired after the perp is disabled with fatal gunshots. It would warn co-conspirators of the gravity of invading a house at night.

Warning shots are a critical waste of lead, and ability to defend.

[txrefugee]

Texans don’t do warning shots. We have too many criminals in our prisons and they are very expensive.

[catfish1957]

Isn't it a better outcome that nobody died and the police arrested the criminal?

Nope, the scumbag will get out shortly and do it again. The next homeowner may not have a gun.

[G Larry]

Tough call.

The rule is “never fire warning shots”, as it almost always proves the threat isn’t imminent.

A good whack over the head may have made him stop, BUT the victim is 87 and shouldn’t risk getting that close.

[B4Ranch]

If I am not in fear for my life, I won’t kill anyone who isn’t a serious threat to me.