TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:You should rack it several times. Even if you've already done so.

That's what they do. Ever noticed that at every turn where the GG is facing a BG (or visa versa), the gun gets racked?

Drives me crazy. There's this promo of 24 where "Jack" racks a gun TWICE and hands it to this woman and says, "here take my gun."

But of course no cartridge comes out. Nor does the slide stay back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL

Hey, Oldgringo, can you give a link to the search you performed? I'd love to read the stuff you found other than get a synopsis of the final "don't give warning shots" rule. I'm a "why" kinda guy for learning to stick. I never believed in warning shots myself, but I'd love to read a list of the reasons the pros don't.

anygunanywhere wrote:You can also rack the slide of your pistol before you fire the warning shot.That will add drama to the act like it does in the movies and TV.



Anygunanywhere

Once you present your firearm, you have threatened deadly force. Once you discharge your firearm, you have used deadly force. This is true regardless of the trajectory of the bullet. If you are in a situation that requires you to use deadly force, then it is time to focus on stopping the threat by taking a well-aimed, calculated, precision shot.

This is why firing a warning shot or "shooting to injure" are always bad ideas. We also don't "shoot to kill". We shoot to stop a threat, which means a high percentage shot to the central body mass. When your adrenaline is pumping and your life is in danger, this shot will be difficult enough without worrying about hitting one of Slim's knee caps.

A warning shot would normally come before you feel the threat is serious enough to require deadly force; by definition, however, the warning shot is deadly force. So, one of two situations must be true: 1) deadly force is not yet needed, and you used it, which is not advisable, or 2) deadly force is needed, and you failed to actually focus on neutralizing the threat, which is not advisable.

I doubt I'm adding anything new to the discussion, but I think every thread that broaches the subject needs the full, didactic explanation of the answer for all of those who might stumble across the thread in the future.

Morgan wrote:

Russell wrote:You should rack it several times. Even if you've already done so.

That's what they do. Ever noticed that at every turn where the GG is facing a BG (or visa versa), the gun gets racked?

Drives me crazy. There's this promo of 24 where "Jack" racks a gun TWICE and hands it to this woman and says, "here take my gun."

But of course no cartridge comes out. Nor does the slide stay back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL

Hey, Oldgringo, can you give a link to the search you performed? I'd love to read the stuff you found other than get a synopsis of the final "don't give warning shots" rule. I'm a "why" kinda guy for learning to stick. I never believed in warning shots myself, but I'd love to read a list of the reasons the pros don't.

Morgan, I am glad you asked for it caused me to look again and here's another discussion I found:

http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm

Having looked at that for a minute, it appears that maybe everybody above is correct...except maybe the wiseacres.

Morgan wrote: Drives me crazy. There's this promo of 24 where "Jack" racks a gun TWICE and hands it to this woman and says, "here take my gun."

But of course no cartridge comes out. Nor does the slide stay back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL

I don't watch 24 but maybe Jack knew there was no magazine in the gun, racked it twice to make sure there was nothing in the chamber, and wanted to woman to have a false sense of security for some reason?

atxgun wrote:

Morgan wrote: Drives me crazy. There's this promo of 24 where "Jack" racks a gun TWICE and hands it to this woman and says, "here take my gun."

But of course no cartridge comes out. Nor does the slide stay back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL

I don't watch 24 but maybe Jack knew there was no magazine in the gun, racked it twice to make sure there was nothing in the chamber, and wanted to woman to have a false sense of security for some reason?

Not to drift too far off topic, but it is a well-known phenomenon that the more of the senses you engage in your perception of something, the more believable, memorable, etc. it becomes. Since movies and TV only allow the film maker to engage two of the five senses available to the audience, they typically try and use them both whenever possible. So the whole idea of racking the slide or cocking back a hammer or whatever with a gun whenever it is used on screen is to give it a sound, which makes it more "tactile" or "real" to the audience than something that's simply a visual. It's not so much that they are idiots or don't know about guns, as much as it is that they know how to communicate ideas to the audience using the only available medium (audio and visual). They add all kinds of sounds to things that don't make any or much sound for this same reason.

On the DVD for The Bourne Identity (great movie) they have a featurette on the foley that exposes this extremely well. They just cover one scene but it is truly astounding the amount of extra auditory information they add in.

Yes, I have done a little bit of foley and written a score for a short film.

Anyway, how does this relate to the topic? Well just saying, making a noise with the gun is probably not as much of a threat to the real-world bad guy as it is on screen. It builds tension in a movie or TV show by drawing your attention to the gun. Trust me, the bad guy in the real world will have his attention on your gun without you racking the slide or cocking the hammer. Plus you are going to be yelling and screaming at the BG anyway, loud enough to cover up the sound of the hammer cocking back.

If you are justified to shoot a warning shot, you are justified to shoot COM. I concur with the rest of this thread. You either shoot or not. If drawing is sufficient to deter the threat, then great. But the only logical next step is to actually shoot at the BG in order to stop the threat. If you are not prepared to do that, then IMHO you shouldn't be carrying a gun to begin with.

atxgun wrote:

Morgan wrote: Drives me crazy. There's this promo of 24 where "Jack" racks a gun TWICE and hands it to this woman and says, "here take my gun."

But of course no cartridge comes out. Nor does the slide stay back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. LOL

I don't watch 24 but maybe Jack knew there was no magazine in the gun, racked it twice to make sure there was nothing in the chamber, and wanted to woman to have a false sense of security for some reason?

No, he actually put a loaded mag into the gun before racking the slide. LOL

Russell wrote:
I like how in some movies an actual 6-shooter revolver seems to have, 10, 12, sometimes even 15 rounds in it if you're paying attention to when people are firing the weapon, lose it in a struggle, pick it back up and use it again, etc.

Army of Darkness is infamous for the infinite shell capacity of their shotguns. I wish I had that cheat code.

Russell wrote:I like how in some movies an actual 6-shooter revolver seems to have, 10, 12, sometimes even 15 rounds in it if you're paying attention to when people are firing the weapon, lose it in a struggle, pick it back up and use it again, etc.

Anybody seen "American History X"? I like it a lot, but there's a few glaring continuity errors. Derrick (Edward Norton) gets over 25 shots (guesstimating) out of his handgun without reloading.

Please get back on topic folks. Thanks!

Morgan wrote:Hey, Oldgringo, can you give a link to the search you performed? I'd love to read the stuff you found other than get a synopsis of the final "don't give warning shots" rule. I'm a "why" kinda guy for learning to stick. I never believed in warning shots myself, but I'd love to read a list of the reasons the pros don't.

Here's a short list of some of the reasons:

1. It's dangerous - every round comes to rest somewhere, and ricochets and unintended penetrations are a high risk if warning shots are fired.

2. It is reckless conduct.

3. It may escalate the level of violence - someone who is threatening violence may attack after a warning shot in the belief that he is being shot at and needs to defend himself.

4. It wastes ammunition that may be needed for direct fire later in the incident.

5. It does not meet current standards for lawful and responsible use of force by members of a law enforcement agency.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police model use of force policy includes a no exceptions prohibition on warning shots.

The University of Texas / Austin PD has a use of force policy that conforms to CALEA (a national law enforcement accreditation group) standards and unequivocally prohibits warning shots in section B 6 B. This policy is typical of the standards for use of force in a well managed law enforcement agency.

Awesome! as I said, I wasn't in favor of it before, less now...just nice to have the reasons, because well meaning people will make the argument, and I prefer to have the arguments articulated in advance.

Morgan wrote:Awesome! as I said, I wasn't in favor of it before, less now...just nice to have the reasons, because well meaning people will make the argument, and I prefer to have the arguments articulated in advance.

That's a good practice for the thoughtful armed citizen.