Biden says... buy a double barrelled shotgun

[jimmy the one]

47. Warning Shots can be DGUs (Kleck)

johnston: 10. I like him too but the problem is warning shots are illegal and irresponsible because the warning shot can and sometimes do fall on an innocent a mile away. As a lawyer he should know better. Second, ARs are not more complicated or harder to use. If a coach gun is his choice fine, but he should not be giving false information or irresponsible legal advice.

Well shoot your shotgun into the ground for the warning shot, away from anyone visible, duh. Ooo, ricocheting shotgun pellets, more undangerous than a speeding bullet, unable to leap tall buildings with a single bound. Now if you've a deer slug inside, angle more down.

CharlieVicker Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warning shots illegal?

Not when they're bona fide (pardon, duh). Gary Kleck listed some warning shots as DGUs! (defensive gun uses).

SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total? (nationally in klecks study)
KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a defensive gun use.
SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?
KLECK: Handguns, yes.
SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun.
KLECK: Right.
SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?
KLECK: Something like that, yeah.
SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that statistically valid?
KLECK (just a, starting to, TAPDANCE!): Well, that's one reason why we also had a five-year recollection period. We get a much larger raw number of people saying, "Yes, I had a defensive use." It doesn't work out to be as many....

Oh, where was I? oh yes, warning shots fired:

SCHULMAN: Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their attacker?
KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that people could have done with a gun from as mild an action as merely verbally referring to the gun on up to actually shooting somebody.
SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?
KLECK: You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for people to have done more than one of these things since they could obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or even shoot it.
KLECK: 54% of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47%involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8% they actually did wound or kill the offender.
SCHULMAN: In 8% wounded or killed. You don't have it broken down beyond that?
KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone. Keep in mind that the 8% figure is based on so few cases that you have to interpret it with great caution. [/i http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html

Hahaha! 'so few cases' - that's for sure gary! cause 8% wounded or killed was about 4 or 5 total people (2 killed) shooting or wounding in the whole junky study! and extrapolating that out meant ~200,000 gunshot injuries for that year of the study, b b b but only 100,000 reported gunshot wounds that year!
Phantom Gunshot Victims - HEAL THYSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!