I meant let's take it to absurdity. Why? Because any framework you give the legal system will be used to absurdity sooner or later. Every bullet fired that doesn't incapacitate the threat is a "warning shot". More important is the fact that you couldn't fire any bullets anywhere within a 3 mile range of any other human being besides your assailant, ever. You wouldn't even be able to let loose a round if you weren't two inches away from the assailant's brain stem and that doesn't sound like a defensive situation does it? You could never fire a shot around the family you're trying to protect even (and if you doubt that, start shooting steel targets at less than 25 yards and see how bullets ricochet like life is imitating a cartoon). That rules out not just cities but also most counties in America. Except that's not reality. How can we know that? Well, police have no problem firing their guns in cities or any other populated area. You could say they're better trained but they're not and they miss a LOT. So should we put in rules just to hassle citizens? You would if you had other goals besides safety. Why? Because police and citizens both almost never shoot innocent bystanders in collateral fire. Both miss (a lot) under stress and yet very few people end up shot with the bullets that penetrate through a body or miss entirely. Where do people get shot by stray bullets? I'm glad you asked and it's places like Chiraq where people already engaged in criminal behavior spray bullets at rival gangs or drug dealers in an attempt to send a message or just through sheer incompetence. The other exception being the (maybe hilarious, though not to the people inside) times police "misidentify a suspect's car" and pump it full of bullets. But let's talk about warning shots. A ridiculous amount of violent encounters get stopped by "brandishing" and "warning shots". The police know this, the citizenry knows this and the courts know it. But legally speaking, warning shots are still not allowed. If the person who flashed a gun or fired a warning shot wasn't defending themselves, they can be charged with other crimes. The only time someone would only fall under brandishing or warning shot violations would be if they were engaged in a defensive situation, used their gun appropriately and the legal system was being used to punish them and send a message to other citizens that they shouldn't use their guns in self defense. It's understandable if a bullet whizzes past you and you get upset, that makes sense; I would too. But focus your rustled jimmies on the criminal rather than the person defending themselves from a criminal. If a citizen engages in self defense and shoots your property, they're liable (it gets replaced or you get compensated and all is well with the world). If a citizen engages in self defense and hits a bystander, it's a minimum of manslaughter. So what exactly are we talking about here, "poorly" worded gun control meant to hassle the citizenry? You needn't look further than NY, CA, MA or NJ to see some of this absurdity being successfully litigated.