http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48553

Basically they're bad ideas. Though I don't trust the district attorney to pursue a case.

From one poster:

If you're not prepared to shoot somebody with the first round available in the chamber, then you have to seriously question if drawing the gun was justifiable in the first place. If there is an actual justifiable need to draw the gun, then there is no further justification needed to shoot. The gun is not a magic talisman, the mere sight or sound of which will necessarily deter an eminent attack or stop an attack in progress. The idea of firing a warning shot sounds like you either have doubts about the justification for shooting, or are unsure of to which degree do you owe an assailant a warning. If you have those doubts, then don't draw the gun. It's that simple. A verbal warning, before an attack is sufficient warning. Such a warning need be nothing more than shouting, "if you come closer, I WILL defend myself." You have no moral obligation to inform them HOW you will do that. The ENTIRE responsibility for the outcome of an assault lies squarely on the shoulders of the assailant. If you are not convinced of this principle, that means you are questioning your own motives. That's OK.....but if you are questioning your own motives, then you probably can't justify drawing your gun and firing it.