Even if I were to place myself in judgment (which I won't) on whether or not to restrict someone's Constitutional right, your criteria is so broad as to make it impossible to render judgment. As I've told you before, each case is unique and can't be judged on such a broad spectrum.
Warning shot = bad idea. Most people have no concept of how far a bullet will travel through walls in a home environment. Anything that doesn't hit the target's nice, energy absorbent, bone and tissue is going to keep going and going and going. Drywall doesn't provide much resistance unless you hit a stud or pipes/conduit. Another reason why, if someone owns a gun but is not trained and proficient in shooting it accurately and safely, they are unlikely to do anything beneficial with it.
My son owns a gun, not me. Some people are just too used to twisting the truth to fact-check before they spew their bs.
Yeah, but according to your story (and some of the tales you've told in the past), your son lives with you & you obviously have ready access to the guns (not a single gun but "guns, right?). So, if the guns belong to your son, what are you doing with them? I'm sure, since your son is the legal owner of these guns, he's properly trained & has them properly registered. Right? So, my question is this: What the heck are doing grabbing his guns? You have to be the sort of "nut job" fog-of-war is talking about when he carries on about people having guns for protection.