Let's just back up a moment so that we're clear on the law. It is a criminal offence to point a firearm at somebody, but there's a comma there: “without lawful excuse”. Now, very often, the responding police officer doesn't want to be the one to make that determination as to whether or not there was lawful excuse.
Sometimes there is good reason for that. I know that I may advise my client not to give a statement to police that can't help them, but there are cases where I tell my client that, in those circumstances, you give your side of the story and tell them exactly what happened. The trouble, though, is a policy one where you have a pointing of a firearm. Even if there appears to be a lawful excuse, we see those winding their way through the courts.
We have to recognize, of course, that there are some acts where the exact same action will be unlawful in one context, but with a lawful excuse or a reasonable defence, such as self-defence, will be completely lawful. The question is, does the policy recognize that distinction? In my experience, I would say not always.