They always said I was special. Usually they said it more like, "special," though. Like, with a smile and a slow nod.
Would you guys shoot a raccoon if it was charging you? A cute, cuddly, 8-pound little ball of fury covered with disease?
I can only speak for myself, but my reference to 'special ones' meant de fact exemption from the standards that would be applied to the rest of us.
are you trying to claim that society deems that it's ok for the police, but not private citizens to shoot a pitbull that charges children?
It YOUR job to keep YOUR dog under YOUR control. If you lose YOUR control, you place YOUR dog under someone else's control and their decision making authority and you get to deal with the aftermath. Leashes are not that expensive. Accidents happen, but you best be doing your best fix it. I.E. dog got out, you better be running after it trying to get it back under control.
Well put Sir. The complete responsibility lies with the owner.
Been dog bit several times.....not one time before being attacked and bit did they bark. The last one that attacked was a Rot an he wasn't barking either......I only had to shoot once with the Mossberg......its all about shot placement.
are you trying to claim that society deems that it's ok for the police, but not private citizens to shoot a pitbull that charges children?
I read all of your post. Sorry it hurt your feelings.
I can link up pics a few hundred vicious pitbulls and wounded and scarred children. You would say that proves nothing...
As usual, you are apparently incapable of grasping what should be a simple point (or choose not to for the sake of being difficult). My point is that ending a threat (assuming that one existed in the first place) does not require firing until the target has been reduced to an indistinguishable glob of red meat or the officer runs out of ammunition, whichever comes first.
It seems that we have a disturbing trend in which anything that spooks a cop, questions one, is found passed out drunk, offend's a cop's sensibilities, or vaguely resembles a fugitive (i.e., driving a pickup truck with no real similarity) ends up dead so long as the police don't run out of ammunition before getting the job done--as people like you cheer them on.
As usual, you are apparently incapable of grasping what should be a simple point (or choose not to for the sake of being difficult). My point is that ending a threat (assuming that one existed in the first place) does not require firing until the target has been reduced to an indistinguishable glob of red meat or the officer runs out of ammunition, whichever comes first.
It seems that we have a disturbing trend in which anything that spooks a cop, questions one, is found passed out drunk, offend's a cop's sensibilities, or vaguely resembles a fugitive (i.e., driving a pickup truck with no real similarity) ends up dead so long as the police don't run out of ammunition before getting the job done--as people like you cheer them on.
I always keep my dogs under control, but it's not unreasonable to think that a dog may slip off a leash at some point, and to say that the owner is irresponsible because of this is just ludicrous. Are some of you here really suggesting that if a dog happens to slip off a leash and it comes into your yard at more than a walk, that you are entitled to kill it? Truly sickening.
What happened to treating others the way you'd like to be treated? Being neighborly?
I don't care where you live or what kinda dog you own...if it chases after my kid in a threatening manner, I hope for the dog's sake you take care of it before I do.
Lose dogs are the fault of the owner 100% of the time
Again, my post in this thread said nothing of the sort, only that people in this thread are ignorant of "pit bull" type dogs. You're right, it is the fault of the owner 100% of the time, but that does not suggest that they are flat out irresponsible, and it sure as Hell doesn't warrant killing the dog. Not that you suggested this to be true, but some in here have hinted at it.
Of course I expect a legitimate threat to be neutralized, but it better damn well be a threat, just as when human threats are neutralized.
Alright, let me break it down for you then. My post in this thread had absolutely nothing to do with dogs attacking. I only commented on the ignorance of people with regard to the "pit bull" breed. You would have understood this if you had the reading comprehension of a fourth grader, so it seems I gave you too much credit when I assumed you simply didn't read the first part of my post. It has nothing to do with my feelings being hurt, but it has everything to do with you being an *******. I post a picture of one of my dogs and talk about a breed being misunderstood, and you talk about killing it if it comes running into your yard. Completely and totally out of line of you to talk about killing my dog, no matter the context. You're just seem dick who thinks that you're tougher than you really are. Such a big man to threaten to kill a dog that's "attacking you."
And I can link up a few hundred pictures of viscous NON-pit bull type dogs and wounded/scarred children. You would say THAT proves nothing...
I always keep my dogs under control, but it's not unreasonable to think that a dog may slip off a leash at some point, and to say that the owner is irresponsible because of this is just ludicrous. Are some of you here really suggesting that if a dog happens to slip off a leash and it comes into your yard at more than a walk, that you are entitled to kill it? Truly sickening.
What happened to treating others the way you'd like to be treated? Being neighborly?
Can someone rep him for me??
Wow....you are such a mature person....your name calling proves it....go back and read your own words....at the bottom of the picture about anyone doing any harm to my dog....I just pointed out if your dogs comes at me in my yard you shouldn't an better not be aggresive towards the shooter....your feelings get hurt and you start with name calling which looses the debate, so then you try and change the debate and ignore what you said. Grow up.
As usual, you are apparently incapable of grasping what should be a simple point (or choose not to for the sake of being difficult). My point is that ending a threat (assuming that one existed in the first place) does not require firing until the target has been reduced to an indistinguishable glob of red meat or the officer runs out of ammunition, whichever comes first.
It seems that we have a disturbing trend in which anything that spooks a cop, questions one, is found passed out drunk, offend's a cop's sensibilities, or vaguely resembles a fugitive (i.e., driving a pickup truck with no real similarity) ends up dead so long as the police don't run out of ammunition before getting the job done--as people like you cheer them on.