Almost had to kill the neighbor's dog
 

I was kneeling on my front lawn yesterday, pulling grass out of my flowerbed, when my neighbor's pit bull suddenly appeared, running around the corner of my house, barking and growling.

The lucky lttle pooch stopped about 20 feet short of me and continued his barking. By that time, I had my carry gun at the ready, and was contemplating the dog's next move. Fortunately for him, he chose to stand there barking his fool head off.

What gets my most about this whole thing, is that my jackass of a neighbor was standing there watching the whole thing. After I went back into the house, the poor, misunderstood dog went into my garage and raided a bag of dry dog food.

I'm about to go over there right now and politely explain that, should they once again fail to control their dog, and it ends up on my property, I'll have no choice but to consider it a threat to the safety of myself and my dog.

Jesus, some people just don't deserve to have dogs, and it's a shame the dog is the one that has to pay for their ignorance.:angry:

Yikes, Ken!

As an owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier mix, this one hits close to home for me. Amstaffs are considered a form of "pit bull", and I know that most people are generally terrified of them. My little pup will be a year old in January, and while she's as harmless as can be, she is still learning what's "her" territory and what's not. Consequently, when our next door neighbor comes down (his house is a weekend retreat, so he's only there a couple of times a month), she uses her "big girl voice" and goes nuts. Same thing with other dogs....she goes to the kennel about once a week for socialization, and does beautifully, but when a strange dog wanders into her yard, she's a barking fool. Doesn't get aggressive, just barks and carries on.

Now, as for the owner, well, he sounds like an ass. Our pup is still being trained on a daily basis, and we take full responsibility for her behavior at all times.

I just hate to see a dog punished because the owners are irresponsible. Is it possible you could befriend the dog somehow so that you don't have to worry about him getting aggressive?

As much as I hate to say this, but to keep yourself from becoming involved in a lawsuit, should you have to shoot the dog, go ahead and file a complaint with animal control about the dog. Talk to it's owners as well, and let them know you have no qualms about defending yourself, should the need arise.

Good luck in resolving this peacefully!!

Well, I have small children at home, so it doesn't make any difference to me whether it's a pitbull, amstaff, boxer, or standard poodle. If a strange dog were to come at me, a full-grown man in an agressive fashion in my own yard, I would have to assume that it would potentially maul a child. I would have probably taken that dog out of the picture, then go have a "talk" with its owner for putting me in that uneviable position!

:angry:

Just so that you have a paper trail to back you up should you need to shoot the dog, I sugguest making a complaint to your local PD. My husband works for a PD, and he says it's just a good way to cover your but.

This way if you shoot the dog, and the neighbor claims you've never told him that his dog is dangerous you can say "HA, I talked to the police and they talked to you, so you knew darn well what was going on."

But be humane too, no dog should be shot just because it's dum arsh owner doesn't have the know how to keep it under control. You can take off an ear, or maybe a knee cap then the owner is stuck paying vet bills.

I'm glad it didn't come to that for you. What a stinky situation to be stuck in.

I will second that idea on sanctioning a dog in my yard as I also have 6 kids in ages of 3 to 14.
I had a neighbors dog come in my yard and start mauling my lab
[it was a LARGE shepard] needless to say I crippled[bare handedly] that dog and my neighbors had to put it down with the threats of lawsuit this and that. I suffered a few cuts on my hands when I broke the dogs jaw. To protect my self I also called the police .
These neighbors I am talking about have as many as 20+ dogs in the yard of varying breeds at any given time. The actions I took against the shepard was the 3rd time one of thier dogs came into my yard.
Ken the first time it was a staffordshire terrier that now has a big scar on its head.
I have called animal control and such on these fine folks also, and in retaliation they called animal control on me saying I wasn't providing shelter for my lab[he has a 4x8 foot insulated dog house in my garage raised off the slab] idiots I say idiots

I shudder to think what I would do to these folks if thier dogs mauled my kids.I have had many words with the mans wife [he is a coward]

incedently my whole yard is fenced in

Any resolution?
 

Ken,

Just curious if you have found time to speak to the owner of the dog and if he was responsive to your concerns?

Turn About Is Fair Play
 

I had a similar problem with a neighbor of mine. He seemed to think that it was ok to let his two monster aggressive pit bulls out to roam the neighborhood be cause they needed to “stretch” a little. He thought it was funny to see his dogs “play” with the other animals in the area.

They had mauled several other dogs and cats in the area and chased countless folks back into their houses. Despite numerous calls to the animal control and the police department (PD was working a case on keeping vicious dogs) he still let them out.

Here is how I solved the problem. My neighbor was deathly afraid of snakes, which I just happen to have a few of.

One day when he was outside watching his dogs terrorize the neighborhood I walked out with one of my 6+ foot atrox and set her down in my yard adjacent to his.

She is a beautiful girl with just a hint of attitude that says, Come Get Some, Chump! I reckon she has enough brass to school both the dogs and anyone else who would like an education on what “bad” really means.

He turned pale as stammered backwards and asked what I was doing. I simply told him if he was going to let his animals out to roam I would do the same, and I had plenty more hots that I felt like I needed to let out to roam because they needed to “stretch”.

Funny, he moved out and I haven’t seen him nor his dogs since and none of the folks in the neighborhood seem have a problems with my hobby anymore.

Dave

I hate to be the one to say it, but if it come down to it and you have to shoot that dog..........kill it.

I understand it is just a dog, and it is not the dogs fault his/her owner is an ass.........but you don't want a WOUNDED vicious dog in your face.

~ I love dogs. I have a beautiful Boxer. My last dog was the sweetest Rottwieler that there ever was. I understand large dogs.........and if I thought it was me (or God forbid my children) or my dog (or the neighbors).........Kill the dog in the first shot or don't shoot.

Needless to say if I had the time I would have got a gun and blasted the shepard instead of going the route I did ...my dog was not in a good way with this shepard and I did what I could to save my dog as this other was not backing down...I can say I am very glad it wasn't one of my children and 'only' my dog

The rattler idea was too cool ...but responsibility is foremost with venomous

More on dogs..
 

A couple of years ago my Dept was paged out to a medical emergency in the rural part of our district.This was about 2300 hours and when we arrived on scene the elderly lady's neighbor's pitbull was in the yard and charged us whenever we tried to get out of our unit.Not knowing what else to do we radioed the Sherrifs office to get a deputy started and one of my firefighters somehow was able to subdue the animal with an oxygen bottle.

I understand that this was somebody's pet and all,but a human life was at risk,and my guy wasn't going to stand for it.Turns out that the neighbor had a lengthy list with law enforcement and aparently,the dog was enraged by the lights and siren prior to our arrival.

Darrin hit the nail on the head when he stated that it didn't matter what kind of dog it was,if it came with an aggressive posture at one of my children,it will be in for a world of hurt(or anyone elses kids if I see it). Just my $.02



<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-3/142133/GlenandPhoenix.JPG" width=500 height=400>

BTW here is a pic of me and my "spotted child" from a couple of years ago..enjoy!

Well, I just thought I'd post a followup, since there's been time for this situation to develop further.

Last weekend, I came home to find all three of my neighbor's dogs in my back yard. Apparantly, they had dug under the privacy fence and were too stupid to find their way back under. One of them eventually made it out into the front, where it was greeted by myself and one of Melbourne's finest. After the dogs were contained, they eventually made it back into their own yard, and the hole was bloked with a cople edging bricks.

Fast forward to today. I come home to discover two of his three pits roaming the street. Unbeknownst to me, the third dog had managed to get into a house down to street and literally tear an old man's pet dog to pieces. The other two dogs were doing their best to intimidate a man and woman out for an evening stroll.

To make a long story short, two of the dogs are now wards of Brevard County, and my neighbor now faces some substantial fines and a possible civil suit. The third pooch is still at large, despite giving myself and the uniformed officer nearly every justification in the world to put it down. Part of the circumstances of the dog's escape was it charging me. I didn't have a clean backdrop behind the dog, and the Melbourne officer would have been discharging his firearm in my general direction. Under these circumstances, the only prudent thing to do was sidestep, and hope that the dog kept on its current path. Fortunately, he did.

With any luck, he'll return home sometime tonight or tomorrow without cusing any damage to persons or property. When he does, he's a goner as well.

I hate irresponsible dog owners.

With any luck the third dog will get tagged by a semi or a moving van.Exactly right on the irresponsible dog owners,the blame on the dogs can only go to a certian point.Glad you got 2/3 of the problem taken care of.Good luck with the rest.Hope your neighbor gets what he deserves.

I hate irresponsible dog owners. [/b][/quote]

lets all remember these words

Somewhat ironic:
 

Pits have horrible, undeserved reputations but this guy's ready to pull his "carry gun" and decide whether or not to kill it at the drop of a hat. Which is the one to be feared, a beautiful animal, just being an animal or an ignorant human with his big, bad gun pretending to not be an animal? I know which one I'm more TERRIFIED of.

Re: Somewhat ironic:
 

Yes, pits, rotties, chows, mastiffs, and quite a few other dogs have very bad reps, and undeserved. HOWEVER, there are some that are untrained and just plain MEAN. I have a rottie that's a sweetheart, a friend has one that if I go to his house, I won't get out of the car unless I know the dog is fenced or inside the house, they didn't train it to be mean, it just is.

And I would trust Ken to make a snap decision on killing a dog or not. He didn't kill it, but would have protected himself and his own dog without hesitation. Why shouldn't he? His neighbor was out and didn't do anything when the dog went into Ken's yard. The owner of the pit has a responsibility to the dog as well as his neighbors to keep the dog under control. If he can't train the dog, and keep it up, then he shouldn't have it.

Notice also that the pit DID kill another persons dog shortly after this attack.

As dog owners people are responsible for their pets actions, would you still feel the same if a dog had killed a CHILD in an unprovoked attack?

The pits owner was warned, he had time to do something about the dogs, he didn't, therefore he isn't responsible enough to keep them.

As for Ken, I wouldn't consider him an 'ignorant human'. He's one of the more intelligent people that post on these forums on a regular basis. And considering he's been in the military for quite a while, I would trust him with a gun far more quickly than I would the majority of the people that own guns.

Yeah...
 

I don't mean to sound ignorrant myself. I know pits very well. I love them. And I know some are just not suitable to be trusted in any way. I also have 3 kids and would never suggest that the life of a dog is more important than a child. And the situation of the dogs running the neighborhood and terrorizing anything in their path is classic. I hate that humans have for the most part ruined this amazing breed. And there are so many filthy fighting bloodlines, the majority of the dogs are worthless for anything but barbaric, idiotic rituals. It's too bad, but like you said, that's just how it is.

But at the same time, people that are ready to pull their guns at anything that threatens them is just as idiotic. Guns kill so many more people than dogs do. Especially in this twisted country of ours. That's where in my opinion the irony comes in. It's the same problem embodied in 2 different life forms. Dogs operate on instinct. Humans should have a little more intelligence. And as far as him being in the military for so long. That's exactly why his first instinct is to shoot first, ask questions later. I just don't get the mentality. And, never want to. This is the rant forum right?

What exactly would you suggest people do when something or someone threatens them? Just stand there meekly and allow them to do what they wish?
A dog that was a potential threat approached Ken uncontrolled, he responded to the threat by preparing to defend himself if necessary. Would you have him stand there and pray the dog didn't decide to attack him? I have pulled a gun on roaming dogs myself, and would not hesitate to kill any animal that moved to attack me.
Your comments sound much like the pathetic bleeding hearts that want people to give the theif whatever they want to avoid a confrontation.

This is the response to a threat not the initiation of a confrontation. Do you honestly expect people to make no move to defend themselves against a threat to their or their children's person?
If anything, animal or human, endangers my right to live, they by that act forfeit their own, and I will kill them. If you expect any less from someone not looking for the trouble to begin with then I am at a loss as to how to respond. It's a completely foreign concept to me for anyone to refuse to act in their own defense, let alone suggest that others refrain from it.

To me, Ken was ready to shoot, but didn't. His first instinct was to protect himself, and his own pet. Knowing the breed reputation, and that most have fighting bloodlines, wouldn't you rather have the gun out and ready, just in case you needed it?

When I was around 10 years old, I watched my dad run a couple of pits off of our land. He had his gun out, and ready, just in case. The male charged him, as a bluff, I can't help but wonder though, what would have happened if my dad hadn't had the gun. Would the pit have charged without bluffing, and mauled my dad? Would it still have been a bluff if my dad had not had the gun, but still acted confident? I honestly don't want to know.

I don't see the 'shoot first and ask questions later" mentality here, personally. Being prepared to, and not doing it, yes. Being prepared to kill to protect what is his, yes.

Ken should never have been put in this position. The guy who owns the pits should keep them in his yard. No one should ever be in this position.
Yes, guns do kill more people than dogs do, that I can't argue with. I can't however fault someone for wanting to protect what is theirs against a dog, that's acting aggressive, especially considering the breed reputation and the strength that pits have in this case.

But please, do note that Ken did NOT shoot the dog. He's had several opportunities, and didn't. He or the animal control officer would have, given the chance after the pit kill another animal, but couldn't without risking a human. At this point, since the owner won't/hasn't taken responsibility for this dog, it would be better for everyone in the area if it's put down. A child could be next.

"Guns kill so many more people than dogs do. Especially in this twisted country of ours."

People kill more people than do dogs. Thousands of them use guns do do so each year, and tens of thousands use their cars. The victims are dead just the same.

What is twisted in our country is the idea that an inanimate object (like a gun) can have a moral quality all its own (inherent evil). The fact of the matter is that you are all too willing to blame the owners of bad pitbulls, but not the shooters of poorly used guns.

That is ironic, in my opinion. Hypocritical too.

It's just the mentality of...
 

people that are way too trigger happy that really confuses, concerns, intrigues me. I love guns. I think they're awesome pieces of machinery and there aren't many things that are as firing a Glock or other well crafted handgun. At the same time, if there were no guns, there would be no need for guns. This country loves it's guns and that's why the US has somewhere around 50+ times as many gun deaths than any other country. The only thing that struck me that I just felt the need to comment on, was the first thought being, "I got me mah gun and I'm not a skeered to use it." That mentality strikes me as highly unevolved and dangerous. I'm not a bleeding heart at all. Liberal though, EXTREMELY. Not that that has anything to do with anything but I'm sure that's why I don't understand the way your average (and by average I mean, dillusional) Republican thinks. And didn't mean to turn this little anecdote into a gun control issue so I'm not gonna post on this anymore. I was just bored at work and it sparked my interest. Take care.

"At the same time, if there were no guns, there would be no need for guns."

England, which has some of the strictest of gun control laws, also has a horrible problem with violent crimes. Criminals have guns, and law abiding citizens do not . . . who would have supposed THAT might happen????


"This country loves it's guns and that's why the US has somewhere around 50+ times as many gun deaths than any other country."

I would truly LOVE to see your statistical information to back up such a claim. I would also like for you to quantify the actual number of gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the country. We have a lot more deaths due to guns here than say, IRAQ, but if you think the Hussein death squads didn't kill a much larger percentage of their population than were ever even threatened here, you are sadly mistaken.

Also, Israel and Switzerland have a MUCH larger proliferation of guns in their countries than does the U.S. This is true because almost everyone in each of those nations is required to perform military service (you know, that shoot first ask questions later place) and remain in the reserve system for several years thereafter. Both countries require a large percentage of their population to keep and remain proficient at the use of fully automatic weapons. Even so, they have a MUCH lower rate of violent crime (once you exclude Israel's terrorist attacks, which almost never involves the use of guns) than do we here in the U.S. Why? Because crooks there know full well that the homeowners there are armed and know how to use their defenses!

I agree we have problems with the gun violence in this country. But we have always had the guns, and the violence is a relatively new phenomenon. Huh . . .You don't suppose it could have anything to do with the changing CULTURE of this nation that has brought about the cheapening of human life, do you? I mean, we've only taught our kids that they are nothing more than highly evolved animals with no real rules to follow, only situational ethics for about forty years now. Are we really surprised that they have started to act like what we've told them they were???

I find your assertion that the average Republican is dillusional to be ludicrous, dismissive, offensive, and quite typical of many who hold your views. I understand why you use such personal attacks, though. After all, when the facts are not with you, what else do you have?

Perhaps that is because there are more people than dogs in this country. And perhaps it also means that as a species people are more apt to put themselves into positions where they MUST be shot in order to stop their predations on other people.

BS, in it's purest form. The Colt .45 was called "The Equalizer". See if you can figure out why that name was applied to it.

I seriously doubt the accuracy of that statement. Especially when you are obviously using it in the context of that the guns were used in inappropriate or illegal circumstances. How many of those gun deaths were from the appropriate use of a gun in a self defense situation, that citizens of many other countries would not have as an option because their government DOES NOT ALLOW them to have guns?

Gee, THAT's a surprise. Who would have figured THAT out?

But it seems the definition has changed to where it is 180 degrees from it's original definition. It used to mean, willing to accept change, live and let live, and have a liberal dose of common sense, understanding, and tolerance for other people's ideals. Now it means "My thoughts are the ONLY reasonable and logical thoughts. You, on the other hand, are just an unwashed right wing conspiracist brute, that will never understand my point of view."

See previous statement by me. Pretty much proves my point.

Basically....
 

I was referring specifically to Canada, our closest neighbor. Which has about 50 gun incidents a year, compared to our 3,000+. 2 cultures which are very similar, yet very different. It's a contrast that I find very interesting. And as far offending the right wing percentage of the population, I really have no remorse for that. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe your statistical assertions. Please provide some evidence for what you have said concerning Canada's number of gun related deaths, please.

Actually, I just decided to get the information myself. Here it is on an apples-to-apples basis:

"Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05."

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

By the way, the article from which those figures were copied was one in which the gun proliferation in this country was cited as being a national health risk by the CDC. Hardly a right-wing perspective!

I found it interesting that Canada, which has a population of about 31 million people, has a gun death rate of 4.31 deaths per 100,000 population. The comes out as a little more than 1,336 deaths by guns in Canada each year. Way more than your cited "50 gun incidents" per year. Also, these are actual deaths, not just incidents; the number of incidents must be MUCH higher, wouldn't you agree?

The United States? Well, we average 32,752 deaths per year by guns. How many of them are accidental, suicides, self-defense issues or homicides? I have no idea, but it is way too high a number regardless! However, we also average more than 40,000 deaths each year on our nation's highways and some 3,000,000 injured. Should we ban cars? No, it is the fault of the drivers that auto accidents happen, just exactly as it is the fault of the shooters when guns are misused.

So, I come back to my point about the changes of our own culture, which is truly slouching toward Gomorrah in many ways. You failed to address that issue, but it seems to me that the lowering of standards and the cheapening of human life brought about by the new liberalism of the 1960s took place at the same time that the rise of gun violence has been recorded. But that's just coincidental, right?

Id rather have my .45 then a human by my side
 

why you ask that i say that ? well two years ago i had left my apt. to got a doctors visit and then to work ( self employed) well after the docs office i decidedthat i needed to return to my house to get something i need at work for the day .I went picked up my help drove back to my apt. Although i lived in a "reasonably safe" neighborhood ,well this morning as i got out my neighbor asked if i had guests in my house ?? she had heard someone talking on the rear deck. Well of course i replied no and grabbed my gun from the seat of the truck.my helper who is a reasonably strong guy waswith me as i walked uo to the door i hear voices seemed more then just one person in my home where i lived alone other then snakes. yuo bet i had my gun in my hand as i unlocked the door i swung it open very fast to only find my helper out in the drive behind me and standing face to face with two guys one holding his hands full of MY STUFF !!! the other holding a knife in his hand .. the first one dropped and ran for the back door the second made the mistake of comming at me with his knife .I immeadiately reacated with 2 squeezes of the trigger and dropped this guy in my living room floor. the other one stoped at the back door and turned to lok i told him if he moved id shoot to kill him . by this time my neighbors had called the police and they arrived almost 2-3 minutes later. Now i did not think twice about pulling my gun and using it that day Why it was my HOME mySTUFF and MY life that was threatened .. un luckily i didnt kill the SOB with the knife but just severaly wounded him with one shot to the stomach and one in the upper leg. Now even though he was in MY house with no right to be there as obvious by the sliding doors busted own and glass and a brick in the kitchen floor. I was the one charged for assualt with a deadly weapon w/ intent to cause bodilt harm.. why Well from my lawyers words i should have killed him thern he could not have testified against me in court lol ... the courts finally dropped charges they filed on me and even let him go w/o being held in jail. the moral to this if guns were not around .. neither would i be as i feel with they close range of the guy with a knife and his help i would have been a victom rather then then them. if with out that gun im sure both ofthese guys would have taken the thought od 2 on 1 and went for me instead of the one dropping and running he was smart if both had ran i would have not shot anyone that day ( i think) but when faced with someone who has nothing bad bad intentions ... in MYHOME or vehicle ... id take a gun anyday over a friend .. .friends may not always want to have themsleves subjected to possible injury while a gun in the right hands can always equall out the outcome of a bad situation .

so i say if you dont like the way the US is run and you dont like people having guns .. move to where they banned and then tell me how much you like your life then ... hopefully well but chances are someone there has guns to ...

Like I said...
 

wasn't trying to start a gun control debate. And I in no way think guns should be banned. The second Amendment is just as important as the others. And by the way the first is to protect freedom of unpopular speech. Otherwise, it wouldn't be needed if everything anyone ever said was popular speech. It's too bad they're not all respected and upheld very often. I was just commenting on the menatlity that some people hold (and they have every right to) that guns take presedence to everything else. Gun freaks. Just pointing out the irony. Obvioulsy, it's a touchy subject that everyone has a different view on. It's fun to discuss though right? And by the way, my definition of liberal, and how I live it, is that every single person should have the right to make their own decisions with no interference from anyone. EVERY PERSON. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't feel that way has a really warped sense of freedom. And these people are usually the ones that claim to be most patriotic.

Typically people who advocate legalizing assault weapons say they should have the right and freedom to own an AK-47 if they choose to. But these are the people that are the most likely to advocate many, many other freedoms be taken from everyone else. It's hypocritical and ironic. And makes no sense. And I just don't think people like that ever stop for a second to think about their stance or they would realize how ridiculous they look. Which was my whole point to begin with. That's all.

sorry for typos
 

geesh i hate when i get so fast to express my self i do that .. none the less you get the point Guns are a needed thing here in the US and i have NEVER seen a gun kill somebody.... its the hand behind the gun that does the thinking

In response to Alan's post...
 

That's ridiculous. See the twisted and warped mentality that I'm talking about? I'm sure you went through a legal circus for probably years. For protecting yourself. I'm not against guns in any way. As a matter of fact, I agree that they play a very important role. What I don't care for, is hypocricy, stupidity and ignorrance. However, it is very hard to always be on the right side of a fine line. Guess that's just life. But you have to admit that in some instances situations happen that just turn out to make people look like morons. And if they would stop and think before snapping into whatever they're indoctrinated with, the outcome would be different. And alot more sensible.

So based on your first quote, you claim to believe that everyone has the right to make their own decisions, including what sort of firearms they can possess. Right? But in your second quote, it is pretty obvious that you do not agree hat someone should own an AK-47, or am I reading that wrong? Because obviously there is a slight conflict in logic there.

You see, the problem with the preemptive banning of any type of firearm is the presumption of guilt based on the potential of misuse. I would think that from your definition of "liberal" and how you live, that you would go ballistic over the very idea of banning something based on such criteria.

:toiletcla

Yeah, I didn't mean it like that. In comparison. I just meant that an AK is an extemely powerful weapon. Someone that would want the right to own one might also be against a law allowing people to do something with much less opportunity for disaster. And honestly, I have no desire to own any assault weapons or really even any guns. I don't own any. I have 3 small kids. So it really doesn't concern me enough to have an opinion on whether or not assault rifles should be legal. I was just using that as an example. And you're right, with my logic, just because I don't partake in owning guns (I do enjoy shooting other people's) doesn't mean in any way that I think other people should be allowed to. I practice what I preach to a T and never would want to infringe on someone's right to do whatever they want. If it doesn't effect me, it's none of my business. If it does effect me I have every right to express my opinion but not the right to say you're wrong for feeling that way. Peace man, peace. Haha.

Also, another reason I choose not to own any guns is because I think alot of the time, it can get you into twice as much trouble by having one on you than not having one. Some of that is attributed to absurd laws too but some of it is also that carrying a gun can subconsciously make you feel like you're invincible. Machismo and bravado is a fake behavior and I don't wanna feel that pulling on my sleeve. I know many people that have gotten themselves into alot of trouble for carrying a gun that they had no business with. And did not need. But that's a whole nother end of the spectrum I really don't feel like debating. But if you guys want to, feel free. I'm getting arthritis here.

simple facts
 

the gun has no brain , it reasons no logic therefore it cant be held accountable for what it does ....
On the other hand the person that holds that gun , uses that gun is the brains behind that gun .

Its upto the individual owning or possesing the gun that has to have been taught to handle it , how to use it , when to use it . i think you are making a mute point when blaming ANYTHING on the gun . If you want to stand up for something stand up for Gun SAFETY not Banning
take your views use to educate people who own guns HOW to use them or people that dont own them and get there hands on them lets face it 9 out of ten criminals that own a gun got it from a criminal that stole that gun to start with the 1 person left is the one that should have been educated in WHO they sell the gun to ? its all about educating the human race ... will it ever happen i say no because the ones that are out killing , raping & robbing with guns dont care a rats ass about anyone but there self so there for they have no interest in what others say

Well, obviously you have never carried a gun, or you would know that this just is not true. When you carry a gun all of the time, you just forget it is even there. It's like putting your socks on each morning.

The way I look at carrying a gun is that it is an insurance policy that is only in effect when you have it on your person. It is just a small bit of comfort knowing that in SOME instances, it could make a difference in how things would turn out if someone took an inclination to target me for a mugging or assault. From a liberal point of view, I just want the government to get out of my way and let me choose my own method of my self defense and the protection of what's mine and my responsibility.

And yes, there are plausible scenarios where having an assault weapon at hand would be very comforting and certainly appropriate for the situation.

And no, the AK-47 is not an especially powerful weapon. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The 7.62x39 round is not all that potent at all.

One time,not long ago we were called to a suspected homicide,the house had been broken into,place was ransacked,and the owner lay dying(he expired a few hours later).The perp was caught and tried,will be residing in the penal system for the rest of his miserable life.The weapon he used to take this other person's life was none other than a Stanley claw hammer.Not a gun.Guns only make up a small percentage of the murders in the US.This was the only homicide I've sen in the 5 years I've been doing this.But have seen MANY deaths from auto accidents.

Re: simple facts
 

substitute the word gun here for dog and the same applies, in the hands of an idiot both can be dangerous:kill:

Since some statistics were brought up, here's some detailed statistics from 2002 according to the annual FBI crime report. Thought this might put it in better perspective than the 1994 figures.

These figures do not include deaths caused by negligence, suicide, accident or justifiable homicides. These are strictly murders.

In 2002 there were 16,204 murders.
This is 5.6 murders per 100,000 people.
Five-year and 10-year trend analyses revealed that the 2002 murder rate was 10.5 percent lower than the rate in 1998 and 40.9 percent below the estimated murder rate in 1993. (Interesting that this time period includes the passage of concealed carry laws in many states.)
Murder accounted for less than 1 percent of the offenses that make up the Crime Index reported in 2002.
Among violent crimes, 1.1 percent were the offense of murder.
Supplemental data submitted in 2002 indicated that felonies (rape, robbery, arson, etc.) accounted for 16.5 percent of the circumstances surrounding murder offenses

Justifiable Homocide
In 2002 Law enforcement officers killed 339 people in the line of duty
Private citizens killed 225 felons during the commission of a felony

Funny how an unbiased examination of the actual figures will almost always silence the left, isn't it? I really don't mean to be hateful or even argumentative, but when the emotional tripe starts to fly about in a discussion of such serious subjects, I get a little cranked up, I suppose.

The dogs in Ken's neighborhood are a menace. It does no real good to discuss why that is; they just are. The owner of those animals is responsible for their actions, but that will be precious little comfort to a parent if the animals in question were to maul a child!

I say again, I am not jumping on any breed here. If a dog, for WHATEVER reason is threatening my child, myself, or any other person I happen to see . . . that is likely going to be one dead animal! Then the owner of the menace and I are going to have a very serious, face-to-face conversation.

so true darren
 

Id take the pet / the dog or what out by all means rather then have my kid or anyones kid or adult suffer the brutal attack a 50 lb dog or more less can inflict in seconds . I have a Lab when shes off her run shes is a sweet heart and the best dog in the world yeah shes a lil spaz sometimes but is not a threat to anyone other then squirells lol
but on her run its her territory and she will be firm in that aspect of her area. My brother lives beside me and has two small kids they always play in the yards riding bikes etc . i have tols them both and they understand to not play in her area or with in a certain distance due to the fact she get riled up not because she want to get mean so much as the point she want so bad to get off to play . But shes a adopted pup 1 yr old and when she plays after shes 1st let off she can be rough due to she is so spazed out shes not confined to a 100 ft dog lead lol

I offer no apologies for holding my own life above that of a dog's.

It's not about machismo, bravado, or whatever you want to call it. It's about me being alive and intact at the end of the day. If a dog comes between me and my goal of living to the end of the day, the result is a no-brainer.

As for "shooting first and asking questions later," the mere fact that these dogs are still alive despite their actions makes that argument a moot point.

FYI, the remaining two dogs escaped and mauled another small dog this afternoon.

That being said, I have a question, which is summarized by my signature... is a rape victim morally superior to a woman who defends herself?

Continuing on with the gun control tangent, Rich hit the nail on the head when he likened carrying a weapon to insurance. Carrying a concealed firearm is no more a sign of bravado than having howmowner's insurance is a sign of greed.

Likewise, we can make another analogy. The argument about those evil "assault weapons" has been made. Perhaps we should also look at banning certain makes and models of automobiles, or sports bikes?