We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
near El Paso, TX.
thx
pb
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
>>many times question the wisdom of.
>
>You "question the wisdom" of using a gun to defend one's kids from a dangerous
>dog? Wow. Hope you don't have any. Kids or guns. Either one.
REad more carefully. He didn't say that. He said he many times
questioned the wisdom of a guy with a gun. Hard to disagree with that!
I also many times question the wisdom of a guy with a keyboard!
>>Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
>>if it is used.
>
>Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing. Owning a gun is a *right*, not a privilege.
I think you are right here, although I think lots of people get their
panties in a wad about the semantics when there is no underlying
disagreement on the substance.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Paul Brumman wrote:
> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
> happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
> like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
> near El Paso, TX.
>
> thx
> pb
Ask your local police(town or county), local animal control
officer,district attorney, clerk of county court, lawyer in about
that order.
Lawyer first if you are intent on getting the dog in question destroyed
regardless of its actual threat.
You need to know if you are within a town or rural area as to which
police have juristiction.
You need to know the legality of an animal wandering off its owners
property. You may be able to get the animal destroyed if it gets picked
up by animal control repeatedly.
Unless you wander around with your trusty whatever under your arm it
would be more reasonable to get your kids out of the yard and away from
the animal and call local authorities.
Shooting your own kid by accident will ruin your whole day .
Some questions that you did not state clearly -
you state you do not like a neighbours dog - why ?
does this animal normally wander around your property ?
does it have a history of biting people ?
have you expressed your concerns to the neighbour ?
It may be that you are reacting to a non-existant or low probability
threat.
In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> >> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
> >> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
> >> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
> >> threatening dog.
>
> > OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
> > no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
> > legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
> > that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
> > ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>
> I just can't see why there's even a question.
I can't either. His neighbor has a dog he doesn't like. He doesn't
state why, but postulates some incidents from unrelated dogs...at least
as far as he covers it. He has two kids. OK. If the dog comes in the
yard and threatens the kids, shoot it. But so far, he has two kids and
a neighbor's dog he doesn't like and no incident at all, just a
question.
Let him call the local cops and postulate the same question. Certainly,
I'd prefer shooting a dog to having my kids mauled, but so far he has
no established justification, at least so far as he states, for even
worrying about the dog entering his yard, never mind threatening his
kids.
It probably will differ in Texas from, say, NY or CT, or RI or similar
places where pistol licenses are required just to own a pistol.
> "Paul Brumman"
snip
>> I have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property?
snip
"Clint"
snip
> If the dog is close enough to be threatening to the kids, I think it would
> be too close to the kids to fire a weapon at. IMHO.
Sound advise. However, we have had some recent cases where loose pit bulls
have mauled and killed some kids. When my kids were young, I kept and eye
on them. Get and train your own dog to protect the kids.
Dave
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 2:07pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Teamcasa) doth
> sayeth:
> <snip> loose pit bulls have mauled and killed some kids. <snip>
>
> Not just pit bulls. And, not just kids, adults too, some in their
> 20s and 30s. Ever see any videos of pit bulls biting tires and
> puncturing them? Scary.
> JOAT
Yep, I seen it. A friend that lives in a somewhat rural area raises them
and regularly "feeds" them tires to play with. They only last a week or so
before they are just shredded or disappear completely! How a dog can eat a
tire and not die is beyond me. Its also mystifies me why anyone would want
a dog like that anyway.
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 7:32am (EST-3) [email protected] (Teamcasa)
Yep, I seen it. A friend that lives in a somewhat rural area raises them
and regularly "feeds" them tires to play with. They only last a week or
so before they are just shredded or disappear completely! How a dog can
eat a tire and not die is beyond me. Its also mystifies me why anyone
would want a dog like that anyway.
I wasn't referring to a "dead" tire. I've seen several videos of
pit bulls rampaging down streets, puncturing vehicle tires, and causing
them to instantly deflate. Vidoeos by people in vehicles, or their
homes. No telling what would have happened if any people had been out.
Fortunately, in the videos I saw, none were. Scary.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:08 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>
> I wasn't referring to a "dead" tire. I've seen several videos of
>pit bulls rampaging down streets, puncturing vehicle tires, and causing
>them to instantly deflate. Vidoeos by people in vehicles, or their
>homes. No telling what would have happened if any people had been out.
>Fortunately, in the videos I saw, none were. Scary.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
Holy Cow! I think I'll stick with hounds. They're way more laid
back.
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 2:07pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Teamcasa) doth
sayeth:
<snip> loose pit bulls have mauled and killed some kids. <snip>
Not just pit bulls. And, not just kids, adults too, some in their
20s and 30s. Ever see any videos of pit bulls biting tires and
puncturing them? Scary.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:23:52 -0500, [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
>Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 2:07pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Teamcasa) doth
>sayeth:
><snip> loose pit bulls have mauled and killed some kids. <snip>
>
> Not just pit bulls. And, not just kids, adults too, some in their
>20s and 30s. Ever see any videos of pit bulls biting tires and
>puncturing them? Scary.
>
Never seen that. Wow. If that's true, they're even scarier than I'd
imagined.
>
>
>JOAT
>Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
"Worry about the legal niceties later, after their safety is
assured."....
.....And their daddy is in jail.
Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
many times question the wisdom of.
Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
if it is used.
Use a gun properly and you may save a life...use it wrong and you may
spend the rest of your life in jail and bankrupt your family.
TMT
In article <[email protected]>, alexy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
> and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
> of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
> Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
> commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
> fancy).
And The U.S. will pay just as much attention to the monarch as do
Australian, Canada, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and most of
England. To wit: not much. :-)
Kevin
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,
OK, so what about the _last_ 230 years?
> they were an
> ally in two world wars and during the police action in Korea,
"ally" in the definition of "load to carry", yes.
> they
> warned us about Indo-China,
They _caused_ the clusterfuck in Vietnam.
> they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
So did everyone else that matters.
> and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
> was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
> and/or idiots to the rest of the world.
Funny; they _sold_ a bunch of those WMDs to Iraq, so no wonder they
didn't want us looking too closely at the situation. You _do_
acknowledge the tens of thousands of Kurds killed by the Iraquis with
WMDs sold to them by France, do you not?
> What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
> constitute "askin' for it"?
The French are useless on a good day.
Buddy Matlosz (in [email protected]) said:
| "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and
|| prepare to have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it
|| without the French.
||
| How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for
| it.
How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown, they were an
ally in two world wars and during the police action in Korea, they
warned us about Indo-China, they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
and/or idiots to the rest of the world.
What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
constitute "askin' for it"?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Larry Blanchard (in [email protected]) said:
| On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:40:51 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
|
||
|| Why wouldn't she like Kansas? Is she agoraphobic? (Seems unlikely.)
|
| Three words were left out - "board of education" :-).
Of course! How could I have overlooked that? :-))
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and prepare to
> have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it without the French.
>
How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for it.
B.
Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and prepare to
have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it without the French.
"alexy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
> >(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
>
> Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:
>
> BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE
>
> A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
> America:
>
> In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
> and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
> of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
> Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
> commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
> fancy).
>
> Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for
> America without the need for further elections. Congress and the
> Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year
> to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to
> a British Crown Dependency, the following! rules are introduced with
> immediate effect:
>
> You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
> Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will
> be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter
> 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.'
> Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half
> the letters, and the suffix 'ize' ; will be replaced by the suffix
> 'ise'.
>
> Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to
> acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven
> words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is
> an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no
> such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your
> behalf.The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of
> the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
> relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
>
> July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
>
> You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers,
> or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists
> shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only
> be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out
> without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not
> grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be
> allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable
> peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable
> peeler in public.
>
> Permits for vegetable peelers must be obtained from the R.C.M.P.
>
> All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for
> your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
> we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
> will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same
> time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the
> benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will
> help you understand the British sense of humour.
>
> The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
> calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.
>
> You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
> are not real chips, and t! hose things you insist on calling potato
> chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
> animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
>
> The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
> beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred
> to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will
> be referred to as Lager. American ! brands will be referred to as
> Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of
> further confusion. British Bitter will be served at room temperature.
>
> Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
> guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
> English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt E! nglish
> dialogue
> in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's
> ears removed with a cheese grater. You will cease playing American
> football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it
> soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
> rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not
> involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or weari! ng full
> kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
>
> Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reason! able to
> host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
> outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
> world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.
>
> You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
>
> An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
> Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
> monies due (backdated to 1776).
>
> Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> John
>
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.
alexy (in [email protected]) said:
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
|| (British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
|
| Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:
|
| BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE
|
| A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
| America:
|
| In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
| and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the
| revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her
| Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
| over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas,
| which she does not fancy).
<remainder snipped>
Great humor! I would imagine that Mr. Cleese would be proud to have
written it. :-)
Why wouldn't she like Kansas? Is she agoraphobic? (Seems unlikely.)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Dave Hinz (in [email protected]) said:
| On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, Morris Dovey <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
|| How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,
|
| OK, so what about the _last_ 230 years?
|
|| they were an ally in two world wars and during the police action in
Korea,
|
| "ally" in the definition of "load to carry", yes.
The attitude of the time as best I can recall was close to "He ain't
heavy - he's my brother". By the time the US entered the war all of
the other allied participants had already taken a beating. I don't
recall anyone ever singling out the French as especially burdensome. I
_do_ recall disgust with the Vichey government and total admiration
for the Resistance, along with gratitude for the willingness of French
civilians to take enormous risks to help allied aviators and GI's
avoid capture by axis forces.
|| they warned us about Indo-China,
|
| They _caused_ the clusterfuck in Vietnam.
They also warned that we would also find ourselves in over our heads -
as we realized after too many of our young men (also) were killed.
|| they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
|
| So did everyone else that matters.
Exactly who, in your opinion, does not matter? There were a lot of
people in the world who were not sorry to see the US take one on the
chin. To say that those people do not matter would seem a most
dangerous form of denial.
|| and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi
|| WMDS was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like
|| liars and/or idiots to the rest of the world.
|
| Funny; they _sold_ a bunch of those WMDs to Iraq, so no wonder they
| didn't want us looking too closely at the situation. You _do_
| acknowledge the tens of thousands of Kurds killed by the Iraquis
| with WMDs sold to them by France, do you not?
My understanding is that the US also provided Sadam's government with
weaponry. It would be comforting to be able to believe that we weren't
guilty of enabling those behaviors; but I doubt it'd be very
realistic. I don't think we're in a very good position to criticize
other arms suppliers on this issue - because we all screwed up.
|| What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
|| constitute "askin' for it"?
IMO, even if I accepted every assertion you made, that would still not
provide any kind of sane justification for advocating action of any
kind against the French.
| The French are useless on a good day.
To you, perhaps. I don't see 'em that way - and I confess that I've
never felt that I had so many friends that I could afford to discard
any.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
>(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
Seen elsewhere, but relevant to this discussion:
BRITS REVOKE USA INDEPENDENCE
A Message from John Cleese To the citizens of the United States of
America:
In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA
and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation
of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states,
commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not
fancy).
Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the
Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year
to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to
a British Crown Dependency, the following! rules are introduced with
immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will
be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter
'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.'
Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half
the letters, and the suffix 'ize' ; will be replaced by the suffix
'ise'.
Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to
acceptable levels. (look up vocabulary). Using the same twenty-seven
words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is
an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no
such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your
behalf.The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of
the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will
relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers,
or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists
shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only
be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out
without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not
grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be
allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable
peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable
peeler in public.
Permits for vegetable peelers must be obtained from the R.C.M.P.
All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
we mean. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you
will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same
time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the
benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will
help you understand the British sense of humour.
The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.
You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and t! hose things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in
animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred
to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will
be referred to as Lager. American ! brands will be referred to as
Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of
further confusion. British Bitter will be served at room temperature.
Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt E! nglish
dialogue
in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's
ears removed with a cheese grater. You will cease playing American
football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it
soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play
rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not
involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or weari! ng full
kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reason! able to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.
You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).
Thank you for your co-operation.
John
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Dave Hinz wrote:
> That's a great idea, let's just call 911 and wait for someone to show
> up. Hopefull the kid will still be recognizable by the time they
> arrive.
>
> > Worst thing you can do is shoot the dog, especially if there are no bite
> > marks on a human.
>
> So I'm supposed to wait for the dog do bite my kid _before_ I do
> anything? Why, exactly?
I just don't understand how this one got going. The frigging dog hasn't
done anything. The guy doesn't like the dog, but the dog hasn't
threatened his kids, who are afraid of the animal. His yard has a low
fence, but he said nothing about the dog coming to the fence,
threatening the kids, etc.
Yet about half you guys are up in arms, ready to blow the mutt away.
Ridiculous.
I do like the idea of the squirter with ammonia, or the pepper spray.
Non-lethal, but effective. Screw up and hit one of your own kids and
you have tears instead of blood.
Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
many people got the impression that that was some kind of first. Near as I
know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.
I know from first hand experience that carry licenses have always been
available in Washington. I've had a CCW for 24 years. I've never had a need
to use it nor has anyone I know. It would seem that the people with the CCW
are less likely to get into a bad situation in the first place. I think this
is do to those individuals being more aware of their surroundings and
knowing where not to be.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, yes, we've heard that argument here too. When Florida was (one
> of?) the first state to pass laws where law-abiding citizens could carry
> concealed weapons, the hue and cry was mighty, about how "blood will run
> in the streets", "the Gunshine State" and all that. Not surprisingly
> (to me), when non-criminals were allowed to arm themselves, the
> criminals found other things to do. Violent crime went down in
> Florida, just as it has gone down in _every other state_ with CCW laws.
>
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
> guns.
And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
and their victims are unable to resist?
I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
in danger, not the good citizens.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 1250411 20051121 160543 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>>> guns.
>>
>>And, you see that as a _good_ thing?
>
> Yes I do.
You would rather than an armed criminal be safe, and that a homeowner be
in danger?
Whose side are you on, Bob?
> If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
> roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
>
Yes, yes, we've heard that argument here too. When Florida was (one
of?) the first state to pass laws where law-abiding citizens could carry
concealed weapons, the hue and cry was mighty, about how "blood will run
in the streets", "the Gunshine State" and all that. Not surprisingly
(to me), when non-criminals were allowed to arm themselves, the
criminals found other things to do. Violent crime went down in
Florida, just as it has gone down in _every other state_ with CCW laws.
Oh - and I've driven in England. I found the drivers to be pretty good,
especially in the "be in the proper lane on the motorway, depending on
your speed". I think that maybe your assumption that your contrymen
can't be trusted with deadly force, is unfair. A car, after all, is
deadly force. If they're not ramming each other on the M25, they
probably wouldn't be shooting each other, either.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:27:59 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
> many people got the impression that that was some kind of first. Near as I
> know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.
It was one of the first to go from oppressive to sane. As you say,
others never went to "oppressive" in the first place.
How much gun violence is there in Alaska?
> I know from first hand experience that carry licenses have always been
> available in Washington. I've had a CCW for 24 years. I've never had a need
> to use it nor has anyone I know. It would seem that the people with the CCW
> are less likely to get into a bad situation in the first place. I think this
> is do to those individuals being more aware of their surroundings and
> knowing where not to be.
It's a self-selecting population, to be sure, who becomes CCW certified.
I see it as little different from learning CPR, or how to run an
automatic defib - the few people who do, benefit all those who don't.
Odds are that if you do need someone with the appropriate training, they
might be around, which is better than knowing that they won't, or can't.
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> > If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
> > roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
...
> ... I've driven in England. I found the drivers to be pretty good,
> especially in the "be in the proper lane on the motorway, depending on
> your speed". ...
Me too...especially as compared to...oh, say Hotlanta as only one
example...
Bob Martin wrote:
>>>The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>>>guns.
>>
>>And, you see that as a _good_ thing?
>
>
> Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
> roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
>
No it wouldn't, stop beliving those who wish to control you (and me) and
to do so need you unable to resist whatever they foist upon you.
Niel, UK.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may
have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:05:43 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
>>>The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only
>>>criminals have guns.
>>
>>And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
>>and their victims are unable to resist?
>>
>>I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
>>in danger, not the good citizens.
>
>
> Dammit Dave, it's no fun when I keep agreeing with you :-).
>
> But I bet there's a lot of shotguns in Britain :-).
no where near as many as there once were
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:48:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>>
>>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>>| more dangerous?
>>
>>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>>questions are "questionably" and "no".
>
>That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
>a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
>You're getting desperate!
There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
are actually higher than the US.
Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-- This post conscientiously crafted from 100% Recycled Pixels --
http://diversify.com Websites: PHP Programming, MySQL databases
==================================================================
In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some years ago when Florida and a number of other states passed carry laws
>many people got the impression that that was some kind of first.
It was, in a way: states that had previously prohibited concealed-carry began
to allow it.
>Near as I
>know, it has always been legal in Alaska, Arizona and I'm sure other states.
Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
ban.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "no(SPAM)vasys" <"no(SPAM)vasys"@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
>> concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
>> ban.
>>
>
>I've had a New York State permit to carry concealed for over 25 years?
>
Did NY at one time ban CCW? Read what I wrote, please.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
> Yep. But a number of states that had (a long time ago) permitted
> concealed-carry have since banned it. Florida is AFAIK the first to undo the
> ban.
>
I've had a New York State permit to carry concealed for over 25 years?
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)
in 1250146 20051120 170155 Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:48:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
>Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>>>
>>>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>>>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>>>| more dangerous?
>>>
>>>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>>>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>>>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>>>questions are "questionably" and "no".
>>
>>That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
>>a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
>>You're getting desperate!
>
>There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
>are actually higher than the US.
>
>Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
>months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/
This says that gun-related deaths in the USA were 300 times the number in Britain,
but the US population is only 4-5 times that of the UK. I admit these are pretty old
figures, but a gun killing still makes national headlines here.
Another poster here talked about Britain being "disarmed" - sorry but that is nonsense.
Hand guns were banned in a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane school killings,
but the only people affected were legitimate members of pistol-shooting clubs.
The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
guns.
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:48:58 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>>
>>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>>| more dangerous?
>>
>>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>>questions are "questionably" and "no".
>
>That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
>a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
>You're getting desperate!
But I thought British citizens weren't allowed to own guns! How then
could this happen? After all, that was the point of disarming the
citizenry, wasn't it, to prevent these kinds of violent events from
occurring? The fact that they continue to occur kind of points out what a
pathetic argument for disarming the citizenry that was. That it happens
more in the US has more to do with the facts that, for one thing, the US is
larger, and secondly, there are some cultural influences, apart from gun
ownership that contribute to that issue. The only thing you've
accomplished by disarming your country is to provide a country full of
potential victims (sheep) for the wolves to ravage at will.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:05:43 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only
>> criminals have guns.
>
> And, you see that as a _good_ thing? The dangerous people have weapons,
> and their victims are unable to resist?
>
> I don't see that as an acceptable solution. I want my _criminals_ to be
> in danger, not the good citizens.
Dammit Dave, it's no fun when I keep agreeing with you :-).
But I bet there's a lot of shotguns in Britain :-).
in 1250411 20051121 160543 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>> guns.
>
>And, you see that as a _good_ thing?
Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
My point exactly....a priviledge can be taken from you..a right cannot.
Guns are regulated as to who can have them....just like whether or not
you are allowed to drive a car.
Both priviledges come with responsibilites. To drive a car you require
insurance. To shoot a gun requires the shooter to be responsible from a
financial and civil standpoint. If you doubt this, check into what
happens when you use either product incorrectly and someone is hurt or
killed.
TMT
Paul, Be sure that the dogs are a real threat before you shoot them. I
own german shepherds and they are docile pets.. But some people have
a bad image of GSD's and I believe a gun happy parent could be capable
of shooting them if they ever got out of the yard. Be a good neighbor
and try to locate the owners. Let them know that their dogs are
showing agression.
Just remember that these things can escalate out of control. The owner
of these dogs might be similarly armed.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
<snip>
> In fact, I wouldn't "shoot, shovel, and shut up", if I knew the owner.
> I'd take the carcass down to him and tell him he owed me for the bullet!
Of course, that could be a problem: he might just give you that bullet.
Dog owners can be pretty sentimental about their dogs.
IMO, if you let it go at all (i.e., the situation didn't demand that
you rush to get your gun the very first incident), then maybe the
cooler thing to do is talk to the owner and let him know how you feel,
before you kill his pet.
I personally would fault no one for killing anything, man or beast, who
threatened his small children. But if you take a pass, then why not use
that moratorium to resolve the situation peacefully? And if the
neighbor won't cooperate, by all means include the police in the
dialogue: they're often helpful that way, and you've covered your legal
bases in doing so.
After all, even if you could get rid of the dog with a bullet, why
would you want to live with a new and much more dangerous threat not
only to your kids but to you and anyone else on your property: a man
whose loved one has been killed by you and is bent on revenge?
Don't go there if you can help it.
Signed,
Achilles
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:17pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Too_Many_Tools) doth claim:
A right that can and is taken away is a priviledge. <snip>
Isn't that fascism?
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
RE: Subject
Way back when, would shoot any dog on my property and any cat more than
1/4 mile from my neighbor's barn.
Worked back then, probably still does.
SFWIW, watched a guy shoot a pair of Black and Tans he had just paid
$500 for, because they chased rabbits.
Today that pair would probably cost $2,500, but the guy would still
shoot them if they chased rabbits.
Lew
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:09:52 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:17pm (EST-3) [email protected]
>(Too_Many_Tools) doth claim:
>A right that can and is taken away is a priviledge. <snip>
>
> Isn't that fascism?
>
>
Probably more precisely statism: The idea that all benefits derive from
the government and are dispensed or withdrawn at the whim and discretion of
the government. In a statist government, there are no such things as
"rights" and certainly not "inalienable rights". Everything is a privilege
that can be given or taken away based upon expediency for the government.
Fascism and communism are two instances of rampant statism.
One of the reasons that the "modern" idea of the constitution as a
"living" document is so dangerous is that this approach promotes statism.
The idea that the constitution means whatever is expedient at the time
rather than what it states in clear language allows statist judges to make
decisions based upon their feelings and beliefs, not upon what the
constitution actually states as limits on the government.
>
>
>JOAT
>Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 11:19pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Too_Many_Tools) doth pontificate:
<snip>
Use a gun incorrectly and see how long your right remains intact.
That sure doesn't apply to cars, otherwise Kennedy wouldn't have a
driver's license. As for guns, it only applies to honest citizens, not
criminals.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>>There are "a thousand times" more people here, Bob. UK crime rates
>>are actually higher than the US.
>>
>>Google it. The facts are there. We just went through this a couple
>>months ago either here on on rec.crafts.metalworking. DAGS on that.
>
>http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/global/
>
>This says that gun-related deaths in the USA were 300 times the number in Britain,
>but the US population is only 4-5 times that of the UK. I admit these are pretty old
>figures, but a gun killing still makes national headlines here.
According to the latest CIA factbook, we have 296 million people and
you have 60. Y'know, guns would help your population control. <bseg>
>Another poster here talked about Britain being "disarmed" - sorry but that is nonsense.
>Hand guns were banned in a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane school killings,
>but the only people affected were legitimate members of pistol-shooting clubs.
Do a google (or other) search for "defensive handgun use". It may well
surprise you. There are an estimated 2 million DHUs (prevented crimes)
in the USA annually, most without firing a shot.
>The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>guns.
Perhaps, but due to the bans, your people can't purchase guns for
protection and your police are totally inept (as are ours) at
controlling criminals--thanks in part to overpaid lawyers.
You still didn't address my crime rate statistics. BTW, our death by
firearm statistics are (purposely?) overblown because suicides are
included in that figure.
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design
Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 3:08pm (EST-3) [email protected]
(Too_Many_Tools) doth burbleth:
<snip> My point still stands....Misbehave and you can lose them all.
Ah, but that only applies to law-abiding individuals, not
criminals. Lawyers and politicians have seen to that.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:09:01 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Yet about half you guys are up in arms, ready to blow the mutt a
>
> Sorry charlie, but the discussion was about what to do if the dog did
> threaten the kids.
Maybe we should define "threatening". I say if a dog gets within a 10 foot
circle around a person and barks in a menacing way, it's a threat. Now can
argue about whether nine or eleven feet would be more appropriate.
In article <[email protected]>, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Worry about the legal niceties later, after their safety is
>assured."....
>
>......And their daddy is in jail.
For shooting a dog? Not on *my* planet.
>
>Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
>many times question the wisdom of.
You "question the wisdom" of using a gun to defend one's kids from a dangerous
dog? Wow. Hope you don't have any. Kids or guns. Either one.
>
>Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
>if it is used.
Bzzzzt! Thanks for playing. Owning a gun is a *right*, not a privilege.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:09:01 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Yet about half you guys are up in arms, ready to blow the mutt a
>
> Sorry charlie, but the discussion was about what to do if the dog did
> threaten the kids.
>
> And I'm not a dog hater, I still miss our last one that died of cancer
> several years ago. But kids come before dogs.
>
> And in that situation, I'd rather "blow away" the idiot that let his
> dog run free (if urban) but that would not be an immediate solution
> :-).
Urban or not, they should not run free. I've seen Lassie and Rinty pack up
with FiFi and go after sheep and cattle. Domestic dogs running free will
pack up and do a whole lot more damage than the neighbor's Rottie. Wild
dogs - wolf, coyote, etc. - tend to avoid us, the domestics in a pack
don't.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property?
> call your local police and ask them. we're not there.
That's strange advice. If an animal threatens my kids, legality and
whatever else doesn't enter into it. You stop the threat, period. It
keeps coming up here, but "The 3 S's" apply in this case - shoot,
shovel, and shutup. There can be no legality or subtle whatever going
on here, my kids outweigh the neighbor's dog, period.
Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
threatening dog.
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 7:47pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Dave=A0Hinz)
pretty well covered it:
<snip> it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a threatening
dog.
I'd keep an eye on my kids while they were outside. I'd also say a
shotgun, about #4 buckshot, no rifle - better chance of a hit, and less
carryiing range, and penetration. No single shot, you may need an
immediate second shot.
If the guy's curious about the "legality" of it all, he needs to
ask locally, and ask somone who would actually be qualified to give a
pertinent answer. I live in NC, and have no idea how "legal" it'd be.
Might be a good idea to tell some authority he's worried, just to have
it on record, if he ever does have to take action. That's called PYA.
Me, a dog came in my yard growling at my kid(s), I'd be out there
with a loaded shotgun, holler at it to git, if it kept moving, it'd stop
moving. That's the point I'd be sure to contact the local law. Might
also be tempted to sue the dog owner.
But, that's just me. I'm a people person.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 7:47pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Dave Hinz)
If the guy's curious about the "legality" of it all, he needs to
ask locally, and ask somone who would actually be qualified to give a
pertinent answer.
==================
I'm sort of wondering why so many people use an attorney when they buy a
house, but behave like they've been lobotomized later when they can't think
of who to call for an opinion on local laws. So, they come here. WTF??? The
real estate attorney may not know the answer, but they'll definitely be able
to refer to an attorney who does.
Asking the cops often just gets you a lecture and "You'd better not".
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
>> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
>> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
>> threatening dog.
> OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
> no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
> legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
> that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
> ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
I just can't see why there's even a question.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
>> envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
>> to make sense...
> whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will ensure
> that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house, especially if
> the next house may only be 4' away like in some developments?
What does that have to do with the question of if it's legal to shoot a
dog that't threatening my kids? Obviously a negligently placed bullet
is a problem, but that's completely independant of the situation.
> there's a lot
> of places that don't allow shooting inside city limits.
> again, we don't know the circumstances, the location, the environment, the
> surroundings. his local police do.
OK... seems like just asking for trouble, but whatever.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:37:20 -0500, George <George@least> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
>> you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
>> cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
>
> Pretty much correct where I live, as well.
>
> I take it neither the OP nor the dog's owner has a fence or other means to
> keep the kids from teasing the dog?
OK, I've got a problem with this. Why the FUCK should I have to put up
a fence to keep some idiot's dog in HIS yard? And what makes you think
the kids are teasing the dog, to make it a threat?
I'm also grateful that I don't live somewhere that would have legal
problems as described.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:56:42 GMT, Paul Brumman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 20:53:45 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK, I've got a problem with this. Why the FUCK should I have to put up
>> a fence to keep some idiot's dog in HIS yard? And what makes you think
>> the kids are teasing the dog, to make it a threat?
>> I'm also grateful that I don't live somewhere that would have legal
>> problems as described.
> We do have a modest fence (with the gate often unlocked), and no, the
> kids never tease the dog, they are afraid of that dog. The dog is mean
> spirited.
Your concern is understood and justified - not that you should _have_ to
justify it. No reason not to take you at your word that the dog is a
potential threat, and no reason you should have to lock yourself into
your yard because of it.
Dogs do unpredictable things. Mean dogs can do predictable things.
I'd really bypass the whole asking ahead of time thing, because it'd
possibly make it look like you were just waiting for a chance to have an
excuse to shoot it.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:33:15 -0600, Tom Banes <[email protected]> wrote:
> The odds that your neighbor will sue for emotional distress,
> depravation of companionship (who knows what he did with the dog?),
> etc are very high.
Hence the "shut up" part of the 3 S's, yes.
> In any case, your "trusty" SKS is a BAD choice. It is not trusty (it's
> a HOS),
It depends. I have a 1950 Russian SKS that has never had a problem.
Chicom crap, yeah, not so good.
> it fires (if it fires without blowing up)
Sorry, not a fair claim. I don't know that the SKS has a reputation for
KaBooms.
> an FMJ round that
> will put a knitting needle hole in a dog (doesn't stop or kill),
Winchester, Remington, and several others manufacture a variety of ammo
for this caliber. It's about as effective on deer-sized creatures as a
.30-30.
> and
> the house behind it and anything in between. Shotgun, #1 buck, as many
> wild dogs on my property (600 AC) can (or could) attest is the
> requisite medicine.
I'm a fan of #8 shot, myself, but haven't had to do the dog thing.
Works fine on coons, though.
> WTH is this doing on this NG????? Why am I responding??? Aggggh!
Yeah, I thought for a while I was in misc.rural until I checked the
headers. Was confused why someone would bring up firearms ordinances in
a rural context. But, most guns have wood stocks, so there ya go.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:47:31 -0500, George <George@least> wrote:
>
> "Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> We do have a modest fence (with the gate often unlocked), and no, the
>> kids never tease the dog, they are afraid of that dog. The dog is mean
>> spirited.
> One thing I do _not_ recommend is opining like Dave, but that goes without
> saying.
How so? Guy asked for opinions. Don't like mine? Feel free to
killfile me.
> Having been "in the business" until a few years ago,
Which business, exactly?
> I can tell you that you
> will have to substantiate the threat and also answer the question on
> teasing. This because, by nature, dogs defend a territory; they do not seek
> to acquire it at others' expense.
And all dogs are the same in this regard?
> It is far more common to discover
> aggression on the part of people - notice the replies - than dogs.
Sorry if you take it as aggressive that I'm offended by the idea that
_I_ should have to fence my property to control someone else's problem
animal. Further, pointing the blame at the kids, without finding
anything out about the situation, is asinine.
> You need to determine the local ordinances on dogs. Leash laws are common,
> and simply getting the dog picked up a couple of times can result in
> issuance of a confine or destroy order. If you can't convince your neighbor
> to control the dog, bring in the persuasive power of the boys in blue or
> brown. If the dog is aggressive to them, he will suffer the consequences.
That's a great idea, let's just call 911 and wait for someone to show
up. Hopefull the kid will still be recognizable by the time they
arrive.
> Worst thing you can do is shoot the dog, especially if there are no bite
> marks on a human.
So I'm supposed to wait for the dog do bite my kid _before_ I do
anything? Why, exactly?
On 17 Nov 2005 14:52:55 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Worry about the legal niceties later, after their safety is
> assured."....
>
> .....And their daddy is in jail.
For shooting a DOG? Where the hell do you live? I sure wouldn't want
to be there.
> Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
> many times question the wisdom of.
So you would have my kids mauled while I stand by watching it. Lovely.
> Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
> if it is used.
Yes. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what they're doing,
using deadly force. I guess those people get to dial 911 and wait, and
hope for the best.
> Use a gun properly and you may save a life...use it wrong and you may
> spend the rest of your life in jail and bankrupt your family.
And shooting a dog is wrong in your mind, when it's attacking your
family? If not, then why did you bother to respond as you did?
On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.
>
> If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.
Felons have no rights.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:52:01 GMT, Vic Baron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > .....And their daddy is in jail.
>>
>> For shooting a DOG? Where the hell do you live? I sure wouldn't want
>> to be there.
>
> You bet your sweet ass. Every hear of animal cruelty?
Nothing cruel about a dog going from threatening my kids, to dead, in a
few seconds. You'd rather I let my kids get bit, would you? Hell of a
nice guy you are.
> IN the OP situation,
> the dog was GROWLING at the kids. IMHO a good attorney would argue that
> growling did not constitute an iminent danger. If the dog were ATTACKING -
> no problem.
If a dog is making what I think is a threatening move towards my kids,
the dog will die. The end.
> Seems like a ridiculous situation but unless you live in the boonies of cow
> country
Yes, I do. And what's the problem with that?
> you better have a damn good reason to shoot ANYTHING or you will go
> to jail or at least get sued by the animal's owner.
Go ahead and try. I want a jury.
>> So you would have my kids mauled while I stand by watching it. Lovely.
> What an idiotic comment - needs no response.
You say above it's only ok if the dog has started to actually attack.
I'm not going to wait.
>> Yes. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what they're doing,
>> using deadly force. I guess those people get to dial 911 and wait, and
>> hope for the best.
> Frankly, the way most people shoot, and especially under a pressure
> situation - they'd probably miss the dog and hit the kids.
What specifically is your direct personal experience with firearms? I
have a guess: "none at all". How right am I?
> I repeat - if the
> dog is standing there growling - you have no right to shoot it. And if it's
> a rapidly moving target running towards your kids - you have just as good a
> chance at hitting your kids.
You have no idea of my qualifications as a marksman, my training, or my
equipment.
On 17 Nov 2005 16:07:14 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
> Go find someone else to fight with Dave...I stand by what I said.
That's fine, you can be wrong all you want.
> Pull a trigger only if you are willing to be fully responsible for
> whatever happens....
No shit.
> same thing goes for driving a car, owning a dog,
> etc.
How in the world do you get from "I value my kids over a threatening
dog" into some sort of abandonment of personal responsibility?
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:12:30 -0600, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me 'splain it this way. Assuming you live inside of town and discharged
> a firearm in my neighborhood you would have to worry about me. I damned
> well would call the police.
Who ya talkin' to, Ron? You didn't give any context or quoting to tell
us.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:18:59 GMT, Lawrence Wasserman <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>> whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
>>> ensure that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house,
>>> especially if the next house may only be 4' away like in some
>>> developments?
>>
>>Yep - it's called Hydra-Shok.
>
> From an SKS?
Sure, 7.62x39 is available with dozens of options for loads.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:45:51 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> You make a very good case for being armed at all times.
He does, but I can be armed in say 30-45 seconds when I'm at home, so
I'm OK with that delay.
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> >> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> >> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> >> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> >> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property?
>
> > call your local police and ask them. we're not there.
>
> That's strange advice. If an animal threatens my kids, legality and
> whatever else doesn't enter into it. You stop the threat, period. It
> keeps coming up here, but "The 3 S's" apply in this case - shoot,
> shovel, and shutup. There can be no legality or subtle whatever going
> on here, my kids outweigh the neighbor's dog, period.
>
> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
> threatening dog.
OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> >> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
> >> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
> >> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
> >> threatening dog.
>
> > OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
> > no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
> > legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
> > that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
> > ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>
> I just can't see why there's even a question.
Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
to make sense...
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
> you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
> cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
Pretty much correct where I live, as well.
I take it neither the OP nor the dog's owner has a fence or other means to
keep the kids from teasing the dog?
"Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 17 Nov 2005 20:53:45 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:37:20 -0500, George <George@least> wrote:
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
>>>> you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
>>>> cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
>>>
>>> Pretty much correct where I live, as well.
>>>
>>> I take it neither the OP nor the dog's owner has a fence or other means
>>> to
>>> keep the kids from teasing the dog?
>>
>> OK, I've got a problem with this. Why the FUCK should I have to put up
>> a fence to keep some idiot's dog in HIS yard? And what makes you think
>> the kids are teasing the dog, to make it a threat?
>>
>> I'm also grateful that I don't live somewhere that would have legal
>> problems as described.
>>
>
> We do have a modest fence (with the gate often unlocked), and no, the
> kids never tease the dog, they are afraid of that dog. The dog is mean
> spirited.
>
One thing I do _not_ recommend is opining like Dave, but that goes without
saying.
Having been "in the business" until a few years ago, I can tell you that you
will have to substantiate the threat and also answer the question on
teasing. This because, by nature, dogs defend a territory; they do not seek
to acquire it at others' expense. It is far more common to discover
aggression on the part of people - notice the replies - than dogs.
You need to determine the local ordinances on dogs. Leash laws are common,
and simply getting the dog picked up a couple of times can result in
issuance of a confine or destroy order. If you can't convince your neighbor
to control the dog, bring in the persuasive power of the boys in blue or
brown. If the dog is aggressive to them, he will suffer the consequences.
Worst thing you can do is shoot the dog, especially if there are no bite
marks on a human.
"MrAnderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul, Be sure that the dogs are a real threat before you shoot them. I
> own german shepherds and they are docile pets.. But some people have
> a bad image of GSD's and I believe a gun happy parent could be capable
> of shooting them if they ever got out of the yard. Be a good neighbor
> and try to locate the owners. Let them know that their dogs are
> showing agression.
>
> Just remember that these things can escalate out of control. The owner
> of these dogs might be similarly armed.
>
Don't call law enforcement after _you_ have broken the law, and don't tell
them what contempt you have for the law in question.
Though I hate the term, the shooter sacrifices all "moral authority" when he
presumes a danger for which there is no confirmation. He also loses any
sympathy he might have had from the authorities when he begins his lecture
on how children are more precious than any dog.
Check the heat of the responses so far, think of how little has actually
been said, and then remember that the officer that answers your single
complaint has heard it all more times than there are responses in this
thread.
>
> You need to determine the local ordinances on dogs. Leash laws are
common,
> and simply getting the dog picked up a couple of times can result in
> issuance of a confine or destroy order. If you can't convince your
neighbor
> to control the dog, bring in the persuasive power of the boys in blue or
> brown.
Why would he bring in UPS?
B.
In article <[email protected]>, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Voting is a privilege as is gun ownership and having a driving license.
Wrong, wrong, and right, in that order.
>
>All can be revoked by the government if you don't behave.
Which does not affect their status as rights vs. privileges. Despite what you
think.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, the way most people shoot, and especially under a pressure
> situation - they'd probably miss the dog and hit the kids. I repeat -
> if the dog is standing there growling - you have no right to shoot it.
> And if it's a rapidly moving target running towards your kids - you
> have just as good a chance at hitting your kids.
>
>
In Texas they shoot the neighbor if he growls at them.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:37:20 -0500, George <George@least> wrote:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
>>> you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
>>> cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
>>
>> Pretty much correct where I live, as well.
>>
>> I take it neither the OP nor the dog's owner has a fence or other means
>> to
>> keep the kids from teasing the dog?
>
> OK, I've got a problem with this. Why the FUCK should I have to put up
> a fence to keep some idiot's dog in HIS yard? And what makes you think
> the kids are teasing the dog, to make it a threat?
>
> I'm also grateful that I don't live somewhere that would have legal
> problems as described.
>
Correct. The dog owner should pay for your fence, any price level, at your
request, if he insists on letting his vermin run free. And I'm not kidding.
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:
>
>> whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
>> ensure that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house,
>> especially if the next house may only be 4' away like in some
>> developments?
>
>Yep - it's called Hydra-Shok.
From an SKS?
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:44:30 -0500, "Buddy Matlosz"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You need to determine the local ordinances on dogs. Leash laws are
>common,
>> and simply getting the dog picked up a couple of times can result in
>> issuance of a confine or destroy order. If you can't convince your
>neighbor
>> to control the dog, bring in the persuasive power of the boys in blue or
>> brown.
>
>Why would he bring in UPS?
Nah. He meant fascists.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
In article <[email protected]>, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.
Guess again, bucko. "... the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be abridged." [my emphasis]
>
>If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.
Wrong again. You might as well claim that voting is a privilege, because if
it were a right, felons and children would be allowed to vote.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> >> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
>> >> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
>> >> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
>> >> threatening dog.
>>
>> > OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I
>> > have
>> > no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
>> > legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic
>> > and
>> > that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
>> > ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>>
>> I just can't see why there's even a question.
>
> Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
> envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
> to make sense...
It's likely that he'd be yelled at for even having the gun out in a typical
tightly arranged neighborhood.
> > .....And their daddy is in jail.
>
> For shooting a DOG? Where the hell do you live? I sure wouldn't want
> to be there.
You bet your sweet ass. Every hear of animal cruelty? IN the OP situation,
the dog was GROWLING at the kids. IMHO a good attorney would argue that
growling did not constitute an iminent danger. If the dog were ATTACKING -
no problem.
Seems like a ridiculous situation but unless you live in the boonies of cow
country you better have a damn good reason to shoot ANYTHING or you will go
to jail or at least get sued by the animal's owner.
>
> So you would have my kids mauled while I stand by watching it. Lovely.
What an idiotic comment - needs no response.
>
> Yes. You wouldn't want someone who doesn't know what they're doing,
> using deadly force. I guess those people get to dial 911 and wait, and
> hope for the best.
Frankly, the way most people shoot, and especially under a pressure
situation - they'd probably miss the dog and hit the kids. I repeat - if the
dog is standing there growling - you have no right to shoot it. And if it's
a rapidly moving target running towards your kids - you have just as good a
chance at hitting your kids.
Rambo might make the shot - doubt about too may people in real life.
>
> > Use a gun properly and you may save a life...use it wrong and you may
> > spend the rest of your life in jail and bankrupt your family.
>
> And shooting a dog is wrong in your mind, when it's attacking your
> family? If not, then why did you bother to respond as you did?
>
In article <[email protected]>, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>My point exactly....a priviledge can be taken from you..a right cannot.
Wrong yet again...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
>>> envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
>>> to make sense...
>
>> whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
>> ensure
>> that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house, especially
>> if
>> the next house may only be 4' away like in some developments?
>
> What does that have to do with the question of if it's legal to shoot a
> dog that't threatening my kids? Obviously a negligently placed bullet
> is a problem, but that's completely independant of the situation.
A question will provide your answer: Can you envision telling the cops a dog
was threatening your kids, but it was sitting nice & still so you could take
a shot that you knew wouldn't travel into a neighbor's window?
Let me 'splain it this way. Assuming you live inside of town and discharged
a firearm in my neighborhood you would have to worry about me. I damned
well would call the police.
No I am not a bleeding heart, anti-gun liberal. I have two handguns, four
shotguns and a couple of rifles in a safe in the next room. I am also a
bow-hunter. Firing a weapon inside of town is not only dangerous, it leads
to the kind of incidents that escalate into tragedy. One of my old school
mates was treated to a new hip at age 14 because of a poorly aimed shot and
a ricochet.
More food for thought. My wife just finished jury duty. It involved a
gentleman who perceived he was being harrased by three neighborhood boys
(ages 12 - 15) who never even entered his yard (a 2-acre lot). He walked
out on his porch, laid a handgun on the rail and delivered a verbal threat.
He was convicted of assualt - one count for each of three boys. Sentencing
hearing is pending and he can receive 8 or more months for each count. With
the violent nature of our society, gun use is under increasing scrutiny. I
would like to keep mine.
Think!
RonB
Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 11:12am (EST-1) [email protected] (RonB) dideth say:
Let me 'splain it this way. Assuming you live inside of town and
discharged a firearm in my neighborhood you would have to worry about
me. I damned well would call the police. <snip>
I live about 2 miles out of town, on a loop road. Last night I
heard shots, then 1 shot. Called the sheriff's office. Just as a
deputy got on the phone, heard several more. This was probably around
11:30. Then an hour or so later, another single round. Didn't call
about that one. I was advised to stay in my home. I thought that was
funny, I'm not stupid, I spent 20+ in the Army, and wasn't about to go
out and check what was happening.
I'm a law abiding citizen. If I think it's fireworks, or someone
just shooting off a gun to celebrate a football game, I won't call
(although that is a very stupid thing to do, if you shoot into the air,
after all, those slugs have to come down somewhere). But, I will call
if I don't think that's the case. I also have a loaded wondernine
tucked away next to me on the couch. If I am ever forced to use it,
I'll call the sheriff's office myself. I don't live in the wild west,
and the town is not huge. But, it's getting its dope dealers, and drug
problems. I understand a few weeks ago there was a drug-related
shootout in town. On main street, or so I was told, don't know about
that. Regardless, I don't need some drugee coming to my house, armed,
or shooting into it. If they do, I'm prepared to respond in kind. Fast
response from the law would probably be around 15 minutes, I need to be
able to respond. Same with a mean dog. My neighbor has a couple of
rotweillers. Penned up. They always raise Hell when I take my trash
can out to the road. They're let out once in awhile, and they do roam
at times. But, so far at least, they see me, and they scoot. So, I
haven't said anything to my neighbor, and I haven't called animal
control. I'd talk to the neighbor first. I like dogs, I wouldn't want
to kill one, but if they were coming around regularly, and started
acting aggressively, I'd start packing, and I'd never let them get too
close. And, yes, for the too tight people, I would get in my truck, or
the house, if opportunity offerred.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
Point of correction, Owning a gun is a RIGHT.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Worry about the legal niceties later, after their safety is
> assured."....
>
> .....And their daddy is in jail.
>
> Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
> many times question the wisdom of.
>
> Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
> if it is used.
>
> Use a gun properly and you may save a life...use it wrong and you may
> spend the rest of your life in jail and bankrupt your family.
>
> TMT
>
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:01:07 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>| more dangerous?
>
>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>questions are "questionably" and "no".
Yep. Sarcasm is difficult to render in text-only systems. Various
reports I've seen indicate that in many instances the criminal element is
gaining the upper hand, particularly youth gangs who have no fear of
private citizens protecting themselves and little to fear from the
authorities since long periods of incarceration are considered "inhumane"
and "unjust".
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I realize that Texas might be different, and you might be in a rural
location where this doesn't apply, but many jurisdictions frown upon people
firing weapons in populated areas (say, around 6 and 2 year olds). If the
dog is close enough to be threatening to the kids, I think it would be too
close to the kids to fire a weapon at. IMHO.
--
Clint
"Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
> happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
> like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
> near El Paso, TX.
>
> thx
> pb
>
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 7:58pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Clint)
<snip> If the dog is close enough to be threatening to the kids, I think
it would be too close to the kids to fire a weapon at. IMHO.
One of the results of proper firearms training is not only safe
firearms handling, but to be able to hit what you aim at. AND, to NOT
take an unsafe shot. The appropiate action would be to approach close
enough to be sure of missing the kid(s), and hitting the dog. Duh.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
Vic Baron wrote:
> And if it's
> a rapidly moving target running towards your kids - you have just as good a
> chance at hitting your kids.
...and that's leaving out the part where you
1) Notice the dog
2) Run inside to get yer gun
3) Find the key (you keep your guns locked up, right?)
4) Unlock the case
5) Find the bullets
6) Load the gun
7) Run back outside
8) Aim
9) Kaboom
...with an optional step 10 of shouting 'Yee Haw!'.
I think the OP was asking valid questions (even if it was to a COMPLETELY
inappropriate newsgroup). If you (not you specifically, Vic) read between
the lines, I kinda think the OP was asking about other ways that this might
be handled.
-John in NH
"Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
> happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
> like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
> near El Paso, TX.
>
Dogs don't growl unless they are serious; especially if they are out of
their territory and have no reason to be defensive.
You can shoot a person who is about to attack your child; certainly a dog in
your yard.
However, be prepared for a lawsuit, a criminal investigation and so on. It
would be nice if you had no other reason to shoot (such as you have warned
your neighbor about what would happen if he didn't clean up after his
dog...) and some witnesses.
Paul Brumman wrote:
> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
> happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
> like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
> near El Paso, TX.
>
> thx
> pb
>
It's an odd question for your first post to this news group.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)
Paul Brumman (in [email protected]) said:
| We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
| have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a
| neighbor's dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my
| children, in a threatening manner, would it be legal to just take
| my trusty SKS and shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my
| property? That has not happened, but my neighbors two houses over
| keep a dog that I do not like and I am a little concerned. Waht to
| know the legalities. I am near El Paso, TX.
Paul...
IANAL. Check with local authorities concerning legalities. If a dog
came on my place and only /acted/ threatening I think I'd be inclined
to load up a SuperSoaker with household ammonia and let him have it. A
second incident would merit pepper spray. Both are non-lethal and
effective persuaders.
Simply not liking a critter (with any number of legs) isn't
justification for killing or maiming. I suspect you don't really need
to be told that.
On the other hand, I doubt there are many who'd find fault with you
for dispatching any critter (of any species) on the spot if it was
abusing a member of your family.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Brumman <[email protected]> wrote:
>We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
>happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
>like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
>near El Paso, TX.
>
>thx
>pb
>
Don't you own a shotgun?
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:31:49 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
[email protected] (Paul Brumman) quickly quoth:
>We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
>happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
>like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
>near El Paso, TX.
Don't call the cops, call the local DA to see if he would charge you
for it. Laws, cops, judges, and DAs all can have differing ideas, but
it's the DA who either pursues it or not. He has the last word.
--
Save the Endangered ROAD NARROWS! -|- www.diversify.com
Ban SUVs today! -|- Full Service Websites
"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > .....And their daddy is in jail.
>>
>> For shooting a DOG? Where the hell do you live? I sure wouldn't want
>> to be there.
>
> You bet your sweet ass. Every hear of animal cruelty?
Addressing only the cruelty aspect here: If a mosquito is annoying you and
waving it away repeatedly with your hand is ineffective, please describe
what you might do next?
"Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
> happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
> like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
> near El Paso, TX.
>
> thx
> pb
call your local police and ask them. we're not there.
Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
Gun ownership is not one of them.
Nor is owning a dog.
The saying "Abuse it and lose it" applies to many areas in
life...driving a car, owning a dog, owning a gun....
While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of
someone's first impulse is to reach for their gun I seriously question
that person's ability to remain calm in a high stress situation such as
dog attack.
As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.
TMT
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> >And you really think guns would make a difference?
>
> They sure made a hell of a difference for us in 1776.
> >
> >Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?
>
> At the point that the wall came down, the government had abandoned even the
> pretense of forcefully suppressing dissent. Prior to that, when the government
> *was* still doing so, the subjects were of course unable to do anything about
> it, being disarmed.
>
Uh, back when the "Evil Empire" was still intact it was pointed out
many
times that Soviet Citizens were allowed to own rifles and shotguns,
ostensibly for hunting. I dunno if there was a limit on ammunition and
I suppose that handguns were restricted, but they were not 'disarmed'.
Dunno about East Germany.
Oh, and has been also noted, AK-47s or (more likely) the Chinese
knock-offs
were quite popular and legal among Iraqi civilians under Saddam
Hussein.
I'll agree that an armed populace can be quite helpful as far as
overthrowing
a dictator, or preventing an overthrow of a legitimate government, but
it
is plainly not sufficient.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, George <George@least> wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of
> > As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
> > license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
> > prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.
> >
>
> How would you feel about testing voters?
Or requiring a license to operate a printing press, or practice
religion?
Kevin
in 1249902 20051119 162352 [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>>
>>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
>>
>>I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
>> government
>>and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
>
>The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
>willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
>changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?
>
>More to the point: what *could* you do?
And you really think guns would make a difference?
Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?
Did the Romanians, the Czechs etc?
Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.
Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 8:46am (EST+5) [email protected] (Bob=A0Martin)
burbled:
More to the point: what *could* you do?
And you really think guns would make a difference? <snip>
Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.
I read about home invasions, and hear about them on the news. And,
I read, and hear, people saying that if it happens to you, don't
resist, and you won't be harmed. But, I also read, and hear, about so
many of those same home invasions resulting in unarmed people, not
resisting, and being killed anyway by the people invading their homes.
No witnesses you see. So, if those homeowners had a weapon in the
house, thay might at least stand a chance of getting out of it alive.
Sure as Hell beats getting killed by some thug just because he wants to
rob you.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
Bob Martin (in [email protected]) said:
| in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
|| On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||| Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
||| Gun ownership is not one of them.
||
|| It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of
|| your
|| rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
|| government if the citizens were disarmed?
|
| I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my
| (UK) government and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is
| ever likely to.
That's a tough argument to make to Americans, Bob. In the restored
(British) Governor's Mansion in Colonial Williamsburg, in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the most prominent display was of *large*
arrays of muzzle-loading rifles - to impress upon the colonists just
who exercised the power to govern and by what means that governance
would be enforced.
Neither the colonists nor their decendants have forgotten either how
that power was abused nor what was required to to dismantle that
misgovernance and to distribute its power among ordinary citizens.
We recognize fully that government /can/ be benevolent; but will
remain so over the long term _only_ if the general citizenry are
ready, willing, and *able* to say: "Thus far and no farther."
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
> Gun ownership is not one of them.
It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
government if the citizens were disarmed?
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:31:26 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
>>you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
>>ask.
>
>Please don't be so condescending.
So sorry. I added that statement in case you -weren't- an anti-gun
nut.
>I served four years in the RAF and was
>trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
>for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
>a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
OK, it's your decision. Enjoy the repercussions since you're living
with them!
--
***********************************************************
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
O.J. is walking around free, Osama Bin Laden too, but they
take the one woman in America willing to cook and clean
and work in the yard and haul her ass to jail."
--Tim Allen
***********************************************************
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>
>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
> I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
> and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
Yes, I didn't expect that a subject would understand. Guns aren't just
to deter individual criminal acts, they also deter governmental criminal
acts. Don't worry though, we'll bail you out yet again, next time.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of
> As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
> license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
> prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.
>
How would you feel about testing voters?
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1249902 20051119 162352 [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>>>
>>>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
>>>
>>>I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
>>> government
>>>and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
>>
>>The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
>>willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
>>changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?
>>
>>More to the point: what *could* you do?
>
>And you really think guns would make a difference?
They sure made a hell of a difference for us in 1776.
>
>Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?
At the point that the wall came down, the government had abandoned even the
pretense of forcefully suppressing dissent. Prior to that, when the government
*was* still doing so, the subjects were of course unable to do anything about
it, being disarmed.
>Did the Romanians, the Czechs etc?
See above.
>Attempts to justify everyone having a gun are pretty pathetic.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>
>Gun ownership is not one of them.
Perhaps not where you live. In the United States, it is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 1249902 20051119 162352 [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
> >>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
> >>>
> >>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
> >>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
> >>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
> >>
> >>I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
> >> government
> >>and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
> >
> >The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government
is
> >willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if
that
> >changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?
> >
> >More to the point: what *could* you do?
>
> And you really think guns would make a difference?
Yes.
>
> Did the Germans who tore down the Berlin Wall have guns?
No, they didn't need them. They only did that after they were allowed to.
in 1249871 20051119 145005 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>>
>>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
>
>> I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
>> and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
>
>Yes, I didn't expect that a subject would understand. Guns aren't just
>to deter individual criminal acts, they also deter governmental criminal
>acts. Don't worry though, we'll bail you out yet again, next time.
And be 3-4 years late again, no doubt!
in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>
>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>government if the citizens were disarmed?
I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
in 1249652 20051118 152717 "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>As society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's
>license, I think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing
>prior to allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.
Isn't it strange that we need a licence or permission for all the trivial
things in life yet anyone (even if drunk, mad, convicted murderer etc)
can bring children into the world.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:09:40 -0500, George wrote:
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> While I am very much for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, when I hear of As
>> society administers a driving test before issuing a driver's license, I
>> think it would be a great idea to administer similar testing prior to
>> allowing a gun purchase....or when buying a dog.
>>
>>
> How would you feel about testing voters?
I dunno' about him, George, but I'm in favor of it. But how do we do it
in a fair manner?
And can we test the politicians too?
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>As I have said before, a right can be denied is a privilege.
>
>Use a gun incorrectly and see how long your right remains intact.
>
Cute semantic distinction, but I don't believe it is correct. What
exactly do you think falls in the category of "rights" as you define
the word? Some counter examples for you to ponder (at least making a
distinction between how you want the word to be defined and how others
use it) is the "certain inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness. Since we routinely deny felons of their liberty
and pursuit of happiness, and occasionally of their lives, I guess our
forefathers should have said "certain privileges" to meet your
semantic benchmark?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
> a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
That explains why they stay in Britain, where guns are freely available
to criminals, but forbidden to the law-abiding.
And it also explains why the Brits who disagree are emigrating.
Kevin
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:31:26 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
>>Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.
> Please don't be so condescending.
Larry is hardly being condescending.
> I served four years in the RAF and was
> trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
> for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
> a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
And yet, you prefer to have criminals armed while good people are not.
Very strange.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:48:54 -0500, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ItZgf.1236
>> >Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense
> that
>> >the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.
>>
>> And this is better exactly how?
>
> The fewer guns there are in society, the fewer times they're going to be
> used.
"used" doesn't tell the story. It's how they're _being_ used that
matters. I "use" my guns all the time, for their intended
purposes...recreation, investment, enjoyment, historical study,
engineering insights, and so on.
> You seem to think that only criminals use guns. How many law abiding
> citizens have shot someone in a fit of rage or simply when they've lost
> their temper?
By definition, zero.
> How many kids have been shot accidentally when play with their
> parent's gun? How many accidents have there been?
More than there should be, of course. How many defensive uses of
firearms happen, which don't involve a shot being fired?
> How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
> instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three things
> can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on the
> human body that a bullet can.
Again, you're lumping all gun use into the same category. Not all of
us are criminals.
> Is that simple enough an explanation for you?
It gives good insight into your limited understanding of the situation,
yes, but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
> You seem to think that just because the US permits it's citizens the
> greatest latitude of human rights anywhere, it's necessary for everyone to
> go out and partake of all those rights. While owning a gun is one your
> rights, it doesn't for one second mean that it's a good right. The human
> species it too self centred and too arrogant to know any better.
And you'd rather have me disarmed while the criminals run around knowing
they're safe, then? After all, the criminals won't give up their guns,
because, _they're criminals_. By definition, they don't follow laws,
you see. So, if honest people _do_ disarm, and the dishonest people
_don't_ disarm, the only people who are safer, are the criminals.
Not my idea of a good thing.
Upscale wrote:
> How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
> instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three things
> can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on the
> human body that a bullet can.
Hummm, a retired family member was a senior police officer, not a grad
entrant to rank mind, worked his way up from cadet, he until recently
always said knife and cosh carriers were more inclined to use their
weapons then those with guns, now with the spread of the former eastern
bloc gangs it doesn't matter, unless you stay safe (whatever that means)
you need the means and will and not a little luck...
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>>> guns.
>>
>>And, you see that as a _good_ thing?
>
>Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
>roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
What you fail to recognize is that once you own a gun and have learned
to shoot and maintain it, you also have gained a hell of lot more
respect for them. Again, look at the stats. Gun owners as a group,
especially those with concealed weapons permits, are the sanest,
most law-abiding folks you'll ever meet.
It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.
If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
ask.
--
***********************************************************
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
O.J. is walking around free, Osama Bin Laden too, but they
take the one woman in America willing to cook and clean
and work in the yard and haul her ass to jail."
--Tim Allen
***********************************************************
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want
to live in
> a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with
me.
But the fact is that you are living in a country where guns are easily
available if not freely available. In Britain and Canada, illegal handguns
can be obtained for relatively small sums of money. In Toronto, Canada this
year, we've had more gun violence than ever before. Getting a permit to own
a handgun is pretty difficult here, but that hasn't stopped the escalation
of shootings. I think most Canadians believe that guns are finding their way
up here from the US.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ItZgf.1236
>> >Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense
>that
>> >the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.
>>
>> And this is better exactly how?
>
>The fewer guns there are in society, the fewer times they're going to be
>used.
Clearly contradicted by the statistics that I cited. (BTW, those came from a
Canadian gun control group's web site.)
>You seem to think that only criminals use guns.
Where did you get that idea? Certainly wasn't from anything I wrote.
> How many law abiding
>citizens have shot someone in a fit of rage or simply when they've lost
>their temper? How many kids have been shot accidentally when play with their
>parent's gun? How many accidents have there been?
All those combined are nowhere nearly as numerous as the criminal misuses of
firearms. And I think you know that. If you don't... educate yourself before
debating the topic further.
>
>How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
>instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three things
>can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on the
>human body that a bullet can.
>
>Is that simple enough an explanation for you?
>
>You seem to think that just because the US permits it's citizens the
>greatest latitude of human rights anywhere, it's necessary for everyone to
>go out and partake of all those rights. While owning a gun is one your
>rights, it doesn't for one second mean that it's a good right. The human
>species it too self centred and too arrogant to know any better.
>
>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much
lower
> in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per
*capita*
> are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
> Canada.
Absolute and complete garbage. Pull that one out of your ass Doug?
> Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing
crimes
> than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?
Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense that
the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much
>lower
>> in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per
>*capita*
>> are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
>> Canada.
>
>Absolute and complete garbage. Pull that one out of your ass Doug?
Actually, it's true, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
Guns per capita in Canada: 0.25
Guns per capita in the U.S.: 0.82
Firearms death rate per 100K population: 4.3 in Canada, 11.4 in the U.S.
Yes, folks, that's right: with 3.3 times as many firearms per capita as
Canada, the United States has only 2.7 times as many firearm *deaths* per
capita.
Other interesting statistics from that site:
27.3% of Canadian homicides were committed with firearms, versus 66% in the
United States -- but, on average, 25% of Canadians own firearms, versus 82% in
the United States. Clearly, of the two, _Canada_ is the one with a firearm
violence problem.
And even more interesting, nearly half (46%) of Canadian firearm homicides
were committed with handguns. I thought that Canadian law made handgun
ownership very difficult?
>
>> Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing
>crimes
>> than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?
>
>Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense that
>the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.
And this is better exactly how?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Please don't be so condescending. I served four years in the RAF and was
>trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
>for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to
> live in a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
available to everyone.
I like our way better.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"badger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Upscale wrote:
>
>
>> How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
>> instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three
>> things
>> can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on
>> the
>> human body that a bullet can.
>
> Hummm, a retired family member was a senior police officer, not a grad
> entrant to rank mind, worked his way up from cadet, he until recently
> always said knife and cosh carriers were more inclined to use their
> weapons then those with guns, now with the spread of the former eastern
> bloc gangs it doesn't matter, unless you stay safe (whatever that means)
> you need the means and will and not a little luck...
>
Que?
This IS a woodworking group. So, the guy should take a wooden
basebal bat out, and beat the crap out of the dog. Now that I think on
it, a wooden handled pitch fork would probably work even better - hard
to get on a guy out doing yard work, and has to protect his kids from a
viscious dog.
Remember, when they take our pitch forks away, only criminals will have
pitch forks.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Remember, when they take our pitch forks away, only criminals will have
> pitch forks.
>
>
I'm here to tell that a manure fork makes a great argument against an Akita.
Happy to say the SOB got some infections, even though I was just fending
off, not trying to impale him.
Then my German shepherd came around the corner of the house and literally
chewed his ass the 200 feet down the driveway before turning back.
"Doug Kanter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't use the word "hate" very often, but I really hate dogs. However,
> I'd welcome one like your German Shepherd. Is he good at removing the seat
> of the pants worn by dog owners who don't obey when you ask them to take
> their "curbed" dog someplace else?
>
He's a great dog, and as dog lovers who've had two dogs in residence all
through our marriage, SWMBO and I ought to know. He just doesn't like
strange dogs attacking the small one, or me either, I guess. People we go
him from called him a "stasi" dog. East German bloodlines. Longer and
leaner than the average AKC types, though the AKC recognizes the DVS, which
stands for German sheepdog alliance or similar, if my college German is
correct.
People tend to calm down when he arrives. Sort of like the years when we
had the Borzoi. She was also very large, though well-controlled. The
bigger the dog the better they must behave.
"George" <George@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Remember, when they take our pitch forks away, only criminals will have
>> pitch forks.
>>
>>
>
> I'm here to tell that a manure fork makes a great argument against an
> Akita. Happy to say the SOB got some infections, even though I was just
> fending off, not trying to impale him.
>
> Then my German shepherd came around the corner of the house and literally
> chewed his ass the 200 feet down the driveway before turning back.
>
I don't use the word "hate" very often, but I really hate dogs. However, I'd
welcome one like your German Shepherd. Is he good at removing the seat of
the pants worn by dog owners who don't obey when you ask them to take their
"curbed" dog someplace else?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ItZgf.1236
> >Of course. Most law abiding Canadians don't have guns so it makes sense
that
> >the criminal element who do have guns are more likely to use them.
>
> And this is better exactly how?
The fewer guns there are in society, the fewer times they're going to be
used. You seem to think that only criminals use guns. How many law abiding
citizens have shot someone in a fit of rage or simply when they've lost
their temper? How many kids have been shot accidentally when play with their
parent's gun? How many accidents have there been?
How many shootings have happened simply because a gun has been available
instead of a knife, or baseball bat or even fists. While those three things
can definitely kill, they don't come close to inflicting the carnage on the
human body that a bullet can.
Is that simple enough an explanation for you?
You seem to think that just because the US permits it's citizens the
greatest latitude of human rights anywhere, it's necessary for everyone to
go out and partake of all those rights. While owning a gun is one your
rights, it doesn't for one second mean that it's a good right. The human
species it too self centred and too arrogant to know any better.
In article <[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
>> readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
>> available to everyone.
>>
>> I like our way better.
>
>I can't agree with you. The US and Canada are close enough in lifestyles
Hellooooo.... I was comparing the US to the UK. But since you brought it up...
>that you can compare. Your readily available guns compared to our not as
>readily available guns, the percentage of your crime and murder rates with a
>gun being involved are much higher than what we have here in Canada.
That depends on how you measure. The rate of firearm ownership is much lower
in Canada than in the US, and although the crime and murder rates per *capita*
are higher in the US, the rates per *firearm* are significantly higher in
Canada.
>
>How do you rationalize that your way is better?
Canadians who possess guns are more likely to use them in committing crimes
than are Americans who possess guns. How is *your* way better?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Then I guess you should leave Britain. Fact is, where you live, guns are
> readily available to the criminal element. Here in the US, they're readily
> available to everyone.
>
> I like our way better.
I can't agree with you. The US and Canada are close enough in lifestyles
that you can compare. Your readily available guns compared to our not as
readily available guns, the percentage of your crime and murder rates with a
gun being involved are much higher than what we have here in Canada.
How do you rationalize that your way is better?
in 1250618 20051122 023959 Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:53:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Bob
>Martin <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:24:17 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> The general populace have never owned guns for protection - only criminals have
>>>> guns.
>>>
>>>And, you see that as a _good_ thing?
>>
>>Yes I do. If there is one word to describe the British it is "angry", especially on the
>>roads, and if every driver carried a gun the M25 would soon resemble the Somme.
>
>What you fail to recognize is that once you own a gun and have learned
>to shoot and maintain it, you also have gained a hell of lot more
>respect for them. Again, look at the stats. Gun owners as a group,
>especially those with concealed weapons permits, are the sanest,
>most law-abiding folks you'll ever meet.
>
>It's criminals who do the drive-by shootings and road-rage killing,
>Bob, not law-abiding citizens and neighbors.
>
>If you're not just some anti-gun nut and do want more info, I'll give
>you some cites for books and websites for more real information. Just
>ask.
Please don't be so condescending. I served four years in the RAF and was
trained on all sorts of weapons and I was also a member of a pistol club
for quite a while. I'll say it once then I'm out of here - I do not want to live in
a country where guns are freely available - and 90-95% of Brits agree with me.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>
>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
>
>I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK)
> government
>and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
The part of this you're missing is that -- currently -- your government is
willing to tolerate subjects who disagree with it. What would you do if that
changed, and the authorities began to forcefully suppress dissent?
More to the point: what *could* you do?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
alexy (in [email protected]) said:
| "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| As I have said before, a right can be denied is a privilege.
||
|| Use a gun incorrectly and see how long your right remains intact.
|
| Cute semantic distinction, but I don't believe it is correct. What
| exactly do you think falls in the category of "rights" as you define
| the word? Some counter examples for you to ponder (at least making a
| distinction between how you want the word to be defined and how
| others use it) is the "certain inalienable rights" of life,
| liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Since we routinely deny felons
| of their liberty and pursuit of happiness, and occasionally of
| their lives, I guess our forefathers should have said "certain
| privileges" to meet your semantic benchmark?
Alex...
You're quoting from a document that set forth principles - not law.
It's the Constitution that attempts to codify those principles and
which clearly sets forth that keeping and bearing arms is a *right*
which may not be impaired or discontinued (look up /infringe/).
The Declaration of Independence is an interesting legacy. It's more
than an old "Up yours!" to King George: It's a statement of philosophy
and principles. It's also a quiet trap for those individuals who feel
that ordinary persons are unfit to share among themselves the powers
of self-government.
The Declaration sets forth, as a matter of principle, conditions
necessary and sufficient for replacement of an entire governmental
system. Because of this, it's an "orphan" document and has never had
legal standing of any kind - not with the Brits, and certainly not
within the American government.
Notwithstanding, it's the biggest elephant to ever sit in any corner.
Oh yes, I did allude to a trap aspect didn't I? The trap lies in the
obstacle posed to those who would abuse the powers granted them by the
Constitution and the citizenry: In order to usurp power, they must
first succeed in voiding the principles set forth in that simple
one-page document. It's a "soft" trap; but it gives the alarm to every
person who, in their heart of hearts, believes in those principles.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> >> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
>> >> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
>> >> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
>> >> threatening dog.
>>
>> > OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I
>> > have
>> > no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
>> > legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic
>> > and
>> > that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
>> > ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>>
>> I just can't see why there's even a question.
>
> Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
> envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
> to make sense...
whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will ensure
that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house, especially if
the next house may only be 4' away like in some developments? there's a lot
of places that don't allow shooting inside city limits.
again, we don't know the circumstances, the location, the environment, the
surroundings. his local police do.
"Clint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Qh5ff.124955$yS6.22240@clgrps12...
>I realize that Texas might be different, and you might be in a rural
>location where this doesn't apply, but many jurisdictions frown upon people
>firing weapons in populated areas (say, around 6 and 2 year olds). If the
>dog is close enough to be threatening to the kids, I think it would be too
>close to the kids to fire a weapon at. IMHO.
>
Sounds like the perfect opportunity to use your pointy stick.
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 3:20pm [email protected] (Jerry=A0S.) doth sayeth:
Sounds like the perfect opportunity to use your pointy stick.
Exactly.
Tied to the barrel of your shotgun.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
In article <[email protected]>, J T
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 3:20pm [email protected] (Jerry S.) doth sayeth:
> Sounds like the perfect opportunity to use your pointy stick.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Tied to the barrel of your shotgun.
He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
stick.
Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 8:39pm (EST-1) [email protected] (Kevin=A0Craig) doth
elucidate:
He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
stick.
Crap, now even pointy sticks have gotten technical.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:39:30 -0600, Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
> folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
> stick.
Ah, but if it's Chinese, then that makes it unimportable. The bayonet
is just fine on a Russian or Yugo SKS,but on the Chinese ones it's evil.
Good to know that we're protected from all those drive-by bayonetings we
keep hearing about.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:44:34 GMT, Doug Kanter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:171120052039305516%[email protected]...
>> He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
>> folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
>> stick.
> But wait....doesn't the bayonet make it an assault weapon? :-)
Only if the SKS in question is Chinese. If it's Russian, or
Yugoslavian, then it's just fine. I'm sure this makes sense somehow.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:56:20 GMT, Doug Kanter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Only if the SKS in question is Chinese. If it's Russian, or
>> Yugoslavian, then it's just fine. I'm sure this makes sense somehow.
> Because "Russian" and "Yugoslavian" already contain the letter "A", but
> "Chinese" does not. Obviously.
<blink> <blink>
Of course. Makes as much sense as any other theory I've seen, and more
than many. Good insight, Doug!
Dave
"Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:171120052039305516%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, J T
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 3:20pm [email protected] (Jerry S.) doth sayeth:
>> Sounds like the perfect opportunity to use your pointy stick.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Tied to the barrel of your shotgun.
>
> He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
> folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
> stick.
But wait....doesn't the bayonet make it an assault weapon? :-)
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:44:34 GMT, Doug Kanter <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:171120052039305516%[email protected]...
>
>>> He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
>>> folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
>>> stick.
>
>> But wait....doesn't the bayonet make it an assault weapon? :-)
>
> Only if the SKS in question is Chinese. If it's Russian, or
> Yugoslavian, then it's just fine. I'm sure this makes sense somehow.
>
Because "Russian" and "Yugoslavian" already contain the letter "A", but
"Chinese" does not. Obviously.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:39:30 -0600, Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He said he's got an SKS; most models come with a big pointy thing that
>> folds back under the barrel; when unfurled, the rifle becomes a pointy
>> stick.
>
> Ah, but if it's Chinese, then that makes it unimportable. The bayonet
> is just fine on a Russian or Yugo SKS,but on the Chinese ones it's evil.
>
> Good to know that we're protected from all those drive-by bayonetings we
> keep hearing about.
>
Drive-by: I can't help it. Ready?
What's this set of sounds indicative of?
CLIPPITY CLOP CLIPPITY CLOP CLIPPITY CLOP.
<pause>
BLAM!!!!!!!!!!
CLIPPITY CLOP CLIPPITY CLOP CLIPPITY CLOP.
page down...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
An Amish drive-by.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:09:01 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Yet about half you guys are up in arms, ready to blow the mutt a
>
> Sorry charlie, but the discussion was about what to do if the dog did
> threaten the kids.
>
> And I'm not a dog hater, I still miss our last one that died of cancer
> several years ago. But kids come before dogs.
>
> And in that situation, I'd rather "blow away" the idiot that let his dog
> run free (if urban) but that would not be an immediate solution :-).
you should reread the original post:
Paul Brumman <[email protected]> wrote:
>We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
>happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
>like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
>near El Paso, TX.
it didn't happen yet, it was just growling and not attacking, and
"he wants to know the legalities"
he doesn't state that he wants to know what is ethically right, but what is
his legal rights. the only way he can do that is ask the police/da in his
locality. there are few of us here in that same area, if any, so asking on
usenet to strangers located around the world is ridiculous.
As a Texas resident and a CHL holder I can tell you that regardless of
what the local police may say, you better check with a lawyer. Civil
law is MUCH nastier in some ways (burden of proof, etc.) than criminal
law or local ordinance.
Texas state law generally allows the use of "deadly force" to avoid
"serious bodily harm" to yourself or another. The odds that the local
law enforcement folks in Texas would gig you for illegally discharging
a firearm in their jurisdiction if you met the first hurdle are
negligible.
The odds that your neighbor will sue for emotional distress,
depravation of companionship (who knows what he did with the dog?),
etc are very high.
Never confuse the law with common sense. (Thomas Payne)
In any case, your "trusty" SKS is a BAD choice. It is not trusty (it's
a HOS), it fires (if it fires without blowing up) an FMJ round that
will put a knitting needle hole in a dog (doesn't stop or kill), and
the house behind it and anything in between. Shotgun, #1 buck, as many
wild dogs on my property (600 AC) can (or could) attest is the
requisite medicine.
WTH is this doing on this NG????? Why am I responding??? Aggggh!
>As someone else has pointed out, if your kids are in imminent danger,
>legalities fly out the window. In the meantime, the advice to check
>with local police sounds good--although I'd tend to approach it along
>the lines of "what are my options for dealing with a threatening
>animal?" rather than "is it okay for me to just blow it away?" Police
>will certainly provide better advice than you will get here, but still
>not legal advice--a real lawyer will advise on both criminal and civil
>risks.
On 17 Nov 2005 20:53:45 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:37:20 -0500, George <George@least> wrote:
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In my location shooting a dog that has not attacked would probably get
>>> you some jail time on firearms, reckless endangerment and animal
>>> cruelty charges plus a fine up to about $10,000.
>>
>> Pretty much correct where I live, as well.
>>
>> I take it neither the OP nor the dog's owner has a fence or other means to
>> keep the kids from teasing the dog?
>
> OK, I've got a problem with this. Why the FUCK should I have to put up
> a fence to keep some idiot's dog in HIS yard? And what makes you think
> the kids are teasing the dog, to make it a threat?
>
> I'm also grateful that I don't live somewhere that would have legal
> problems as described.
>
We do have a modest fence (with the gate often unlocked), and no, the
kids never tease the dog, they are afraid of that dog. The dog is mean
spirited.
Paul
"George" <George@least> wrote:
>This because, by nature, dogs defend a territory; they do not seek
>to acquire it at others' expense. It is far more common to discover
>aggression on the part of people - notice the replies - than dogs.
Yeah, it seems that this discussion is both ignoring and confirming
that! If it's a matter of stopping an imminent threat, the dog is the
appropriate target. If the shooting is intended to be preventative,
the owner may be the better target (but of another action, not of
deadly force!). Nine times out of ten, a mean dog will become docile
with a new owner, but a new replacement dog bought by the same owner
will be mean. (No, I have no data to back up this totally
unsubstantiated opinion.)
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> >> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
>> >> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
>> >> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
>> >> threatening dog.
>>
>> > OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
>> > no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
>> > legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
>> > that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
>> > ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>>
>> I just can't see why there's even a question.
>
>Never hurts to know what the law actually says in a situation one
>envisions as being possible to occur. "The law" isn't always what seems
>to make sense...
Like hell. As Dave said, my kids' safety outweighs the neighbor's dog. You do
what you have to, to make sure your kids are safe. Worry about the legal
niceties later, after their safety is assured.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
| more dangerous?
Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
questions are "questionably" and "no".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>>
>>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>>| more dangerous?
>>
>>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>>questions are "questionably" and "no".
>
>That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
>a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
>You're getting desperate!
You missed the point rather badly -- the point being that it happened
anyway, despite the strict gun control laws that are supposed to make it
impossible.
I've always been baffled by the naivete and/or gullibility of those who
believe that gun control laws have *any* affect on the behavior of criminals,
who are, by definition, people who _don't_obey_laws_anyway_.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
in 1249912 20051119 170107 "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working
>| out over there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any
>| more dangerous?
>
>Last night the BBC reported that one female police "probationer"
>(trainee?) had been shot to death and another wounded in the shoulder
>by not-law-abiding persons. I'd assume that the answer to your
>questions are "questionably" and "no".
That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens
a thousand times more in the US than in Britain.
You're getting desperate!
Sun, Nov 20, 2005, 8:48am (EST+5) [email protected] (Bob=A0Martin)
doth burble:
That was an ordinary armed robbery, something which happens a thousand
times more in the US than in Britain. You're getting desperate!
Where'd you come up with that figure? Anything to back it up?
"Ordinary" armed robbery? In Britain? with their strict gon
control laws?
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:08:38 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1249707 20051118 191003 Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 18 Nov 2005 07:27:17 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Exactly Alex....there are very few "true" rights.
>>> Gun ownership is not one of them.
>>
>>It's the one that, if you live in the US, preserves the rest of your
>>rights. How long do you think you'd be free to disagree with the
>>government if the citizens were disarmed?
>
>I think you've lost it, Dave. I'm quite free to disagree with my (UK) government
>and neither I nor anyone I know owns a gun or is ever likely to.
Having seen various reports regarding censure for what British citizens
and businesses say; I would dispute that you are free to say what you want,
when you want freely in Britain. Your rules regarding what is considered
to be "harassing" speech or "offensive" speech -- particularly if one is a
business are becoming quite restrictive (not that the statists here in the
US are far behind in trying to make that happen -- try expressing
principals of Jeffersonian democracy or calling into question some of the
tenets of modern nanny-state protectionism on a college campus)
BTW, how are those restrictions on law abiding citizens working out over
there? Has it kept the criminal element from being any more dangerous? I
understand you've got somebody over there who is now seriously advocating
restricting the ability to own pointy kitchen knives.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[email protected] (Paul Brumman) wrote:
>We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property? That has not
>happened, but my neighbors two houses over keep a dog that I do not
>like and I am a little concerned. Waht to know the legalities. I am
>near El Paso, TX.
Anyone asking for legal advice on a woodworking newsgroup gets what he
pays for -- and deserves what he gets.
As someone else has pointed out, if your kids are in imminent danger,
legalities fly out the window. In the meantime, the advice to check
with local police sounds good--although I'd tend to approach it along
the lines of "what are my options for dealing with a threatening
animal?" rather than "is it okay for me to just blow it away?" Police
will certainly provide better advice than you will get here, but still
not legal advice--a real lawyer will advise on both criminal and civil
risks.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Paul Brumman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> We had some high profile dog incidents in the neighboring county. I
>> >> have two kids, 6 and 2, and am wondering. If, let's say, a neighbor's
>> >> dog wanders in our yard and starts growling at my children, in a
>> >> threatening manner, would it be legal to just take my trusty SKS and
>> >> shoot the dog wile it is trespassing on my property?
>>
>> > call your local police and ask them. we're not there.
>>
>> That's strange advice. If an animal threatens my kids, legality and
>> whatever else doesn't enter into it. You stop the threat, period. It
>> keeps coming up here, but "The 3 S's" apply in this case - shoot,
>> shovel, and shutup. There can be no legality or subtle whatever going
>> on here, my kids outweigh the neighbor's dog, period.
>>
>> Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
>> state, people might get pissy about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
>> of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
>> threatening dog.
>
> OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
> no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
> legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
> that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
> ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
If he *did* cap the dog, it would make me very happy and I'd congratulate
him. But, in terms of aggravation and paperwork, he'd be better off calling
animal control and *telling* them he's just about mad enough to shoot a
habitual stray. That tends to motivate the dog non-catchers. If that doesn't
work, he should call the cops and repeat the threat. They cannot bother you
for simply saying you're going to do it. But, they may be personally
acquainted with the dog non-cathcer and be able to better motivate him to
get off his fat ass and enforce the dog laws.
You make a very good case for being armed at all times.
"John Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 1) Notice the dog
> 2) Run inside to get yer gun
> 3) Find the key (you keep your guns locked up, right?)
> 4) Unlock the case
> 5) Find the bullets
> 6) Load the gun
> 7) Run back outside
> 8) Aim
> 9) Kaboom
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> IMO, if you let it go at all (i.e., the situation didn't demand that
>> you rush to get your gun the very first incident), then maybe the
>> cooler thing to do is talk to the owner and let him know how you feel,
>> before you kill his pet.
>>
>> I personally would fault no one for killing anything, man or beast, who
>> threatened his small children. But if you take a pass, then why not use
>> that moratorium to resolve the situation peacefully? And if the
>> neighbor won't cooperate, by all means include the police in the
>> dialogue: they're often helpful that way, and you've covered your legal
>> bases in doing so.
>
> What I've not read in any reply, but may have missed, is the
> recommendation for the OP to educate his children clearly and often
> about how to treat and behave around dogs - be it the neighbor's
> questionable mutt or the family Peekapoo.
True, but some dogs will attack when they see a motion they believe is
threatening, even from a distance where a child's activity is none of
anyone's business. Same as a cat that'll tear across a yard to chase down a
leaf blowing across the lawn because he likes the sound it makes. So,
educate the kids, but that only takes care of the dogs which are less
reprehensible than the nastiest ones. The spectrum is a short one.
In article <[email protected]>,
"hylourgos" <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO, if you let it go at all (i.e., the situation didn't demand that
> you rush to get your gun the very first incident), then maybe the
> cooler thing to do is talk to the owner and let him know how you feel,
> before you kill his pet.
>
> I personally would fault no one for killing anything, man or beast, who
> threatened his small children. But if you take a pass, then why not use
> that moratorium to resolve the situation peacefully? And if the
> neighbor won't cooperate, by all means include the police in the
> dialogue: they're often helpful that way, and you've covered your legal
> bases in doing so.
What I've not read in any reply, but may have missed, is the
recommendation for the OP to educate his children clearly and often
about how to treat and behave around dogs - be it the neighbor's
questionable mutt or the family Peekapoo.
Most dog bites aren't by pit bulls, or any of the other breeds deemed
"dangerous", but by the labradors and retrievers (read the dog bite
stats a couple months back but don't feel like pulling it up at the
moment). The scary dog mauling stories make the news because they're so
horrendous and INFREQUENT. What you don't hear about are the every day
bites by Gramma Nell's nice little Yorkie, or the family's Golden who
was startled by the 2 year old jumping on it while it was sleeping.
Children need to be educated on how to approach and behave in the
company of all dogs. They need to be told to never approach a dog
without the owner's permission. They need to be cautioned about any
specific dogs the parent suspects as being a potential danger to quietly
leave the area and find an adult to asses the situation.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 1:47am (EST-3) [email protected]
(Fly-by-Night=A0CC) doth say:
<snip> Most dog bites aren't by pit bulls, or any of the other breeds
deemed "dangerous", but by the labradors and retrievers <snip> What you
don't hear about are the every day bites by Gramma Nell's nice little
Yorkie, or the family's Golden who was startled by the 2 year old
jumping on it while it was sleeping. <snip>
The however is, not a lot of people, children or adults, seem to
get killed by Yorkies, it's pit bulls, rotweillers, etc., and large
mixed breeds, that do that. On my personal hate list are those nasty
little rat dogs (Chiwawa or something), that'll come up behind you, ry
to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth when you turn around.
Nasty little things.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 2:23pm [email protected] (J=A0T) whose damn
keyboard did say:
<snip> ry to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth <snip>
Of course, that should read:
try to bite your ankle, then run under the couch
Steenkin' keys stick. That's my story. Gusss I may have to start
using the spell chequer, I hate it when I can't right write.
JOAT
Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:09:45 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Fri, Nov 18, 2005, 2:23pm [email protected] (J T) whose damn
>keyboard did say:
><snip> ry to bite your ankle, then run unter the couth <snip>
>
> Of course, that should read:
>try to bite your ankle, then run under the couch
>
Had an aunt whose family had one of those chihuahuas (or as Les Nesman
used to say" Chi-hooa-hooas"). When I encountered it, it was pretty old,
but still mean as all get out. The stupid thing would go out of its way to
come up to you and bite you -- of course, as I said, it was old, so it had
no teeth -- it pretty much would try to gum you to death. Just evil, evil
little mutts. IMO of course.
> Steenkin' keys stick. That's my story. Gusss I may have to start
>using the spell chequer, I hate it when I can't right write.
>
I hate it when that happens
>
>
>JOAT
>Just pretend I'm not here. That's what I'm doing.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:01:01 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>> OP didn't ask about a perceived ethical problem and from the tone I have
>> no doubt he'll take action as seems appropriate. He asked about the
>> legality of that action (albeit in a funny place to ask for ng topic and
>> that as Charley says, "we ain't there" so he would be better advised to
>> ask in his local jurisdiction what rules he's playing under...
>
> I just can't see why there's even a question.
Once again I find myself agreeiong with Dave :-).
In fact, I wouldn't "shoot, shovel, and shut up", if I knew the owner.
I'd take the carcass down to him and tell him he owed me for the bullet!
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:
> whilst it may be ethically justified, can you ensure that the OP will
> ensure that the bullet won't go through the dog and the next house,
> especially if the next house may only be 4' away like in some
> developments?
Yep - it's called Hydra-Shok.
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:09:01 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
> Yet about half you guys are up in arms, ready to blow the mutt a
Sorry charlie, but the discussion was about what to do if the dog did
threaten the kids.
And I'm not a dog hater, I still miss our last one that died of cancer
several years ago. But kids come before dogs.
And in that situation, I'd rather "blow away" the idiot that let his dog
run free (if urban) but that would not be an immediate solution :-).
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:34:08 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:
> you should reread the original post:
>
>
> it didn't happen yet, it was just growling and not attacking, and
>
> "he wants to know the legalities"
>
>
You're right, but the discussion soom morphed into what to do if it
threatened his kids. And I agree that a threat has to be more than a
growl.
But I think we've all covered every angle on this discussion. Including
one or two posters that actually responded to the original question :-).
We had a hybrid wolf that roamed where I live - a senior citizen mobile
home park. It took the local pound over three years to catch her, even
after someone got bit. And when they caught her, they shot her. It would
have saved a lot of little old ladies a lot of fear, and the taxpayers a
lot of money, if the park owner had just shot her in the beginning as he
threatened to do.
BTW, there was a wolf sanctuary nearby that had offered to take the
animal, a much better solution. But the pound people were so frustrated
by their failure that they didn't want to take the chance that she would
escape and return.
On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.
>
>If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.
>
>TMT
Hmmm, ".... The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed". vs. "... The privilege of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed".
Now, to your second point, with rights do come responsibilities. However,
it seems that most of the responsibilities for those who make use of the
second amendment are kept to a much higher standard than the
responsibilities of those who exercise their first amendment rights.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:30:37 -0600, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Buddy Matlosz (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>| news:[email protected]...
>|| Does this mean we have to do this again? Okay, come on over and
>|| prepare to have your butt kicked. This time, we'll even do it
>|| without the French.
>||
>| How 'bout we do it TO the French? God knows they've been askin' for
>| it.
Actually, looks like they are doing that to themselves these past several
weeks. Problem is that their answer to the problem is more of what got
them into this predicament in the first place -- they just don't think they
have appeased their immigrants enough, they just need to give them more
money.
>
>How so? They were a major help at the battle of Yorktown,
I think the OP mentioned this
> they were an
>ally in two world wars
... umm, they were the battlefield for two world wars, it was other
countries that came in to bail them out. Granted, the French resistance
performed admirably. If they had stood up to Hitler to start with, they
probably wouldn't have been a battlefield. Actually, if they hadn't been
among those imposing huge war reparations upon Germany following the first
world war, the second most likely would not have happened.
> and during the police action in Korea, they
>warned us about Indo-China,
They bailed out of Indo-China, leaving it to us.
> they shed tears with us on and after 9-11,
Which all civilized countries did.
>and they did their best to tell us that our intelligence on Iraqi WMDS
>was incorrect so that we would not make ourselves look like liars
>and/or idiots to the rest of the world.
>
Not exactly, they were trying to keep the US from finding out just how
much in bed they had been with Saddam and what a mockery they had helped
make of the "oil for Saddam's palaces" program.
>What have you noticed that I missed? Or does all of the above
>constitute "askin' for it"?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, Too_Many_Tools <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.
>>
>> If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.
>
>Felons have no rights.
Wrong. They lose some rights, retain others, and gain still others.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Worry about the legal niceties later, after their safety is
> assured."....
>
> .....And their daddy is in jail.
>
> Folks, I have no problems with guns....it's the guy holding them that I
> many times question the wisdom of.
>
> Owning a gun is a privilege and with the gun comes the responsibility
> if it is used.
>
> Use a gun properly and you may save a life...use it wrong and you may
> spend the rest of your life in jail and bankrupt your family.
I'd estimate that 1 out of 3 times the local paper has a story about a
vicious dog attack, the cops shoot the animal right on the spot. The real
problem is likely to be the use of a gun in certain surroundings. But, as
Miller said, it might come down to a choice of having maimed or dead kids,
or being legally safe.
> Who ya talkin' to, Ron? You didn't give any context or quoting to tell
> us.
Talking to the OP -- "....to just take my trusty SKS and shoot the dog wile
it is trespassing on my property?"
Doesn't seem like a good idea to me if he is in a populated neighborhood.
From his post it sounds like he has neighbors ("..but my neighbors two
houses over keep a dog ....").
(At least I think I posted directly from his orignial post. This one has
taken on life)
RonB
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> My point exactly....a priviledge can be taken from you..a right cannot.
>
> Guns are regulated as to who can have them....just like whether or not
> you are allowed to drive a car.
>
> Both priviledges come with responsibilites. To drive a car you require
> insurance. To shoot a gun requires the shooter to be responsible from a
> financial and civil standpoint. If you doubt this, check into what
> happens when you use either product incorrectly and someone is hurt or
> killed.
>
> TMT
>
So life and liberty are privileges, too? After all, they can
be taken from you.
So all we have are privileges then, no rights at all.
Hmmm...where is my copy of the Bill of Privileges?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX