Pit bull encounter...

imported post

expvideo wrote:

I would have no remorse in defending her life with deadly force.

Click to expand...

Thus the pathos, even bathetic anthropomorphization.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

imported post

That's where I disagree with you Doug. She is a living creature; one that I happen to have an emotional attachment to. I don't mistake her for a human or for my own child, but she is part of my family, and no, she is not merely property. It's not like I'm treating an inanimate object like a car as if it were a person.

I never said that she was a human, or that I consider her to have the same rights as a human. But she is part of my family, and I will protect her. You may think that a dog's life has as much value as that of a cordless drill, but I disagree with you. Enough so to use force if you put your ideas into practice on my dog.

imported post

openryan wrote:

What if someone did find her threatening, and for some reason she got away from you...maybe you had your back turned or the clip on the leash snapped, whatever. If someone put down your dog because they feel threatened, you are going to go attack them?

Click to expand...

I said "If I see you using excessive force to hurt my dog, I will confront you with equally severe force."

I said nothing about defending yourself. But this will not happen. She is trained enough to come back to me, and she doesn't pull on her leash, at least not enough to break it. The fact of the matter is, there is no situation that my dog will put you in that would warrant force, even from a phobic standpoint. There are, however,plenty of dogs and dog owners out there that this cannot be said for.

imported post

I only know one other man who loves his dog as much...

imported post

you don't know many dog owners.

imported post

I know a lot of responsible dog owners.

imported post

Look the words up, don't rely on your government skrule eddykation.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Look the words up, don't rely on your government skrule eddykation.

Click to expand...

I know what the words mean. I'm not trying to personify my dog, and Isee no problem with attaching emotion to something you might find trivial. To you: mindless beast. To me: faithful pet and member of my family.

Don't mock me because I had a public education. You're a little too smug in your sense of superiority.


You seriously think I can't figure out what "anthropomorphization" means without checking a dictionary? Let's see, it's made of two simple words which when put together, my assumption would be to apply human attributes to or to personify something that is not (by definition) a person. You must think you are something really special to put that all together. I guess you don't think I know what pathos is either?

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Look the words up, don't rely on your government skrule eddykation.

Click to expand...

Is there an "ignore" function on these forums?

imported post

Can only speak for the residents for the Commonwealth of Virginia, but here if you feel you are in immedate danger of serious bodily injury and/or death, you are permitted to do what you can to stop and control the situation.

A pitbull runs agressively full gait towards me barking with its ears back while I'm on the public sidewalk. . .I'm drawing down on the critter. It commenses to bite me and it will be dispatched.

Then I'm shutting the hell up until Richard Gardiner chats with me and I can tell him what happened. Yes I may be in the county lock-up and yes I may have my primary carry taken into evidence, butI won't be crippled and will be alive. Any court fees will be recouped when I sue the pitbull owner for negligence and damages.

Unlike handguns which don't just suddenly go off and start killing people, pitbulls on the otherhand do exhibit such behavior.

imported post

I must say I found it rather interesting to find a self professed libertarian saying that all dogs should be kept on a leash. I consider myself pretty libertarian and as long as the dog doesn't hurt you, I see no reason for it to be leashed at all.

I am a dog owner (two boxers) and my dogs stay on leash. But, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to let them off leash, realizing that if they harm someone I am liable. And that would cut both ways. If they attack someone, I would be liable. If they run up to lick someone, but that someone shoots them thinking they are a threat, the weight would still be on my shoulders.

I view leash laws similar to gun laws. They're there "to protect you", but the ones you need protection from probably won't be operating under the law anyway.

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

I must say I found it rather interesting to find a self professed libertarian saying that all dogs should be kept on a leash. I consider myself pretty libertarian and as long as the dog doesn't hurt you, I see no reason for it to be leashed at all.

I am a dog owner (two boxers) and my dogs stay on leash. But, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to let them off leash, realizing that if they harm someone I am liable. And that would cut both ways. If they attack someone, I would be liable. If they run up to lick someone, but that someone shoots them thinking they are a threat, the weight would still be on my shoulders.

I view leash laws similar to gun laws. They're there "to protect you", but the ones you need protection from probably won't be operating under the law anyway.

Click to expand...

It still comes to the point that these are domesticated animals, and by no means can you expect a behavior from them and they exhibit that behavior 100% of the time. Weird things can set off animals. There is also no standard among dogs, or other domesticated animals, so even though someone thinks their animals is "well behaved", it cannot be gauged.

All dogs should have a leash regardless of their "apparent" temperment or demeanor. Unless of course you have a fence and the dog is in your backyard...

People can read these laws before they buy the dog, or move to a new area with a dog. You have two choices, don't buy the dog, or keep it on a leash.

imported post

openryan wrote:

It still comes to the point that these are domesticated animals, and by no means can you expect a behavior from them and they exhibit that behavior 100% of the time. Weird things can set off animals. There is also no standard among dogs, or other domesticated animals, so even though someone thinks their animals is "well behaved", it cannot be gauged.

All dogs should have a leash regardless of their "apparent" temperment or demeanor. Unless of course you have a fence and the dog is in your backyard...

People can read these laws before they buy the dog, or move to a new area with a dog. You have two choices, don't buy the dog, or keep it on a leash.

Click to expand...

I could say the exact same thing about cats, squirrels, or humans. There is nothing about a canine that makes it intrinsically more dangerous than people or other animals. You cannot guarantee that anything is safe, whether it's a dog, a person, or any other object.

"People can read these laws before they buy the gun, or move to a new area with a gun. You have two choices, don't buy the gun, or keep it in a safe".

Your logic works just as well for almost anything, and it remains just as flawed. Perhaps we need to allow states and localities to outlaw guns, since you can always move somewhere that allows them, huh?

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

openryan wrote:

It still comes to the point that these are domesticated animals, and by no means can you expect a behavior from them and they exhibit that behavior 100% of the time. Weird things can set off animals. There is also no standard among dogs, or other domesticated animals, so even though someone thinks their animals is "well behaved", it cannot be gauged.

All dogs should have a leash regardless of their "apparent" temperment or demeanor. Unless of course you have a fence and the dog is in your backyard...

People can read these laws before they buy the dog, or move to a new area with a dog. You have two choices, don't buy the dog, or keep it on a leash.

Click to expand...

I could say the exact same thing about cats, squirrels, or humans. There is nothing about a canine that makes it intrinsically more dangerous than people or other animals. You cannot guarantee that anything is safe, whether it's a dog, a person, or any other object.

"People can read these laws before they buy the gun, or move to a new area with a gun. You have two choices, don't buy the gun, or keep it in a safe".

Your logic works just as well for almost anything, and it remains just as flawed. Perhaps we need to allow states and localities to outlaw guns, since you can always move somewhere that allows them, huh?

Click to expand...

A large dog (say over 40 lbs) is inherently more dangerous than a house cat.

I do see the flaw with what I said, and I will try to reword it. Just because you do not like the law, you cannot let your pets roam unleashed, regardless of their demeanor or stature. If you do not like the law, get it changed, but until that day, if someone shoots your animal for being a threat, you can't blame them.

I'm sure you will look for a way to find my flaw with that as well, but I think that is a reasonable approach.

imported post

openryan wrote:

A large dog (say over 40 lbs) is inherently more dangerous than a house cat.

I do see the flaw with what I said, and I will try to reword it. Just because you do not like the law, you cannot let your pets roam unleashed, regardless of their demeanor or stature. If you do not like the law, get it changed, but until that day, if someone shoots your animal for being a threat, you can't blame them.

I'm sure you will look for a way to find my flaw with that as well, but I think that is a reasonable approach.

Click to expand...

All dogs aren't over 40lbs. So right there the logic behind leashing all dogs goes out the window.

While you're right that I dislike the law, that is not the issue here. I also dislike laws that discriminate against people who want to own or carry firearms, even though they pose no threat to the public. I'm not saying that people should be breaking the law, I'm saying that both of these types of laws punish the majority for the possible negative actions of a miniority, and that people who feel dogs should be leashed for their protection might want to think twice about how their firearms can come under the same scrutiny.

imported post

As soon as you can show me an instance of a nice peacful gun who wouldn't hurt a fly leaping out of the holster, run down the street and maul a 4 year old boy, I'll let you equate gun ownership and dog leash laws.

The last poor lady that was mauled by an "innocent" Pit-Bull barely made it. And of course the owner said it was a good dog and wouldn't hurt a fly! Of course the lady was in bed sleeping when the pit-bull entered her house through a doggie door. I guess the lady was snoring too loudly and provoked the tame pit-bull.

A gun doesn't have a mind of it's own, and a responsible gun owner can guarantee 100% the gun isn't going to leap out of the holster and attack someone. A dog owner can't say the same thing. No matter how responsible they are, or how "friendly" the dog is.

I was a K9 drug dog handler. I've seen both sides of dogs. I love them dearly and ... anyway, I still also know that certain breeds of dogs can snap at a moments notice and kill and maime even healthy strong adult males!

BTW, I've seen many 12 pound dogs take large chunks of flesh out of a person...

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

openryan wrote:

A large dog (say over 40 lbs) is inherently more dangerous than a house cat.

I do see the flaw with what I said, and I will try to reword it. Just because you do not like the law, you cannot let your pets roam unleashed, regardless of their demeanor or stature. If you do not like the law, get it changed, but until that day, if someone shoots your animal for being a threat, you can't blame them.

I'm sure you will look for a way to find my flaw with that as well, but I think that is a reasonable approach.

Click to expand...

All dogs aren't over 40lbs. So right there the logic behind leashing all dogs goes out the window.

While you're right that I dislike the law, that is not the issue here. I also dislike laws that discriminate against people who want to own or carry firearms, even though they pose no threat to the public. I'm not saying that people should be breaking the law, I'm saying that both of these types of laws punish the majority for the possible negative actions of a miniority, and that people who feel dogs should be leashed for their protection might want to think twice about how their firearms can come under the same scrutiny.

Click to expand...

No.

If you are going to leave your home with your handgun, put it in a holster, if you are leaving with your dog, put it on a leash.

No matter the size of the animal ( said certain dogs are more dangerous than other pets, not that dogs under 40lbs are not dangerous), it can be dangerous, whether it attacks, is not up to date on shots, has a disease, rabies, whatever.

If your dog was not on a leash, and it came onto my property and was running at me, because it liked me, but I shot it, saying I felt threatened, you would not care, or rather you would understand?

imported post

openryan wrote:

No.

If you are going to leave your home with your handgun, put it in a holster, if you are leaving with your dog, put it on a leash.

No matter the size of the animal ( said certain dogs are more dangerous than other pets, not that dogs under 40lbs are not dangerous), it can be dangerous, whether it attacks, is not up to date on shots, has a disease, rabies, whatever.

If your dog was not on a leash, and it came onto my property and was running at me, because it liked me, but I shot it, saying I felt threatened, you would not care, or rather you would understand?

Click to expand...

As I said above, if someone lets their dog off leash they need to be responsible for the consequences (they're still responsible if it's on leash, but you get what I'm saying). If my dog is off leash and attacks someone, I'm liable. If my dog is off leash and runs at you, then you kill it thinking it was a threat, I'm still responsible (assuming circumstances warranted your actions). By letting my dog off leash - or even owning a dog at all - I'm responsible for it. It doesn't matter whether it is leashed or not, I'm going to have to pay the piper if something happens.

Just as you say, no matter the size of the animal, it can be dangerous. So why don't we have leash laws for cats? What is protecting me from bears, elk, or rabid squirrels? Aren't these wild animals a lot more likely to, as in your example, have rabies and be unpredictable? Is my dog any more of a threat than a strange guy walking the neighborhood? What protects me from the strange guy if he's not on a leash? If the strange guy minds his own business and causes no harm, why should I demand that he somehow be restrained?

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

I must say I found it rather interesting to find a self professed libertarian saying that all dogs should be kept on a leash. I consider myself pretty libertarian and as long as the dog doesn't hurt you, I see no reason for it to be leashed at all.

I am a dog owner (two boxers) and my dogs stay on leash. But, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to let them off leash, realizing that if they harm someone I am liable. And that would cut both ways. If they attack someone, I would be liable. If they run up to lick someone, but that someone shoots them thinking they are a threat, the weight would still be on my shoulders.

I view leash laws similar to gun laws. They're there "to protect you", but the ones you need protection from probably won't be operating under the law anyway.

Click to expand...

You mean like the unleashed dogs running up to me? Should it be okay to have sex with a ten year old child? Should all dogs run loose? Or should people be responsible for their animals? There shouldn't have to be leash laws, pet owners should be responsible enough to keep their dog on a leash, but they don't. You have totally sidestepped the responibility of the pet owner and placed the blame on me because I had the nerve not to like a friggin' pit bull running up to me. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE DOG'S INTENT. I see a dog running up to me, I cannot know what is going to transpire. I am going to tell the owner to leash that animal. When the dog violates my personal space, and I feel threatened I am going to warn the owner off. All I was armed with was some pepper spray and I could not have quickly gotten to it.

Why should I risk injury because of an irresponsible owner? The owner should have kept it on leash, there should not have to be a law to legislate common sense. The owner and his friend had no cause to curse and swear at me either when I told him to call his potentially dangerous animal off. I did not yell, I did not scream, I calmly and firmly told him to call the dog off.

If I demand a person take responsibility for their possibly dangerous animal, I should not have to suffer verbal abuse, nor be called on the carpet for having the gall to demand the man take responsibility for his animal.

imported post

openryan wrote:

Next time drive to work -- Run it over.

Click to expand...

The dog or the owner?