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.

"Paul Brumman" wrote in message
...
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.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Paul Brumman" wrote in message
...

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 ****y about bang-bang noises. But, regardless
of where you are, it's never ethically wrong to value your kids over a
threatening dog.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:38:27 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Paul Brumman" wrote in message
...

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 ****y 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...

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y 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.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y 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...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y 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.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y 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.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:18:50 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

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.

In article , wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:50:03 -0600, Duane Bozarth
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Besides - he's in Texas. If he were in California or some new-england
state, people might get ****y 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.

"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

Thu, Nov 17, 2005, 7:47pm (EST+5) (Dave*Hinz)
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.

On 17 Nov 2005 14:52:55 -0800, Too_Many_Tools 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?

Point of correction, Owning a gun is a RIGHT.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
"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

.....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?

Go find someone else to fight with Dave...I stand by what I said.

Pull a trigger only if you are willing to be fully responsible for
whatever happens....same thing goes for driving a car, owning a dog,
etc.

TMT

Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.

If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.

TMT

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.

"Vic Baron" 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.

In article .com, "Too_Many_Tools" 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.

In article .com, "Too_Many_Tools" 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.

In article .com, "Too_Many_Tools" 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.

On 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
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 Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:10:22 -0800, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.

If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.

If it were a right, felons and children would be allowed to vote.

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

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Actually owning a gun is a PRIVILEDGE.

If it were a RIGHT, felons and children would be allowed to own them.

TMT


It is a right, read the constitution.

A right that can and is taken away is a priviledge.

As for reading the Constitution, try reading the so called Patriot Act
first.

TMT

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.

TMT

Voting is a privilege as is gun ownership and having a driving license.

All can be revoked by the government if you don't behave.

If you doubt me, try misbehaving and see what happens.

Get back to us with the results...that is after you get out of prison.

TMT

In article .com,
"hylourgos" 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

"MrAnderson" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:09:40 -0500, George wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?

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

"Too_Many_Tools" 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.

(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.

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

Excellent point about the education aspect of this subject.

TMT

In article ,
Larry Blanchard 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