Print

[Monique]

When the only defensive tool you have is a gun....the answer to every perceived problem for a cowardly gun-nut is obvious.

Takes a "special" person to shoot a dog. 

x2 Although I wouldn't necessarily label all gun-nuts as cowardly. They just rely too heavily on lethal weapons and slaughter as a solution. Mace and pepper spray would be effective most times and no animal (or human) would have to be killed.

I wish there were no guns anywhere, period. I'm sure we'd devise other ways to kill each other, but a world without guns might just be a more peaceful place to live.

[MM1]

Something tells me if a mother's child was in the mouth of a dog (pit or pooodle) intent on killing that child and a gun was within reach of that mother . . . . . that dog would be dead. 


Maybe not.   

[Monique]

If all I could reach was a gun, I'd be more likely to pistol whip the dog or kill it with my bare hands than to shoot toward my child.

[Forsythia]

If all I could reach was a gun, I'd be more likely to pistol whip the dog or kill it with my bare hands than to shoot toward my child.

Good point.  You're probably more likely to hit your child than the dog.

[MM1]

If you were close enough to pistol whip it, you could shoot it.  (And I still say you would)

Hell, even shooting in the air would startle the thing to stop the attack.

I'm not for shooting dogs either.  No way!  But I also say there is an instance when shooting a gun WOULD be the thing to do. 

[livewire]

You guys are hilarious, with your holier than thou attitudes! 


I think it's flat amazing how certain lefty liberal fanatics take what I say out of context, and only read what they WANT to read.  All of you can believe what you want.  Quite honestly, I really don't care what you believe.

I stand by what I said, and the law is on my side, like it or not.  If my life is in danger, deadly force (by ANY means) is justified.  That includes the use of a handgun.

Something tells me if a mother's child was in the mouth of a dog (pit or pooodle) intent on killing that child and a gun was within reach of that mother . . . . . that dog would be dead. 


Maybe not.   

There is NO "maybe" about it, MM1.

I won't beat around the bush.

If the life of a loved one was in danger, and they had a firearm available to eliminate the threat, I believe that ALL of the anti-gunners on this forum would pull that trigger, if that was the ONLY way they could save the life of their loved one. 

NO ONE can honestly say I am wrong.  If the do say I am wrong, they are a liar.

[Forsythia]

I wouldn't. I'm all for people owning guns.  I take after my brother when I say you should be allowed to own a tank.  Still I will never pull the trigger of another handgun for any reason.  Violience is violence any way you slice it. 

[Monique]

You guys are hilarious, with your holier than thou attitudes! 


I think it's flat amazing how certain lefty liberal fanatics take what I say out of context, and only read what they WANT to read.  All of you can believe what you want.  Quite honestly, I really don't care what you believe.

I stand by what I said, and the law is on my side, like it or not.  If my life is in danger, deadly force (by ANY means) is justified.  That includes the use of a handgun.

There is NO "maybe" about it, MM1.

I won't beat around the bush.

If the life of a loved one was in danger, and they had a firearm available to eliminate the threat, I believe that ALL of the anti-gunners on this forum would pull that trigger, if that was the ONLY way they could save the life of their loved one.

NO ONE can honestly say I am wrong.  If the do say I am wrong, they are a liar.

There's no need to get nasty, livewire. We're each entitled to our own opinion.

I suppose yes, if a gun was truly the one and only way to end a threat, then I would likely use it. But that would never be my first choice, or as in your case, instinct. I'm not wired to kill. Maybe that's the difference between us.

[livewire]

I wouldn't. I'm all for people owning guns.  I take after my brother when I say you should be allowed to own a tank.  Still I will never pull the trigger of another handgun for any reason.  Violience is violence any way you slice it.

So, you would rather watch your child get eaten alive by a dog?

Yes or no?

[Maverick]

Which brings up the point that if everybody would indeed shoot a life threatening attacker they should take the time to be prepared in advance. Using a gun while under attack is hard enough when sufficiently trained. If you don't have a clue how to properly use a gun you could very well make matters worse. So--- get a gun---and become trained in its proper use.

[livewire]

There's no need to get nasty, livewire. We're each entitled to our own opinion.

I suppose yes, if a gun was truly the one and only way to end a threat, then I would likely use it. But that would never be my first choice, or as in your case, instinct. I'm not wired to kill. Maybe that's the difference between us.

I didn't intend on being "nasty".  But I did intend on making all of the readers take a deep look inside yourselves.  I see you have done that, Monique, and I thank you for your honesty.  Yes, each of us are entitled to our own opinion, and I want to make mine very clear, without certain posters slanting what I said, to suit their agenda. 

Do I have the instinct for self-preservation?  Absolutely.  That "instinct" in me is VERY strong.  I am a survivor.  But it's not an "instinct" to kill.  Rather, it's an instinct to survive.  I don't consider myself "wired to kill", although I do know that if I had to, I would, if it was required to save myself or a loved one.  It would be a last resort, but when things happen quickly, survival is foremost in my mind, not options that MAY, with the benefit of hindsight, have been a better choice.  I know this because that is the way I have been trained, for many years.  In my line of work, I have seen a lot of death, and killing.  It's not something I enjoy, nor do I rush towards it.  But it is not something that I will run away from, either.  Guns are nothing but tools, in my eyes.  I have personally been responsible for providing the tools that have saved dozens (that I know of) of lives.  Those people would most likely have been killed or raped, if they didn't have those tools to protect themselves.  Guns in the right hands SAVE lives.  I know that for a fact.  I have seen it.  And many times, those lives are saved without ever firing a shot.

I suppose it's easy for some people to say, "I would never kill someone, under any circumstances".  But those people probably have never been in a truly life-threatening situation.  They have never looked down the barrel of a loaded gun.  Or looked at the snarling, foaming mouth of a strange dog, as that dog ran towards their child. 

Yeah, it's easy to say.  Until you've seen it.

[eriemermaid]

Which brings up the point that if everybody would indeed shoot a life threatening attacker they should take the time to be prepared in advance. Using a gun while under attack is hard enough when sufficiently trained. If you don't have a clue how to properly use a gun you could very well make matters worse. So--- get a gun---and become trained in its proper use.

LIKE

[Forsythia]

Live if my child was being attacked by a dog, I would physically remove the dog.

[The Fuzz]

Do I have the instinct for self-preservation?  Absolutely.  That "instinct" in me is VERY strong.  I am a survivor.  But it's not an "instinct" to kill.  Rather, it's an instinct to survive.  I don't consider myself "wired to kill", although I do know that if I had to, I would, if it was required to save myself or a loved one.  It would be a last resort, but when things happen quickly, survival is foremost in my mind, not options that MAY, with the benefit of hindsight, have been a better choice.  I know this because that is the way I have been trained, for many years.  In my line of work, I have seen a lot of death, and killing.  It's not something I enjoy, nor do I rush towards it.  But it is not something that I will run away from, either.  Guns are nothing but tools, in my eyes.  I have personally been responsible for providing the tools that have saved dozens (that I know of) of lives.  Those people would most likely have been killed or raped, if they didn't have those tools to protect themselves.  Guns in the right hands SAVE lives.  I know that for a fact.  I have seen it.  And many times, those lives are saved without ever firing a shot.

I suppose it's easy for some people to say, "I would never kill someone, under any circumstances".  But those people probably have never been in a truly life-threatening situation.  They have never looked down the barrel of a loaded gun.  Or looked at the snarling, foaming mouth of a strange dog, as that dog ran towards their child.

Very well stated and rationale that I concur with Live.  This isn't a Left or Right thing to me, but as you stated one of self-preservation and a choice of how one elects to protect their legacy.

Some will always have opinions that are opposing but that's OK.

[Monique]

In my line of work, I have seen a lot of death, and killing. 

Thank you for remaining civil. Much more enjoyable conversation. :0)

Just curious, tho.... As far as I know, you are a crop farmer, an electrician, and a business owner. Where does all the death and killing happen?

Maybe I'll learn to do my own wiring!! lol (just a joke).