PDA

View Full Version : Another one for NRA's Armed Citizen page


Wernher von Browning
06-15-2011, 1:10 PM
From Lake Forest, CA:

http://www.ocregister.com/video/v/87010635001/news-lake-forest

"Mom shot dog that attacked her daughter"


Another example of:

a gun being used as a legitimate, useful tool
when seconds count, the police are only minutes away
why citizens need to be able to carry outside the home. The dog doesn't know from property lines and such an attack could happen anywhere.

morfeeis
06-15-2011, 1:24 PM
She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

rjf
06-15-2011, 1:36 PM
Oh Oh and independant thinking woman not relying on the government to to save her. Good shoot. Dog owner needs to pay medical and provide a box of ammo.

stitchnicklas
06-15-2011, 1:46 PM
She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems with the owner in the past?

your nra card is hereby revoked,please mail any guns owned to mayor bloomberg asap..........:D:TFH:

Fate
06-15-2011, 1:47 PM
Honestly, I'm all for putting down wild dogs. However, this is a BAD shoot. Mom needed to come to her kid's aid WITH the gun, not go back out after it when all were safe.

Which Way Out
06-15-2011, 2:06 PM
Never mess with a Woman's kids !!! Never.

IMO she did what any parent would of done years ago. (Back in the good old days). Yes her kids were safe and she did not have to open the door. But I like her argument that other kids are not far away. If that dog had seen anything move in a nearby yard then it most surely would have attacked it.
Just imagine she's in the house and someone else happens down the street to see what all the fuss and noise is about. The dog goes after the person with the same results. Now this lady is ready to run out with a gun and drop the dog with the victim very close by.
I must say good kill.
On the other hand if it were a person outside the door that had done anything such as hurt the kids and could not get into the house, then opening the door and shooting would be a bad Kill. Even though the person probably deserved it.

BTW nice gun.

daveinwoodland
06-15-2011, 2:08 PM
Personally knowing the dog had bit someone I would want to be sure to make the animal available for rabies testing. Better a dead healthy dog that bit someone vs. making anyone go through the rabies treatment. I say good shoot and let animal control test for rabies.

Wernher von Browning
06-15-2011, 2:13 PM
Oh Oh and independant thinking woman not relying on the government to to save her. Good shoot. Dog owner needs to pay medical and provide a box of ammo.

That's how I see it.

She didn't need to shoot. But she did everybody a favor. (And infringed on police union's turf -- "WE run the protection rackets around here! If everybody just helped themselves, we'd be outta jobs!").

This shoot would be different if it were a human and she came out of the house just to shoot him/her/it. But as a dog, good shoot. Good shooting too.

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 2:21 PM
To all nay sayers: that dog was a potential killer. This women did the right thing for her neighbors.

She had EVERY reason to believe that dog would injure or kill the next child it encountered. What is wrong with some people here? Think, then post.

Rich Keagy
06-15-2011, 2:27 PM
I agree with WvB and rjf.
Mom should home school and home carry too!
A gun on the hip would keep the students' attention.

mag360
06-15-2011, 2:27 PM
She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

she was worried about other kids in the neighborhood. Sounds good to me.

Wernher von Browning
06-15-2011, 2:32 PM
Apparently this is an old story. The OC Register video does not make that clear. But here's an ancient story.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Lake-Forest-Dog-Attack-911-Call-94606024.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=7450645

9mm Glock... Lady doesn't mess around.

1859sharps
06-15-2011, 2:37 PM
She had EVERY reason to believe that dog would injure or kill the next child it encountered. What is wrong with some people here? Think, then post.

Exactly.

What someone else would have done. what someone with training and experience dealing with dogs would done. All irrelevant. what is relevant is was her conclusion and actions based on that conclusion in that moment reasonable.

While I may not have chosen the same actions she did, I think she was being reasonable. particularly if she fired one shot. which seems to be the case. did I missing anything indicating otherwise? single shot to me indicates someone who didn't panic or became irrational. it would support the indication she assessed and concluded a greater threat and took controlled and reasonable action.

anyone of us could be in a position to pull the trigger someday. we all hope that when that day comes others will give us the benefit of the doubt. creating that "culture" starts right here with incidents like this.

meaty-btz
06-15-2011, 2:50 PM
Never mess with Momma Bear. Good shoot.

Aldemar
06-15-2011, 2:58 PM
Personally knowing the dog had bit someone I would want to be sure to make the animal available for rabies testing. Better a dead healthy dog that bit someone vs. making anyone go through the rabies treatment. I say good shoot and let animal control test for rabies.

Beat me to it.

Agent Orange
06-15-2011, 3:55 PM
At least she made out better than this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/3hua9oy

The Shadow
06-15-2011, 5:03 PM
She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

Honestly, I'm all for putting down wild dogs. However, this is a BAD shoot. Mom needed to come to her kid's aid WITH the gun, not go back out after it when all were safe.

Never mess with a Woman's kids !!! Never.

IMO she did what any parent would of done years ago. (Back in the good old days). Yes her kids were safe and she did not have to open the door. But I like her argument that other kids are not far away. If that dog had seen anything move in a nearby yard then it most surely would have attacked it.
Just imagine she's in the house and someone else happens down the street to see what all the fuss and noise is about. The dog goes after the person with the same results. Now this lady is ready to run out with a gun and drop the dog with the victim very close by.
I must say good kill.
On the other hand if it were a person outside the door that had done anything such as hurt the kids and could not get into the house, then opening the door and shooting would be a bad Kill. Even though the person probably deserved it.

BTW nice gun.

That's how I see it.

She didn't need to shoot. But she did everybody a favor. (And infringed on police union's turf -- "WE run the protection rackets around here! If everybody just helped themselves, we'd be outta jobs!").

This shoot would be different if it were a human and she came out of the house just to shoot him/her/it. But as a dog, good shoot. Good shooting too.

Interesting arguments on both sides. But I'm thinking, you could apply the argument to a human being as well. What I mean is, if the logic is, it's okay to shoot the dog to avoid it attacking anyone else in the neighborhood, then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous. On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being. The dog was faster and smaller potentially making it a faster and harder target to hit. Of course that didn't happen, but how would you know that until you committed yourself to that action ?

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 6:33 PM
On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being. then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous.
What's far more dangerous than a dog trying to maul small children?
But ok, I'll play: If a criminal had taken a few random shots at some neighborhood kids, and he was still armed in front of my house, and there were other neighborhood kids at risk, would I be justified in opening my door and aerating his wardrobe to save those kids? If anyone has to think about this for more than a second or two, I would respectfully question their decision making ability in a threat/no threat situation. Remember, the threat doesn't just have to be directed at you.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what some folk's idea of a clear and present danger IS. Seriously, If it's that foggy for a person, how how can they expect to make a split second decision if that time should ever some (God forbid)?

There are definitely plenty of threat scenarios that may be wobblers, but this, IMO isn't one of them.

Scream_4637
06-15-2011, 6:34 PM
She home schools 6 kids = shes a nut case.....

all kidding aside, no one was in immediate danger, everyone was already safe inside the home. Why not just call the police and let them take care of it? sorry in this case i dont think she "HAD" to fire a shot.

Things i need to know
did she know the dog?
had there been run in's with the dog in the past?
has there been any problems wih the owner in the past?

I agree!

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 6:46 PM
It true, she didn't need to save those neighborhood kids from being maimed or killed. No legal obligation whatsoever. But morally she did what she should have done, and it was clearly legal behavior.

1st5
06-15-2011, 6:49 PM
Good shoot.

Which Way Out
06-15-2011, 7:03 PM
What's far more dangerous than a dog trying to maul small children?
But ok, I'll play: If a criminal had taken a few random shots at some neighborhood kids, and he was still armed in front of my house, and there were other neighborhood kids at risk, would I be justified in opening my door and aerating his wardrobe to save those kids? If anyone has to think about this for more than a second or two, I would respectfully question their decision making ability in a threat/no threat situation. Remember, the threat doesn't just have to be directed at you.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what some folk's idea of a clear and present danger IS. Seriously, If it's that foggy for a person, how how can they expect to make a split second decision if that time should ever some (God forbid)?

There are definitely plenty of threat scenarios that may be wobblers, but this, IMO isn't one of them.

Very well said. One of the reasons I like CalGuns:thumbsup:

jmust1991
06-15-2011, 7:04 PM
IMO she did what any parent would of done years ago. (Back in the good old days). .

^This

My Father shot and killed a boxer for chasing cats around our property when I was a little boy......I say good shoot

Mulay El Raisuli
06-16-2011, 5:33 AM
Interesting arguments on both sides. But I'm thinking, you could apply the argument to a human being as well. What I mean is, if the logic is, it's okay to shoot the dog to avoid it attacking anyone else in the neighborhood, then why wouldn't you do the same to a human being who could potentially be far more dangerous. On the other hand, why would you go outside and risk attack by a dog, if you wouldn't go outside and risk being attacked by a human being. The dog was faster and smaller potentially making it a faster and harder target to hit. Of course that didn't happen, but how would you know that until you committed yourself to that action ?


In addition to the clear & simple case presented by Maestro Pistolero, I'll add that that shooting a human being always a different thing than shooting an animal. That's why you cannot apply the argument to shooting a human being.


The Raisuli

Flintlock Tom
06-16-2011, 8:00 AM
I agree that it was a "good shoot". However the follow-up was not.
It appears, in my opinion, that she gave too much info after-the-fact.

When questioned I would have said:
"The dog attacked my children." "I shot the dog."

period

ArmedWolf
06-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Story of Old Yeller, Good shoot? Bad shoot?