Attacking dog shot by man

[jody]

Attacking dog shot by man
QUOTE
A pit bull mauled a 3-year-old boy and bit his mother repeatedly before being shot to death by a man driving past the family's rural yard in Chatom.

Corey Kelley said he saw Shonda Busby in the yard Wednesday and at first thought she was playing with the dog. He turned his truck around for another look and saw blood.

"The closer I got to her, I could see the blood on her, the bite marks on her arms," he told the Mobile Register."I pulled up to her and said, 'Are you alive?' She said, 'Yes, get this dog off me. He's biting me, he's killing me.'"

Kelley drove home, called 911 and grabbed his .22 rifle. He said he was unaware Busby was lying on her 3-year-old son until after he shot the dog.
UNQUOTE

Kelly called 911, gun grabbers may complain because he didn’t wait until the sheriff or police arrived!

[China_cat]

1. This line is such bullshit.

Kelly called 911, gun grabbers may complain because he didn’t wait until the sheriff or police arrived!

Whether a gun, a board or whatever came to hand, nobody is just going to allow someone else to be savaged in front of them unless they're a total nut job.

[jody]

2. The article said Kelly drove home, obtained a rifle and returned

to shoot the dog.

Would you have jumped out of the truck, picked up a board and attacked the dog?

[China_cat]

4. Yes, I would have.

I could not have let it continue without trying to do something about it. Maybe having extensive experience with dogs colors that, because I know where to place the board to redirect the attack (having had to break up numerous dog fights over the past 30 years) but even if I didn't, I just couldn't have NOT tried to stop it.

[jody]

5. Good for you but some gun grabbers who post on this forum expect

law enforcement to do the job.

I believe most officers responding to a call would bring handguns and perhaps shotguns. Neither of those tools were appropriate for the specific task of placing a precision shot in the dog's head.

A rifle was the proper tool because other guns would have placed the victims in great danger.

I accept your extensive experience in breaking up dog fights, but how many 100 pound pit bull fights have you broken up?

Self-defense is a personal problem and each person in most states is free to choose the proper gun, often a handgun because of its compact, lightweight features.

[China_cat]

7. How many 100 pound pit bull fights have I redirected?

2 They tend to lock their jaws and if you can redirect them on to an inanimate object instead of a person or another dog, you can drag them away in relative safety to yourself.

As for other dogfights, too many to count over the years with dogs bigger than most pits. Worst fights have been between 2 female Bouviers. And one between a Bouv and a Rottie. I've gotten my share of bites, too. But nobody else has ever been hurt by one of my dogs.

-I- will not have a gun in the house or anywhere near me. But please understand that that is a choice I make for me and only for me.

[HEyHEY]

10. 100 pound pit bull?

What was it born next to a nuclear reactor?

[jody]

13. American pit bulls weigh between 22-110 pounds and greater. Perhaps things

are physically much smaller up Canada way. I'm sure Canadian female pit bulls would not complain about meeting a robust American male pit bull.

See http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

[iverglas]

18. will someone pleeeeeease ask

some gun grabbers who post on this forum expect law enforcement to do the job.

... who jody is talking about this time?

Me, I'd have gone at the dog with my shoe, if that's all I had handy. This tale is one of the silliest I've heard in quite a while, I must say. Drove home and got his rifle ... wot a hero.

[starwolf]

35. That is funny

You clearly have never dealt with pit bull in full attack mode

[Rachels Dozer]

104. I second that!

They obviously never have.

[iverglas]

105. oh dear

Perhaps it was regarding as insulting to refer to moi as a plural entity ...


Quick edit to head off the sarcasm-impaired. I imagine the name was regarded as considerably more offensive than the possible slight against moi.

[alwynsw]

3. I must disagree

considering comments made previously by members of this board. There are those that feel, according to comments I've read in other threads concerning firearms, that the use of firearms by anyone outside the military or law enforcement should be prohibited.

I agree that almost anyone would do whatever is necessary to save another in a situation like this.

I'm very happy that things turned out as they did. There was no small risk that Kelly could have hit Busby as well as, or instead of, the dog.

That being said, I know a number of people I'd trust to make the shot. Given the circumstances, were I Busby, I'd have trusted almost anyone to try it. Better a chance of being hit than the certainty of continued mauling.

Both are lucky the .22 penetrated the dog's skull. I've seen a couple of glancing blows on shots such as this on wild game that temporarily stunned rather than killed.

Kudos for Kelly and prayers for Busby and her son.

[goju]

8. Yep

I shot a rattlesnake with a 22 when I was a kid, from about 15 feet away. Didnt even penetrate the skin and just pissed off the snake. I guess they are mostly muscle so its not a good comparison, but Id still say he was lucky.

[pretzel4gore]

6. why did mom attack the poor dog?

esp. with the lil kid there? humanity wants it both ways: to be recognised as THEE BIG ONES in creation (or existence, if you will) while poor lil innocent victims when lesser creatures suddenly develop, like the 'pit bull' here or the shark/gorilla/wolf/killerwhale of old, independence, greed, monstrosity and bad fukking manners nor consistant with being 'seen and not heard'....
we need to teach dogs (and other critters) how to use guns etc, to defend themselves only, of course....

[HEyHEY]

9. He drove home and got the gun? HORSEHIT

I bet he had it in his truck with no permit or something

[jody]

11. Sorry, a permit for a long gun is not required in Alabama. Alabamians

recognize each person's right to defend them self against crime.

Alabama's state constitution says: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state" and "That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

Many Constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas agree that the issue of Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is a state's right issue.

Perhaps you have a different opinion.

[HEyHEY]

15. My opinion?

We have a different view than you.

Your idea is everyone has a gun on them so no-one messes around. Our idea is if everyone has a gun on them at all times....there's more of a chance of crime. I'd say homocide figures in the US and Canada support that argument.

[Retired AF Dem]

16. Your argument is wrong

guns or no guns just the population difference between the U.S. and Canada would shoot your theory all to hell.

[iverglas]

20. wtf??

guns or no guns just the population difference between the U.S. and Canada would shoot your theory all to hell.

Do you have the smallest inkling of a clue?

Are you actually saying that you imagined someone was saying that Canada's homicide numbers, e.g., are lower than the US and that this is a meaningful fact? Fuckin' duh, eh? Yup, you take a country with 1/9 the population of another country, and chances are it has fewer homicides ... and fewer cars, and fewer houses ... and fewer people.

Homicide RATES might be a little more to the point, and more likely to be what someone might be referring to when making a comparison, do you think?

The actual numbers are out of date, but the ratios have not changed considerably:
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/canus/default_e.asp
(emphases in original)

Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

... Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

... Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

[Retired AF Dem]

23. "Do you have the smallest inkling of a clue?"

A legend in your own mind.

[iverglas]

24. if only I had your crystal ball

I might find it so much easier to be nice in the face of foolishness.

Who knows? Well, if I had a crystal ball, I guess I would.

Guns or no guns we would still have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world.

And that has ... what? ... to do with the statement you made previously ...

Oops, sorry. That's a loaded question. You can't tell me what it has to do with the statement you made previously, because it has nothing to do with the statement you made previously! Forgive me.

I don't disagree that it is highly likely that, absent guns, the US would still have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world (assuming no guns anywhere else too, of course).

I also have no doubt that, absent, guns, a quite large number of the homicides that have occurred in the US would not have occurred.

And I for sure have no doubt that anyone who might claim to disagree with that statement has either bullets for brains or an axe to grind.

And I'd wonder, in either case, why s/he really just didn't give a damn about the people who are dead for no good reason, and the people who will be dead for no good reason.

But you know. That's just moi.

[MrSandman]

25. "Bullets for brains"

I've missed that quote.

[Retired AF Dem]

26. You can never have enough bullets

brains help but bullets help more in some situations.

[MrSandman]

38. Three pages of threads...

When using that as a search item. Only two since 9/04. Almost once a week last summer. Mebbe the AWB sunset had somethin to do with it.

[alwynsw]

33. The actual numbers are out of date,

but the ratios have not changed considerably:

What? You're using inaccurate numbers to solidify your point? Or - are you deliberately disseminating inaccurate information?

You state that the ratios have not changed considerably. Upon what do you base that statement? If there are current numbers to back that up, trot them on out of the barn and let's take them for a ride. If current numbers are not available, how do you reach your conclusion that the ratios have made no considerable change? If you're the one spared by a drop on either side or the one who dies because of an increase, then the ratios are quite considerable for you.

[iverglas]

41. such sadly inadequate memories hereabouts

What? You're using inaccurate numbers to solidify your point? Or - are you deliberately disseminating inaccurate information?

Oh no, Paco! It's a false dichotomy!

Option 3: what I said: the ratios have not changed considerably. Where on earth would you get the notion that I was either using inaccurate numbers or disseminating inaccurate information, and why on earth would you publicly advance that notion without a shred of evidence to support it?

How often have I cited recent Statistics Canada data on homicide and violent crime in Canada? Do one of those gold star searches for "statcan" and see. What a bad job I've been doing of disseminating false information and concealing the truth.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm

2003

The national homicide rate dropped 7% in 2003. The rate of 1.73 victims per 100,000 people was the lowest in over three decades. The homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s.

... Canada's homicide rate was about one-third that of the United States (5.69). It was also lower than England and Wales (1.93), but slightly higher than France (1.65) and Australia (1.63).

... There were 161 homicides committed with a firearm, accounting for slightly less than one-third (29%) of all homicides. This was similar to previous years.

The use of rifles/shotguns to commit homicide continued to decline. Rifles/shotguns accounted for 20% of all firearm homicides in 2003 compared with about 40% a decade ago.

There were 109 homicides committed with a handgun in 2003, slightly more than the average over the past decade. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm homicides in 2003 and 59% of all gang-related killings.

Now hmm. Guncite's stats are a little out of date too (see table):
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I find 2002 statistics for the US, so I'll fetch the 2002 stats for Canada instead:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm
The problem we have here is that, as you may recall:

Part of the increase in 2002 is a result of 15 homicides that occurred in Port Coquitlam in previous years and that were reported by police in 2002. Homicide counts reflect the year in which police file the report.

The total number rose by 29 in 2002 over 2001, but 15 of those 29 were homicides that occurred before 2002 (some possibly in 2001) and were discovered in 2002.

Police services reported 582 homicides in 2002, 29 more than in 2001. As a result, the national homicide rate climbed 4% to 1.85 homicides for every 100,000 people, compared with 1.78 in 2001.

Just over one-quarter (26%) of homicides were committed with a firearm last year, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, firearms accounted for 40% to 50% of all homicides. This proportion has generally been decreasing since 1974.

... Handguns accounted for two-thirds of the 149 firearm homicides in 2002, up from about one-half during the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990. The 98 homicides committed with a handgun last year were consistent with the annual average over the past decade.

There has been a declining trend in the use of rifles and shotguns; they now account for only one-quarter of all firearm homicides. A total of 37 homicides were committed with a rifle or shotgun in 2002, substantially fewer than the previous 10-year average of 67. The remaining 14 firearm homicides were committed with other types of firearms.

So, I'll make a table:

Homicides by weapon type
Handgun -- 98
Other gun -- 51
Total firearm homicides: 149
Non-firearm: 531
Total homicides: 582

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
I'll combine all non-firearm homicides into a single figure for comparative purposes. (I note that handgun homicides were higher in 2002 than in 1999, 2000 and 2001.)

Homicides by Weapon Type
Handgun -- 8,286
Other gun -- 2,538
Total firearm: 10,824
Non-firearm -- 5379
Total homicides: 16,203

Population of Canada, 2001 census: 30,007,094
Population of US, 2001 (extrapolated from 2000 census figures): 285,000,000
Ratio of pop of US to pop of Cda: 9.5:1.

So, for a quick calculation, I'll divide US figures by 9.5 to get equivalent figures, adjusted for population.

Ratio of firearm homicides in the US to firearm homicides in Canada
1139:149, or just over 7.6 to 1.

And what did the 1987-1996 calculation I cited say?

Firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times higher in the United States than in Canada.

And what did *I* say?

The actual numbers are out of date, but the ratios have not changed considerably ... .

Damn, eh? I wouldn't call a change from 8.1:1 to 7.6:1 a "considerable" change.

Now, ratio of non-firearm homicides in the US to non-firearm homicides in Canada:
566:531 or just under 1.1:1

And if we knock out those 15 pre-2002 homicides:
566:516 or still just under 1.1:1

So yes indeed, the US:Canada ratio is no longer what it was in the previous time period:

... Rates for non-firearm homicides are nearly 2 times higher in the United States than in Canada.

The rate of non-firearm homicide rates has apparently dropped more in the US than in Canada. Of course, the ratio for all homicides is still a little out of whack:

1705:582(567) on an adjusted-for-population basis. Or, a homicide rate about 3 times higher (as the StatCan report said).

If the US had a firearm homicide rate equivalent to Canada's, there would have been just over 1400 firearm homicides in the US in 2002. There were 10,824.

In Canada, in 2002:

Part of the national decrease in the use of firearms to commit homicide was related to the decline in gang-related killings. Gang-related homicides are more than twice as likely to involve firearms as those not involving gangs.

Gang-related homicides are significant for our purpose because of handgun involvement:

Of all the handguns used to commit homicide that were recovered by police since 1997, about three-quarters (72%) were not registered. Where ownership could be determined by police, the handgun was owned by the accused in 49% of these homicides and by the victim in 3%; the majority of the remaining handguns were stolen or borrowed.

Virtually all of the handguns used in homicides in Canada were illegally owned (not registered or stolen). And gang-related homicides have certainly increased in Canada since the earlier time period, undoubtedly accounting for virtually all the increase in handgun homicides.

Now, I did note the robbery rate ratios in the earlier time period as well:

Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. ...

Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. ...

and there's some interesting recent data there.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

The robbery rate declined 3% in 2002, continuing a downward trend. About half of the almost 27,000 robberies were committed with a weapon. The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992. Robberies committed with a firearm now account for one in every eight robberies.

For the US:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0266.pdf

Total robberies: 458,460
Committed with firearm: 25.6%
(handgun: 20.5%; other firearm: 5.1%. Other weapon, 21.4%)
Robberies with firearm: 117,365 (calculated)

In 2002, there were 26,700 robberies in Canada, a rate of 85/100,000 population, and a decrease of 3.1% from 2001. The US:Cda ratio (adjusted for population):
50940:26700 or 1.9:1
-- is again, a little lower than the 2.4:1 ratio for the earlier time period.

To get the rate for robbery with firearm, I'll use the rough "1 in 8" figure given by StatCan to get 3,337. The ratio of robberies with firearm in the US to robberies with firearm in Canada is:
12352:3337, or 3.7:1
-- this time a little over the 3.5:1 ratio for the earlier time period.


So, to summarize:

- the ratio of firearm homicides in the US to firearm homicides in Canada in 2002 has dropped slightly (from 8.4:1 to 7.6:1)

- the ratio of non-firearm homicides in the US to non-firearm homicides in Canada in 2002 has dropped by nearly half

- the ratio of firearm robberies in the US to firearm robberies in Canada has risen slightly (from 3.5:1 to 3.7:1)

- the ratio of non-firearm robberies in the US to non-firearm robberies in Canada has dropped slightly (from 2.4:1 to 1.9:1)


And the glaringly obvious facts remain

- the US firearm homicide rate is more than 7 times higher than Canada's (a slight drop)

- the US handgun homicide rate is nearly 9 times higher than Canada's (a substantial decrease from the previous ratio of 15 times, partly because of a slight drop in the US but more because of a slight rise in Canada)

- the US firearm robbery rate is more than 3 times higher than Canada's (a slight rise)

- the US total homicide rate is 3 times higher than Canada's



And what fun. If you click on any of my StatCan links, you might get to complete a survey and enter a draw to win a copy of "Canada: A Portrait". What an opportunity to learn something, eh?

[goju]

43. For all your efforts

The stats still just dont say much. Canada has always had a lower homicide rate, firearm or nonfirearm, than the US. Same with most western industrialized nations.

I wonder if urbanization, drug use, gang activity, and some other things have had an effect on those numbers?

[alwynsw]

45. And your point is?

Your newest figures are from 2002. How can you possibly state that the ratios haven't changed much _ current tense - when there are no published numbers to support it.

Nice long post you made there to prove my point.

You're always screaming for accuracy, yet you use numbers that are over 2 years old - or more - then make a statement about ratios for which the supporting numbers have not been published and expect us to take it at face value.

I doubt that the ratios have changed a great deal, but I'll not state it as fact without solid research to back it up. To do so would be reckless at best.

If you're stating your opinion, please make it clear that it's your opinion. Anything else is less than honest.

Of course, there is a question begging to be asked. Between the time of the study you quoted in your post and the time of said post, Canada's great and draconian answer to firearms ills via registration and licensing began. If, as you have stated in the past, this grand greatly lowers gun crime, why, IYO, is there no considerable change in the ratio of same between the U.S., which has no such nationwide scheme, and Canada? Is the great plan not working so well?

In closing, as you and otheres on this board - myself included - have so often insisted upon; if you're going to spout numbers, back them up. If you're going to opine, editorialize away and isentify it as opinion rather than fact.

[iverglas]

47. ah, "proof"

Your newest figures are from 2002. How can you possibly state that the ratios haven't changed much _ current tense - when there are no published numbers to support it.

Quite easily, actually. Amazingly enough, I don't generally expect sea changes in the world to occur when there just haven't been tsunamis.

If you'd like to go find some 2003 US statistics to compare to the 2003 Cdn statistics I did present, feel free. Here are the 2003 Cdn stats summarized, as released in July 2004:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm

Maybe you're aware of the work that statisticians and such like people do. They work with figures that are provided to them by the sources who collect the figures. They spend a bit of time building databases, and then analysing the data they have. And the statisticians in question very often have a number of such operations assigned to them.

That's why, in Canada, for instance, Statistics Canada's figures for 2004 crime rates in Canada will be available beginning in about mid-2005. And why the most recent figures I could provide you for Canada were for 2003, given that they are the ones that became available starting in mid-2004. You'll note that the two issues of "The Daily" that I cited for homicide figures were released in late September and early October of the following year for the year in question.

Perhaps the US DOJ has released figures for 2003; as I said, I didn't find them. I am quite sure that it has not released figures for 2004.

But given that I haven't noticed all the swords in the US being beaten into ploughshares in the last 30 months, or all the lions thereabouts lying down with the lambs, I just have no basis for speculating that huge changes in homicide and robbery rates, and firearms homicide and firearms robbery rates, have occurred thereabouts.

Do you maybe? I didn't think so.

I doubt that the ratios have changed a great deal, but I'll not state it as fact without solid research to back it up. To do so would be reckless at best.

Sorry, but no, it wouldn't be reckless in the least. It would be eminently reasonable, given that there is absolutely no reason in the world to speculate otherwise.

Between the time of the study you quoted in your post and the time of said post, Canada's great and draconian answer to firearms ills via registration and licensing began.

Not remotely so, and it really is high time that you got your timelines straightened out.

The time period in the earlier study was 1987-1995 (1989-1995 for the non-firearms homicide figures cited). During that period, the firearms control measures in effect in Canada were far stricter than any in the US.

Allow me to dredge the bookshelf behind me. Here I have the 1978 (I won't go back to the 1974) and 1994 Criminal Codes, just to grab a couple of relevant ones. In 1978 (actually, proclaimed in force in 1979), a firearms acquisition certificate was required by any individual who wished to acquire a firearm, and certain individuals were barred from obtaining FACs (e.g. people with certain convictions, treatment for a mental disorder associated with violence). Only those individuals could acquire "restricted weapons", on certain conditions, and those weapons (basically, handguns) had to be registered; automatic weapons were prohibited.

If you doubt my veracity or the accuracy of my reporting, do ask google. You would be looking for "Part II.1" of the Criminal Code of Canada, 1978 (sections 82 et seq.).

I don't know where you folks get your notion that the basic elements of firearms control in Canada -- the regulation of types of firearms and the licensing of firearms owners -- is a recent phenomenon.

In 1994, we find similar provisions. FACs are still the standard for authorization to acquire firearms. Special permits are still required for possessing restricted weapons (e.g. handguns), there are still penalties for transferring firearms to people without FACs, etc. It is an offence to deface a serial number, to use a firearm in the commission of an offence, to fail to turn in a found firearm, etc. There are regulations regarding storage.

There simply was no enormous change in Cdn firearms laws and regulations in the last 30 years -- except for the institution of the firearms registry, and the universal requirement for licences to possess firearms (i.e. even for people who had lawfully acquired a firearm at some time without an FAC -- and with a requirement that basic firearms training be completed). I believe the more stringent storage and handling requirements were imposed at the same time or soon after. The Firearms Act in question was enacted in 1998.

The final deadline for acquiring a licence was the end of 2000.

The final deadline for firearms owners to register the firearms in their possession (i.e. firearms other than restricted/prohibited firearms, which had long been subject to a registration requirement, as we have seen) was the end of 2002. As well, transfers that occurred earlier than that would have had to be registered at the time of transfer, I assume.

If, as you have stated in the past, this grand <scheme?> greatly lowers gun crime, ...

Where exactly have I stated this, and what exactly have I said?

I have stated that there is an unmistakable correlation between firearms crime/homicide rates in Canada and the stringent firearms controls (that have long been in place) and between firearms crime/homicide rates in the US and the absence of any serious firearms controls there.

Presence of stringent firearms controls correlates with low rates; absence of controls correlates with high rates.

... why, IYO, is there no considerable change in the ratio of same between the U.S., which has no such nationwide scheme, and Canada? Is the great plan not working so well?

Exactly what effect do you imagine that these measures should have had in approximately 2 years? Did you maybe think that all of the illegally-possessed firearms (unregistered firearms or firearms in the possession of unlicensed owners) in Canada disappeared in a puff of smoke on January 1, 2003? The border suddenly became impervious to smuggling? Force fields appeared around all the firearms in private homes and businesses so that they could not be stolen?

The legislation is plainly prospective. It is designed to prevent the kinds of actions and transactions that it is understood correlate with higher rates of crime, injury and death (keeping in mind that reducing accidental and self-inflicted injury/death is also a goal of the measures). If we consider, for example, the safe-storage requirements and requirement that transfers be registered, the evidence that firearms have been kept out of criminal circulation might not be visible until 5 years later, when the firearm that would otherwise have been stolen by or transferred to someone who intended to use it to commit a crime or cause injury/death isn't used for that purpose, because s/he does not have it.

On a quick news google:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4pRRoaWe9moJ:morningsun.net/stories/030105/loc_20050301002.shtml+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(The point has nothing to do with the country; it is that stolen firearms -- and firearms in general -- remain in circulation for years or decades.)

Doil Nolan Cummins, 23, of Pittsburg, was booked into the county jail at 4:50 p.m. on Saturday for possession of stolen property, murder in the second degree, intentional, criminal possession of a firearm and criminal use of weapons.

... The handgun allegedly used was reportedly stolen in 1991.

It's going to take probably quite some time to see any effect from safe-storage or transfer-registration requirements.

You will, I am sure, recall the Toronto police study that I have cited I don't know how many times, indicating that firearms used in crimes in that city tend to be (a) of USAmerican origin and brought into Canada illegally or (b) stolen from lawful Canadian owners. A licensing system and firearms registry won't really plug either of those holes. But, combined with safe-storage requirements, they can ultimately be expected to reduce the number of firearms that are delivered, one way or another, from the hands of those law-abiding gun owners into the hands of the less law-abiding.

Nonetheless, it sure is interesting that the robbery rate declined 3.1% in 2002 from 2001, and "The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992", in Canada, isn't it? (Keep in mind that "robbery", which is theft+assault, includes unarmed purse-snatching.) Handguns really are the weapon of choice for armed robbery, and handguns have just been increasingly hard to get one's hands on over that time.

But, from the 2004 report concerning 2003:

The rate of robberies rose 5%, the first gain since 1996. This included a 10% increase in robberies committed with a firearm. Of the more than 28,000 robberies in 2003, 14% involved a firearm, 38% were committed with a weapon other than a firearm, and nearly half were committed without a weapon.

That's 1 in 7, up from 1 in 8 in 2002, robberies committed with a firearm. Again, the vast majority of those firearms were illegally in the possession of the individuals who committed the robberies, and the vast majority of those were either smuggled or stolen.

One might still quite reasonably advance the proposition that the firearms controls historically in effect in Canada have had an effect on the rate of firearms robbery in Canada, and perhaps even on the overall robbery rate. It is absolutely too soon to even guess whether the most recent strengthening of firearms control measures will have additional effect. And it is nothing short of disingenuous to suggest that the failure to observe such an effect in the short time since that change indicates anything at all.

If I stop eating ice cream today, I really don't expect to be a size 2 (as if I wanted to be) tomorrow. Why you would expect (or say or imply that you expect) to see a relatively minor change in firearms laws (universal licensing, a really rather minor change, and registration) over a three-year period produce some gobsmacking change in offences committed with firearms a year later, I have no idea.

[alwynsw]

56. Here we go 'round in circles.

You made an assumption. Own up to it and be done with it.

There are no statistics to either prove or disprove your position that there has been no considerable change.

As to timelines: Considering that Canada's regressive firearms control history dates back farther than I realized merely serves to solidify the notion that it's a worthles boondoggle since, in your opinion, there has been no considerable change in the murder ratios.

[iverglas]

61. mieladomtplwppqwr.

Emtoa;;.r. Orekqokrepa elalemtoas. Unatnoekmar toie topieajt, eotpaw es tpsp mcgspa -- eotjsml.

And the earth is flat.

And the fact that for the entire time that Canada's more stringent firearms control measures have been in place the entire range of indicators that would normally be considered in assessing rates of crime and violence and other forms of firearms-related harm in a society have had values waaaay below those in a neighbouring jursdiction where no such measures have been in place is proof that they have no effect.

Well, like I said. Okey dokey. And dogs are human beings. Oh, and feel free to pretend you believe that that, and everything I said in the preceding paragraph, were not said sarcastically.

And feel free to keep pretending that a demonstration that your ignorance of facts led you to state ludicrous and false conclusions was actually a demonstration that you were right all along. I will in fact expect no less.

[alwynsw]

69. Keyboard malfunctioning?

I suppose that excuse will work as well as your usual obfuscation and razzle dazzle, er B.S. routine.

And the Earth is flat?

No flatter than your attempts at dodging the facts.

[HEyHEY]

30. Ever hear of "ratios"

You're still WAY up there


I bet you'd love to just shoot me

[Retired AF Dem]

31. "I bet you'd love to just shoot me"

No I have been carrying a gun for 31 years. Never shot anyone I didnt agree with.

[HEyHEY]

32. I was just ribbing you on that one

In the spirit of things

[alwynsw]

34. Operative phrase:

Never shot anyone I didnt agree with. What about those with whom you agreed?

I love that line!

[Billy Ruffian]

12. It was in Alabama

Without even looking it up, I'd bet $10 US that no permit was required to have it in his truck (if he did)

[alwynsw]

14. No permit needed

'Bama may have gone red, but they've got their priorities straight on home/self defense and shooting recreation.

[Retired AF Dem]

17. Alabama isn't all the way there yet

since it is a may issue state and not a shall issue state.

[starwolf]

36. Have to wonder

If it was a shall issue how much of the injuries would have been prevented.

[iverglas]

19. and just by the bye

Once we've blown the as yet unsubstantiated and apparently false "gun grabbers who post on this forum expect law enforcement to do the job" straw idiot over, what are we left with? What exactly *is* the point of posting this story here?

The individual in question, while hardly a hero, apparently lawfully possessed a firearm, retrieved the firearm from its appropriate place and used it for an appropriate purpose. Whom were you expecting to have a problem with this, jody?

[Retired AF Dem]

22. What are you saying?

are you a closet pro-gunner? :)

[Retired AF Dem]

27. You just love to imply that us pro gun guys are stupid

and yet you always reply to someone that you know has you on ignore. Tough call on whom is more stupid.

[iverglas]

28. well, as long as the subject has come up

you always reply to someone that you know has you on ignore

(a) I don't post here for the benefit of any particular individual. While I don't doubt that anyone who has me on ignore would benefit from reading what I post, I'm also certain that there are loads of others who will also benefit.

(b) If I were to believe that everyone who has me on ignore actually doesn't read what I write, I'd be as gullible as ... well, there were those folks who believed that tale of the accountant in Boca Raton who shot the kid in the back and claimed to be defending himself ...

I mean, some people will just believe anything. And maybe some people believe that putting other people on ignore actually means that those people actually care; or maybe they just cease to exist. There's just no accounting, is there?

[Retired AF Dem]

29. I personally know Jody

and I know how active he is in AL on promoting the Democrat party. I dont know you so the jury is still out.

[iverglas]

53. that's nice

Nothing to do with what I said, of course. What you said in response to what I originally said had nothing to do with that, either, but I did actually address it nonetheless. Please don't feel any obligation to reciprocate by actually addressing anything I've said when you respond to my posts.

[iverglas]

21. and of course

Decent, reasonable people from any camp in the firearms control debate could support measures that might be expected to prevent the need for the use of firearms in such situations in the first place.

http://toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=pitbull-ban050302

Ontario pit bull ban passed
Last Updated Mar 2 2005 02:20 PM EST

Toronto – A controversial bill to ban pit bulls passed in the Ontario legislature Tuesday, and now requires only royal assent before becoming law.

The legislation prevents people from acquiring a number of breeds of dogs classified as pit bulls, and requires those who already own the dogs to neuter and muzzle their animals.

(And, sigh, for any of the less-educated among us, the requirement for "royal assent" does not mean that the Queen has to be persuaded that banning pit bulls is a good thing. It means that the Lieutenant Governor of the province has to sign the legislation before it comes into force ... and any Lieut.-Gov. who tried to exercise an executive veto over the expressed will of the people, through their elected legislators, would find a whole lot of very surly ... unarmed ... members of the public surrounding his/her official residence, and find him/herself looking for new accommodations right soon.)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/02/pit-bull-050302.html

Teenage girl charged in pit-bull attack

Last Updated Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:06:22 EST

OTTAWA - A 17-year-old girl has been charged with criminal negligence after three pit bulls attacked a toddler and his father in Ottawa last week.

The teenager, who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was charged with three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm on Tuesday – the same day Ontario approved a ban on pit bulls and similar dogs.

The dogs jumped the fence and attacked a two-year-old boy and his father as they walked through a park on Feb. 24. One pit bull clamped down on the boy's head before the man and his neighbour managed to beat the animals away. The adults were badly bitten.

(edit: that was Lieut.-Gov., not Lieut.-Gen. I had Gov.-Gen. on the brain. The Lieut.-Gov.s and Gov.-Gen. are appointed by the Queen, after being selected by the Prime Minister/Premier and his/her cabinet. Her Majesty is an expert at rubber stamping.)

[alwynsw]

37. Really?

Decent, reasonable people from any camp in the firearms control debate could support measures that might be expected to prevent the need for the use of firearms in such situations in the first place.

I don't agree. The pro RKBA camp is generally in favor of unrestricted freedoms. That includes pet ownership.

You might have stated it a bit better had you qualified positions on the pit bull ban. Decent, reasonable folks in my neck of the woods have issues with any vicious or uncontrollable dogs. We don't generally banish an entire breed because a few owners have caused their dogs to be mean. That reasoning is akin to the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"

What are your thoughts concerning people of the same "breed" as the shooter in the recent RCMP deaths? If they hold with your obvious support of the pit bull ban, all people of that race and/or ethnicity should be banished from the province.

Oh. That's right. It's different. All animals of a given species have exactly the same temperament and tendencies, except humans.

Tell me another tale.

[MrSandman]

39. Are you forgettin the popgun totin Chuk Norres wannabes?

All animals of a given species have exactly the same temperament and tendencies, except humans.

[sir pball]

40. Hmm...

Replace "pit bull" with "assault rifle"...

[iverglas]

42. well, like I said

Decent, reasonable people from any camp in the firearms control debate could support measures that might be expected to prevent the need for the use of firearms in such situations in the first place.
I don't agree. The pro RKBA camp is generally in favor of unrestricted freedoms. That includes pet ownership.

Well, haha, I guess all I can say is res ipsa loquitur.

And don't be complaining about the crocodiles in my moat and the tiger by my side.

We don't generally banish an entire breed because a few owners have caused their dogs to be mean. That reasoning is akin to the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"

Yes indeed. A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.

When will someone give me a pair of those funny spectacles? I'm sure that apples really are orange, and oranges really are red; if only I had the right prescription, I'd be able to see the evidence in front of my eyes.

Oh. That's right. It's different. All animals of a given species have exactly the same temperament and tendencies, except humans.

Actually, if you have a little time, I can provide you with a dissertation on some of the rather more relevant differences between human beings and animals. We could start with the fact that human beings have what we all "mobility rights" under the Canadian Constitution:

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

...

... and dogs don't.

[Billy Ruffian]

44. A very important difference

And don't be complaining about the crocodiles in my moat and the tiger by my side.

The difference between your crocodiles and tigers is that they require active control to keep them from harming the people around you.

My firearms will not harm the people around me without active control. They are inert objects, incapable of motion or decision, with no motivations or hunger.

But your funny spectacles can't see that difference.

[iverglas]

48. such very short memories

One has to wonder about the rates of ADD hereabouts ...

The difference between your crocodiles and tigers is that they require active control to keep them from harming the people around you. My firearms will not harm the people around me without active control.

The difficulty here is that we were talking about "pets", and specifically pit bulls. I made no comparison whatsoever between my crocodiles and tigers and your firearms. Good grief. You go ahead and call your firearms "pets" if you like, just don't be involving me, and don't be expecting me to pay attention.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

alwynsw: I don't agree. The pro RKBA camp is generally in favor of unrestricted freedoms. That includes pet ownership.
moi: And don't be complaining about the crocodiles in my moat and the tiger by my side.

Y'see? Being in favour of unrestricted freedoms in respect of pet ownership kind of estops one from complaining about my crocodiles and tiger. Nothing whatsoever to do with firearms. Are you feeling a little less disoriented now, I hope?

But hmm, maybe you were intending to address sir pball, who was the one who replied to my post about the banning of pit bulls in Ontario by saying:

Hmm...
Replace "pit bull" with "assault rifle"...

If you explain to him how pit bulls "require active control to keep them from harming the people around you" and "assault rifles" (?) don't, he may be less confused.

[sir pball]

50. I'm not confused

I was just observing that singling out "assault rifles" for a ban is vaguely akin to banning a particular breed of dog based on the actions of a few individuals of that breed - either ban ALL dog ownership, or punish the owners of damaging animals on an individual basis. Banning a single breed (or better yet, a group of breeds "clssified as pit bulls") is nothing more than a pointless political feel-good measure, same as it was with the AWB down here...I'd be willing to bet that a German Sheperd or Doberman trained like the fighting pit bulls would be just as dangerous.

[iverglas]

52. fascinating (edited)

The only problem is that you posted "a very important difference" in response to my post about pit bulls, crocodiles and tigers, and asserted the "very important difference" between crocodiles and tigers and assault rifles, which no one at all was talking about.

<edit -- forgive me, it was not you who posted that. It was you who initially "compared" pit bulls and assault rifles.>

But what the heck. You are obviously forgetting the very important difference between "assault rifles" and candy floss. Candy floss is soft and tasty, and assault rifles aren't. I'm sure that there will be a conversation somewhere where this info will come in handy, and this important distinction will be relevant.

Happy to play silly non sequiturs any time you like.

Cereally, though; not everything in the world is about guns, and it's often wise to keep this in mind, lest one look obsessed.


Banning a single breed (or better yet, a group of breeds "clssified as pit bulls") is nothing more than a pointless political feel-good measure, same as it was with the AWB down here...I'd be willing to bet that a German Sheperd or Doberman trained like the fighting pit bulls would be just as dangerous.

Good for you! It's always nice to see someone put his/her money where his/her mouth is.

And everything you say would even be relevant if anyone in Ontario had recently been injured/killed by any of those other dogs, or if the danger from such other dogs were as disproportionate to their numbers as it plainly has been in recent years from pit bulls, or if all of the pit bulls involved in the attacks in recent years had been "trained like the fighting pit bulls". In point of fact, of course, none of those assertions would be correct.

Perhaps you really do see the world in such all-or-nothing terms. In which case, once again, I'd expect you to be calling for all speed limits to be eliminated. After all, just as much damage can be done by a vehicle driven at 50 mph as by a vehicle driven at 60 mph, and any speed limit anyone came up with would plainly be as arbitrary as banning the possession of pit bulls.

[sir pball]

54. Actually...

I'd expect you to be calling for all speed limits to be eliminated.
On the proper roads (i.e. limited-access highways), yes, I do think they should be eliminated...matter of fact, I have a habit of pretending they don't exist on the freeway. Cost me a few nasty tickets, but I've never once been in or caused an accident or unsafe situation; speed doesn't kill, idiotic driving at any speed is the danger. Incidentally, I also think there should be places (e.g. drinking establishments, government offices, courthouses) where weapons shouldn't be carried, to nip that argument in the bud.

So...when this ban on pitbulls goes into effect, how long before we start to see other breeds being trained as guard/attack dogs?

[Scout]

55. gosh, aren't there any other breeds being trained as guard dogs...

currently? No dobermans, no german shepherds, no rottweilers. Gee, I didn't know that pit bulls were the ONLY breed being trained as guard dogs.
:eyes:

[jody]

57. How would one write an "Assault Dog Ban"?

Perhaps per cent Pit Bull but a DNA test might not be adequate?

Perhaps length of teeth or strength of jaw muscles?

Would gun-grabbers support appearance -- if it looks evil, ban it?

[iverglas]

62. ah, that's so cute

Laughing at one's own, uh, witticisms.

But to answer the question:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/bills/381/132381.htm
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b132rep_e.htm

Amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act

1. (1) The Dog Owners' Liability Act is amended by adding the following heading immediately before section 1:

Interpretation

(2) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following definitions:

"pit bull" includes,

(a) a pit bull terrier,
(b) a Staffordshire bull terrier,
(c) an American Staffordshire terrier,
(d) an American pit bull terrier,
(e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d); ...

(2.1) Section 1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:

(2) In determining whether a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of this Act, a court may have regard to the breed standards established for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association.

... Onus of proof, pit bulls

(10) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this section that a dog is a pit bull, the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull lies on the owner of the dog.

Damn, that was easy.

If it walks like a duck ...

[Scout]

63. WTF are you talking about?

So...when this ban on pitbulls goes into effect, how long before we start to see other breeds being trained as guard/attack dogs?


Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds? No, I didn't think so. I was responding to the ridiculous assertion (above, in bold) that if pit bulls are banned, people will START training other breeds as guard dogs. Which was ridiculous because other breeds are CURRENTLY being, and have been in the past, trained as such for years.

:wtf:

(see, I can use little smileys too, aren't I special?)

[jody]

64. Were you responding to me? n/t

[iverglas]

66. heh ... I think you might well

have asked jody that question. Was jody responding to you? Not so's I could see ...

Actually, I think you pretty much did.

;)

(oops, edit -- I'm talking to Scout, of course, about jody's post)

[Scout]

67. yes

[jody]

70. I believe it was I who replied to the wrong post. It should have been #54.

:hi:

[Scout]

71. ok

:hi:

[iverglas]

89. ah, jody jody jody

"I believe it was I who replied to the wrong post. It should have been #54."

Oh, what a tangled mess we create for everyone in the vicinity when first we practice to reply indirectly to those whom we want to think we are not talking to.

The post your reply should *really* have been to was of course #52 -- mine own.

Instead, you replied to it indirectly by commenting on it in a post to someone else's reply to a reply to it, when you apparently meant to comment on it in a post to someone else's reply to it. See what I mean?

And just look at the shitstorm that touched off ...

My advice is always to say what one means to say to the person one means to say it to ... or say nothing at all, if that is what one has indicated one means to do. Eh?


(edited to fix word)

[iverglas]

65. and the point being entirely evaded anyhow

is that it would be false to state that all (I venture to say even a majority) of pit bull attacks, for instance in Ontario, which has banned the breed, involved trained "guard dogs" at all.

Whether or not there is an in-bred tendency to attack, the fact remains that the damage that, because of the physical breed characteristics, a pit bull can do and often does do when it does attack far exceeds the damage that most other dogs can and do do.

It's amazing how incapable some people seem to be, or to want to portray themselves as being, of grasping the concept of higher risk.

The risk of attack is higher with pit bulls than with most other breeds of dog (i.e. the risk of a pit bull attacking, not of being attacked by a pit bull, which would depend entirely on the number of pit bulls in the vicinity, is higher), and the harm that one is at risk of if a pit bull attacks is worse than with most other dogs.

When the risk of harm when even one of something is present is high, it makes no sense to allow any of them to be present. My risk of being blown up by a landmine is far lower than my risk of being hit by a car, but that doesn't mean I'll be happier living with a neighbour who plays with landmines than with a neighbour who drives cars.

And when the harm that one is at risk of from something is serious, the same applies. I may be more likely to be hit by my neighbour's badminton birdie on the street (my neighbours tend to play badminton in the street) than to be attacked by my neighbour's pit bull, but I'm rather happier to assume the risk of the former than of the latter.

And yes, I once had a neighbour who kept 2 pit bulls and a Doberman tethered about 30 feet from my bedroom window ...

[sir pball]

81. ...

While I'm not a dog expert by any means, I am quite aware that pit bulls are a particularly nasty breed, more prone to unprovoked attack and to fight to the death (hence the breed name, bulldogs for the fighting pit), but they aren't by any means the only breed that nasty. Does the bill include..uhm..Presa Canarios? (sp?) The way I understand it, those things make pits look like fuzzy little puppies. But again, I'm not a dog expert.

Just out of curiosity, where does "higher risk" end? Nice attempt at a dig...but sorry, I do understand the "concept"; I just think it's far too nebulous and elastic to try and base laws on. Sounds too much like the arguments that people try to use against 50BMGs (to spin the thread back a bit). People who have uncontrollable dogs that attack people...should be charged as if they did the attack themselves. Breed regardless.

[iverglas]

84. well, up here

"People who have uncontrollable dogs that attack people...should be charged as if they did the attack themselves. Breed regardless."

... we just get more jollies from having the people who might otherwise be attacked still living among us, producing and consuming and paying taxes, than from punishing the people whose dogs killed them.

I know, we just don't watch enough Jerry Springer. We haven't yet figured out how it could be better to do nothing and then get all outraged when something bad happens than it would be to do something quite minor and have the bad thing not happen.

Anybody remember that stitch in time? Prevention is better than a cure?

Yup, there are some situations in which the cure is worse than the disease. I'm just not seeing this as one of them.


"Just out of curiosity, where does 'higher risk' end?"

Ah, the difficulties of making distinctions. When does "short" end and "tall" begin? When is it "cold" out? How much is too much?

It's amazing how any of us manage to get anything done, with all the fussing we must go through every time we try to distinguish between something and something else.

How fast is too fast? Should the speed limit on a two-lane highway be 90 km/h, or 80 km/h? We'd better have a Royal Commission<*>, and hear testimony from all the several million people in the province on the question of how fast is too fast. And then maybe we can subtact "1" from each of their answers to get "how fast is not too fast", and add all the results up, and divide the total by the number of witnesses, and get the "correct" place to draw that line. But maybe there are experts whose opinions should count for more, so maybe we should weight the answers. And then we'd have to consider special circumstances ... and have a committee scrutinize the result for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and maybe refer a constitutional question to the Supreme Court before debating the proposed legislation ...

Good grief. Based on the available evidence, and having regard to the various opinions and types of opinions heard, the legislature made a determination about how much risk is too much risk. And also, of course, about how possible it is to reduce certain risks and what methods are likely to do so, how efficiently that can be done and what methods are likely to be most efficient, how intrusive such methods would be and what methods are likely to be least intrusive, how tolerable such methods are to the public and what methods are likely to be most tolerable -- and of course, conversely, what demand there is from the public for risk reduction and what, at least, must be done to meet that demand.

That's what legislatures are for. That's their job. If they overstep their line, the courts are there to knock them back, or there are ballot boxes for the public to do it. If they do too little, in the public's view, again, there are elections.

There are no mathematical formulas for this. No number of dogs divided by number of attacks times average number of injuries plus number of deaths divided by interference with liberty plus cost of enforcement ... (or: substitute cars, crashes, disabilities, insurance payouts, cost of time lost by drivers at low speeds, traffic cops' salaries ...) equals X marks the spot.

Government is a process of making decisions, by people whose decision-making authority is limited by the basic principles set out in constitutions and who otherwise are answerable politically for those decisions. Nobody's going to like or dislike everything they do, but we elect 'em to do it and they have a responsibility both to enact legislation that protects the public and its interests and not to unduly interfere in the public's rights and freedoms. The difficulty of doing something, and the variation in opinion as to whether what is done is "right", just doesn't mean that nothing should ever be done.


<*> Royal Commission: a Cdn joke. Whenever a govt doesn't want to do something, it appoints a commission to study it at great length, in the hope that it will just go away, at least until after the next election. As one site google found me put it, "Who doesn't love a good Royal Commission?"

[alwynsw]

76. Short memories?

See your post # 21.

Decent, reasonable people from any camp in the firearms control debate could support measures that might be expected to prevent the need for the use of firearms in such situations in the first place.


You followed this with a link to a news story discussing a ban on pit bulls in Ontario.

Care to retract this?

Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds?

Considering that this board works in the manner of a slow, free flowing conversation among several participants, it's rather disingenuous to claim that positions have not been taken, regardless of the wording, simply because one must choose a single post for the purpose of a reply.

[iverglas]

77. ah ... long drinks?

<quoting from Scout's post>
<edit: mea own culpa, of course; you were quoting from my post 21, not from Scout's post; duh>
You followed this with a link to a news story discussing a ban on pit bulls in Ontario.
Care to retract this?

You are addressing Scout. Scout did not write post #21, or link to any news story about the imminent ban on pit bulls in Ontario.

Maybe we can take up a collection and buy you 'n jody a package of breadcrumbs each ...

This one is particularly funny, since jody already acknowledged his own slip of the mouse.


Considering that this board works in the manner of a slow, free flowing conversation among several participants, it's rather disingenuous to claim that positions have not been taken, regardless of the wording, simply because one must choose a single post for the purpose of a reply.

It looks like a valiant try to substantiate that allegation about moi evading moi's own words ... but a futile one.

You may now engage in some diversionary grooming ... or just say "oops, my mistake; sorry", a perfectly proper thing to say in such circumstances.

[alwynsw]

78. You know very well who posted #21.

I responded to your post and referenced another post of yours in that response.

Try again. This misdirection effort failed.

[iverglas]

83. I do indeed

"I responded to your post and referenced another post of yours in that response."

Breadcrumbs for sale, cheap.


iverglas Response to Original message
21. and of course

iverglas
Response to Reply #50
52. fascinating (edited)

sir pball
Response to Reply #52
54. Actually...

Scout
Response to Reply #54
55. gosh, aren't there any other breeds being trained as guard dogs...

jody
Response to Reply #55
57. How would one write an "Assault Dog Ban"?
(jody having subsequently clarified that HE replied to the wrong post here)

Scout
Response to Reply #57
63. WTF are you talking about?
... Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds?

alwynsw
Response to Reply #63
76. Short memories?
See your post # 21.
... You followed this with a link to a news story discussing a ban on pit bulls in Ontario.
Care to retract this?


You responded to SCOUT's post -- your post 76 is a RESPONSE TO REPLY #63, which is SCOUT's post -- and you accused SCOUT of saying what I SAID, and asked SCOUT whether she cared to retract what I SAID.

Scout did NOT call for a ban on anything. Scout did NOT need to retract her implied statement that she did not call for a ban on anything, because she did NOT call for a ban on anything.

I DID support the ban on pit bulls (by implication). I did NOT need to retract Scout's implied statement that she did not call for a ban on anything, because I DID NOT make it.


And like I said (that being a colloquialism in which I have no problem indulging), all that you need to say is "oops, my mistake; sorry".

Actually, you need to say it twice:

- once for falsely alleging that Scout had falsely claimed not to have called for a ban on pit bulls (because she never did call for such a ban -- I DID)

- once for falsely alleging that I had falsely claimed not to have called for a ban on pit bulls (because I never did claim not to have called for such a ban -- SCOUT did)


Wouldn't it be nice if you just did it?

[alwynsw]

85. You just don't get the concept of free flowing conversation

albeit said conversation is running in slow motion because of the vagaries of message boards.

I'll go out back and talk to a fence post now. It makes more sense to waste my time with that than to devote more time to this diversion, dissemination, and obfuscation you're ehgaging in.

[iverglas]

86. no ... what I don't get

is why you proposed that Scout retract a denial that she had said something that she never said ... and then accused me of denying saying something I said that I'd never denied saying.

You really might have more luck talking to a fence post. For all I know, a fence post would know the correct response to being asked to retract a denial that it said something it never denied saying ...

alwynsw

Response to Reply #63 ( = POST BY SCOUT)

76. Short memories?

See your post # 21 ( = POST BY IVERGLAS in post 21).

Decent, reasonable people from any camp in the firearms control debate could support measures that might be expected to prevent the need for the use of firearms in such situations in the first place.
(WRITTEN BY IVERGLAS)

You followed this with a link to a news story discussing a ban on pit bulls in Ontario.

Care to retract this?

Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds?
(WRITTEN BY SCOUT in post 63, the post being replied to here)

Considering that this board works in the manner of a slow, free flowing conversation among several participants, it's rather disingenuous to claim that positions have not been taken, regardless of the wording, simply because one must choose a single post for the purpose of a reply.

It's just always a good idea to ensure, as one free-flows along, that one is not accusing others of being disingenuous based on one's own complete failure (apparently) to notice who said what.

I've seldom seen anything so bizarre.

Scout -- correctly -- claims not to have said something she never said.

You ask that she retract the claim not to have said something she never said, and then tell me that what you wanted was for me to retract Scout's claim that she didn't say what I said.

Yeepers. At least fence posts aren't at risk of getting dizzy, I guess.

And talking to a fence post means never having to say you're sorry, I also guess.

[alwynsw]

87. Oh God! Kill me now!

My reply was to you and your statements, as you should be aware. May as well take me out in the field and shoot me for clicking on th ewrong reply link. I'm certain that no one has ever done that before.

Your misdirection is getting very thin. I'm done with this.

[iverglas]

88. nope, still not getting it

"My reply was to you and your statements, as you should be aware."

How on this green earth could I be "aware" that you were replying to me or my statements when what you were talking about was A STATEMENT I NEVER MADE???

You said THIS (to Scout):

Care to retract this?
Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds?

... where the boldface is the line from Scout's post that you were seeking a retraction of.

I DIDN'T SAY IT.

I DID, by implication, support the ban on the possession of pit bulls in Ontario -- you've got that absolutely right.

Scout did NOT, and her question was directed at someone who (by mistakenly replying to the wrong post) had asked HER: "How would one write an 'Assault Dog Ban'?"

She had no idea why anyone would ask her that. The reason someone asked her that was that HE REPLIED TO THE WRONG POST.

I have no idea why you would ask Scout to retract a denial that she said what I SAID. The reason is apparently that you confused her with me. You thought that I SAID: "Did I say anything at all about banning any breeds?"

I DIDN'T. It would have been rather moronic and not particularly honest for me to have said it. I have no idea why you thought I would say such a moronic and not particularly honest thing, especially with cleverboots such as yourself prowling around the free-flowing conversation just dying for a chance to demonstrate that I have contradicted myself or whatever it is you live for.

I SAID what you quoted in the first part of your post to Scout. I followed with a citation of the new Ontario legislation. All as you say I did. Your inference that I support the new Ontario legislation is 100% correct.

I DIDN'T claim, or imply, that I had not said it.

May as well take me out in the field and shoot me for clicking on th ewrong reply link. I'm certain that no one has ever done that before.

You DIDN'T just click on the wrong link. You accused Scout of saying something I had said and denying that she had said it. *OR* (as actually appears to be the case) you accused me of denying something I had said that Scout had denied saying.

You apparently want me to retract SCOUT's implied assertion that SHE did not support a ban on pit bulls.

I CAN'T DO THAT. And I support Ontario's ban on pit bulls, and I have never denied saying that I support Ontario's ban on pit bulls.

So what the fucking hell do you want from me???

So maybe you would just set me some task that I CAN do, and I'll see what I can do to oblige you.

[alwynsw]

90. I'lll oblige.

So maybe you would just set me some task that I CAN do, and I'll see what I can do to oblige you.

Try using common English with posts of fewer than 1,000 words.

Try avoiding spin and deflection when you're called on inequities in your posts.

Climb down off your high horse. You seem dizzy.

You get the idea.

I'm done with this line now.

[Scout]

91. I'm done with this line now.

That's what you said back in post 87...

[alwynsw]

92. An offer was made and accepted.

Aside form that, some folks need to be told twice before it sinks in.

You know the type. They buy multiple copies of a newspaper because they may wnat to read some parts more than once.

[iverglas]

94. accepted?

I agreed to take you out in the field and shoot you for doing something you didn't do??

Never.

Not even for what you did do.

[jody]

97. "read some parts more than once"? They also buy several lottery

tickets with the same number to increase their chance of winning. :hi:

[iverglas]

98. hmmmmm

They also buy several lottery tickets
with the same number to increase
their chance of winning.

Now, I don't buy lottery tickets ever, but I thought there was method to that particular madness.

People wouldn't buy >1 lottery ticket with the same number to increase their chance of winning, they'd do it to increase their share of the pot in the event that the number came up and somebody/ies else had also picked that number ... wouldn't they? I wonder whether somebody else has just managed to miss the whole point all these years ...

A couple of lame-ass attempts at making somebody else look silly, I'd call this couplet of posts. To start with, how many people think, in advance no less, that they might want to read something in the newspaper more than once? Enough of them around to make a joke about? I wouldn't think so. I can only imagine the feat of mental heavy lifting that went into dreaming that particular insult up.

[iverglas]

93. I get the idea

Try avoiding spin and deflection when you're called on inequities in your posts.

You have failed to demonstrate ANYTHING that you have "called" me on, but you're apparently going to keep on making false allegations of something anyow.

I don't actually know what, and now I'm even more confused, since I have no idea how I could have had an "inequity", let alone more than one "inequity", in my posts.

inequity n.
unfairness, bias

Who knows?

You -- as best one can tell -- falsely accused me of denying saying something I had said. (The other option -- falsely accusing Scout of denying saying something she had not said -- appears not to have been your intent.)

You have evinced no inclination to apologize for the false accusation, even though I have no doubt at all that you are completely aware of, and completely understand, what the issue is.

All you ever had to do was say: "Oops; my mistake. I thought the post by Scout was a post by you, even though it was silly of me to think that, and insulting of me to publicly state my conclusions from my silly mistake. Sorry!"

You can say it anytime you like. Or go talk to a fence post. Or keep up the diversionary grooming. You made a silly mistake, you publicly stated an insulting conclusion from your silly mistake, and you are just going to keep making yourself look silly and keep insulting me. No bark off my nose.

I just think the same thing as I think when I catch the cat peeing on my slippers and chase it, and it promptly discovers that it needs a good spit bath and I need a disdainful back turned on me. Obnoxious dimwitted cat.

[sir pball]

80. I'm not THAt dumb.

Oh dear, perhaps I should have specified it was a rhetorical question - of course other breeds have been and are used as guard and attack dogs. The point was, will banning one breed really solve the problem? (That question is actually semi-serious; I'm not familiar with the dog situation in Toronto. Is it just uncontrollable dogs attacking, or is it psycho-criminally-trained-fighting-and-drug-lab-guarding-dogs-gone-wild like the Whipple case a few years back?)

[iverglas]

82. Toronto

Actually, it's Ontario. The legislation is provincial, equivalent to state. (Some municipalities in Canada have already made by-laws prohibiting pit bulls within their boundaries. And the evidence is that attacks have decreased. Cause and effect? Who ever knows?)

There have indeed been attacks by other dogs. One particularly nasty recent one was by a bull mastiff, owned by ... drumroll ... a lawyer. He was just shocked, and the poor fellow will never own another dog after his bull mastiff killed the neighbour's kid. He'd never heard of a bull mastiff doing such a thing. Well ... how many bull mastiffs might there be in Ontario? Not a whole damn lot, methinks.

The point is that there are various characteristics about pit bulls that make a prohibition on owning them, in particular, rational. They include:

- the terrible damage that a pit bull attack can do, which, because of their physical characteristics (size, strength, jaw structure), and arguably their temperament, is worse than most other breeds

- the fact that a high proportion of their owners are not "responsible"; the breed attracts that kind of owner, and there's no reason to ignore that reality

- the fact that the risk of attack (ratio of number of attacks to number of dogs) is higher than with most other breeds

I really just don't understand the problem with this.

Dogs are not human beings. They are domesticated animals. They do not have a right to life. People kill domesticated animals all the time: because the people want to eat them; because the animal is sick; because the animal is vicious; and sometimes, distasteful as it may be, because the animal is inconvenient.

And these dogs are not even being killed, for pity's sake. The existing dogs are being made subject to specific requirements (e.g. muzzling in public, being spayed/neutered, being registered), and no further dogs of the breed may be produced in or imported into Ontario.

Nobody is "blaming the dogs". The dogs are not being punished. Nothing is being done to the dogs at all, beyond what is normally and commonly done to domesticated animals: their reproduction is being controlled, and their "liberty" is being restricted. All by their owners, and just as all owners of domesticated animals do to all their domesticated animals.

Dogs don't have a right to life. Dogs don't have a right to liberty. Dogs don't have a right to reproduce. Dogs don't have a constitutional right in Canada to move between provinces.

If you read the legislation that I provided a link to,
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/bills/381/132381.htm
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/b132rep_e.htm
(quoted in post 62) you will see that it amends existing legislation, the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

There are already provisions requiring dog owners to be "responsible", and punishment for owners whose dogs cause injury. Prohibiting the possession of one breed of dog isn't going to make anybody think that it's just fine to let any other dog or breed of dog wander around attacking people, or that no other dog or breed of dog could possibly be dangerous.

People, of course, unlike dogs, do have rights. People have a right to own dogs, subject to whatever restrictions on the exercise of that right a society might see fit to impose, and be able to justify. Given that the right to own a pit bull really isn't one of those great big fundamental rights (although it is of course an exercise of the right to liberty), and that there appears to be quite sufficient reason for prohibiting people from owning them -- and how the purpose of the legislation is to prevent deaths, a purpose that the legislation can reasonably be expected to achieve, and a purpose that is just slightly more exalted than whatever purpose someone might have in owning a pit bull -- I'm just not disturbed by the law.

[Billy Ruffian]

51. Nice gratuitous insult

In the past, you've compared firearms with having tigers.

[alwynsw]

59. See post #58. It's appropriate to this purpose. n/t

[alwynsw]

46. You're slipping. Thanks for the assist!

You have reinforced my position so well, I just had to thank you.

A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.

The operative word here is "a". "A" - singular - case by case, if you will. "A" dog. Not the entire breed.

And don't be complaining about the crocodiles in my moat and the tiger by my side.

Why on Earth would I complain about your choice of pets or working animals? So long as you care for them properly and control them, you have every right, IMO, to have whatever animal you wish.

We could start with the fact that human beings have what we all "mobility rights" under the Canadian Constitution:

Well now. Therein lies the rub. In fact, the Canadian Constitution applies to fewer than 10% of the residents of N.A.

So. What was your point again?

[iverglas]

49. well okey dokey

A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.
The operative word here is "a". "A" - singular - case by case, if you will. "A" dog. Not the entire breed.

Not forgetting to see the sarcasm dripping from my statement, of course, we will rewrite it to your taste:

A requirement that all dogs of a particular breed be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing all dogs of that breed, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.

The "operative word" was very definitely not "a". It was, very obviously, "dog".

In fact, the Canadian Constitution applies to fewer than 10% of the residents of N.A. So. What was your point again?

Hmm, lemme think. As I recall, it might have had something to do with the fact that dogs are not human beings. And, in case you're wondering why I would bother pointing out something so obvious, let me point out something I would have thought equally obvious: dogs do not have rights.

Getting it at all?

I mean, quite apart from the fact that the law in question doesn't even provide for any dogs to be killed, and how this makes an analogy to

... the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"

rather maladroit ... even if dogs did have rights.

[alwynsw]

58. Spin, spin, spin

"I said it but I didn't men it. No, uh, wait. I said it but I meant something completely different. No! Wait! Let's claim that were were being sarcastic! That's the ticket!"

The conversations within your head between you and yourself must be quite entertaining.

[iverglas]

60. what the fuck are you on about *now*?

You liked my statement:

"A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed."

... which was a sarcastic response to the stupid assertion that banning a breed of dog was akin to calling for people to be killed ... because you chose to interpret it as referring to some specific individual identified dog:

"The operative word here is "a". "A" - singular - case by case, if you will. "A" dog. Not the entire breed."

Your claim as to what I meant, as purportedly determined by you based on my use of the indefinite article, was not only utterly unfounded and patently false, but bizarrely irrelevant.

The obvious point, unfortunately buried too impossibly deep for you in my statement, it seems, was that DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. It doesn't matter a pinch of poop whether I refer to "a dog" or "dogs" in order to make that point. A dog is not a person, and dogs are not people.

No matter how many dogs we decided to talk about, they would not ever be people. Dogs don't suddenly become people when gathered in a crowd of 10 or more, and a dog all by its lonesome isn't a person.

So there is no bleeding way in the whole bleeding universe that either a requirement that all dogs of any breed or breeds be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing all dogs of that breed or those breeds OR a requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog is in ANY way "like" a demand that human beings be killed.

I just decided to get all agreeable and write the statement so that it couldn't be misrepresented as easily you could understand it more easily:

A requirement that all dogs of a particular breed be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing all dogs of that breed, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed. (sarcasm still dripping)

There is no difference between the two versions of my statement. They are both -- and were both intended to be -- utter nonsense.


"Let's claim that were were being sarcastic! That's the ticket!"

But wait. It's the statement that the statement was made sarcastically that has you in a tizzy?? (You say now, despite your previous claim that I somehow slipped up and made a true statement by saying that banning "a dog" was equivalent to calling for human beings to be killed?)

You're actually standing here in public with your handle clearly visible on your post, for the world to see, claiming that you believe that when I said

"A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed."

you believed I was stating something that *I* believed?

Even though the entire passage went like this (the boldface representing the statement I was replying to) --

We don't generally banish an entire breed because a few owners have caused their dogs to be mean. That reasoning is akin to the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"
Yes indeed. A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.
When will someone give me a pair of those funny spectacles? I'm sure that apples really are orange, and oranges really are red; if only I had the right prescription, I'd be able to see the evidence in front of my eyes.

-- ??

Well you have my deepest sympathies. I can see how red your face is from here, even with my plain old trifocals. How embarrassing for you, indeed.

But returning to our sheep: I do hope you understand by now (in reference to my actual response to what you actually said) that no, "a" was not the operative word in anything.

Dogs are not human beings. Prohibiting individuals from acquiring dogs (or a dog -- you see, it just makes no difference) of a certain breed is not equivalent to calling for the murder of any human beings at all.

And only a very confused person ... or a very sarcastic person ... would say it was.

[alwynsw]

68. As with AA, admitting the problem is half the battle.

We'll all be waiting for your admission that you either mis-speak or deliberately blur your comments so as to leave an easy out when you're called on them.

It's O.K. Really. We understand. Now put down the halo and go back to the the puck factory.

[iverglas]

72. you really are too much

... and much as I despise AA, you might want to take your own advice.

First, you invent a quibble with my sarcastic statement that banning "a dog" is like demanding the killing of human beings ... and claim that because of the way it was worded, it was actually a correct statement rather than an intentionally nonsensical statement:

The operative word here is "a". "A" - singular - case by case, if you will. "A" dog. Not the entire breed.

and your statement made no sense in any universe I am familiar with, even with the patent misreading of what I wrote.

Banning "a dog" IS NOT LIKE demanding the killing of human beings.

You know what I think?

I think you didn't bother reading what I had written at all. I think you had a hobbyhorse that you were intent on riding -- that there is something horrific and appalling about banning a breed of dogs altogether -- and you just latched on to the initial segment of what I had written (A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog) as your cue to jump on that horse and ride it for all it was worth.

The unfortunate thing for you is that your pet equine had not the first thing to do with what I was saying. What I was saying was equally "true" (i.e. completely false) REGARDLESS of whether I said it about "a dog" or "a breed of dogs". Banning EITHER "a dog" or "a breed of dogs" IS NOT LIKE demanding the killing of human beings.

You should probably practise reading complete sentences, and maybe parsing them so that you grasp what they actually mean, before attempting to respond to them.

The entire balance of what you have said has been premised on my having somehow mispoken myself when I said "a dog" rather than "a breed of dog", when it had MADE NO DIFFERENCE which I said, because a dog is no more a human being than dogs are human beings.

No wonder you went on to say something as vacuous as:

Well now. Therein lies the rub. In fact, the Canadian Constitution applies to fewer than 10% of the residents of N.A.

You had

(a) chosen to ignore that the ban under discussion -- there being, oddly enough, something under discussion -- occurred in Canada, and so the Canadian Constitution was directly and unavoidably relevant, no matter who else it might not apply to;

and

(b) entirely failed to comprehend (or acknowledge, although in this case I think I'm going with "comprehend") my original point, which was that DOGS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS and accordingly have no rights whatsoever, whether under the Constitution of Canada or one of jody's pet US state constitutions or any other document that might conceivably be relevant to any ban on any dog or breed of dogs anywhere in this universe.

So, just in case it's not clear ...

So. What was your point again?

DOGS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS.

And a society may ban a dog, or six dogs, or a breed of dogs, or all dogs, without any fear of ever being rationally or honestly likened to a society that says "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!", the assertion that banning a breed of dogs is the same as saying "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!" being what I was responding to, and BEING FALSE, although in the two-dimensional space of the line between one post and another, you seem to have lost track of that fact.

Not, as I said, to mention the fact that nobody has called for, let alone legislated, the killing of any dogs at all ...

We'll all be waiting for your admission that you either mis-speak or deliberately blur your comments so as to leave an easy out when you're called on them.

And as usual, I'll be waiting for the least iota of evidence that I have done any such thing, either in this instance or in any other.

The problem in this instance, as in most any other you might think of, is that someone failed to remember that a bunch of words stuck together in the form of a sentence actually go together and should be assumed to mean something as a whole that might not be apparent from their constituent parts, and to notice what they actually meant instead of riding off half-cocked after losing the train of thought partway through.

Maybe you can just tell me exactly what you imagine that the underlined sentence in this passage actually meant:

<quoting post being responded to>We don't generally banish an entire breed because a few owners have caused their dogs to be mean. That reasoning is akin to the worst racial and ethinc biases. "A purple person committed murder! Kill all purple people!"

Yes indeed. A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.

When will someone give me a pair of those funny spectacles? I'm sure that apples really are orange, and oranges really are red; if only I had the right prescription, I'd be able to see the evidence in front of my eyes.

I shall try not to die of curiosity while waiting for a coherent response.

[alwynsw]

73. I've let it slide, but you're the one who took up dog rights.

I simply defended the right of an individual to own his/her pet of choice.

We have definitely arrived at your address.

[iverglas]

74. well, like I said

... waaaaay back there ...

Yes indeed. A requirement that a dog be sterilized and muzzled, and a prohibition on importing a dog, is exactly like a demand that human beings be killed.

How you could have managed to misunderstand such a simple statement (the bizarre statement that had in fact been made by the person I was responding to, in more colourful terms) would be beyond me.

Why you would have wanted to misrepresent such a simple statement would be similarly beyond me.

Which of those two occurred, you don't want to tell me.

I can understand why. And I'll live.

[alwynsw]

75. Misrepresent?

I simply read it as written. Use your gold star to look it up.

well, like I said

Were you meaning to say, "As I said?" If so, I comprehend. If not, you're a bit short of information. What or who was like what or whom? Was what you said like something or someone or was something or someone like what you said. I'm puzzled.

[MrSandman]

79. Who would dare take sarcasm literally?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x100860#101010

[MrSandman]

95. This is way more fun than...

Pup shoots man, saves litter mates

[iverglas]

96. I think I was sick that week

That must be why I missed that one. I'm not sure whether I liked it better that way ...

Now surely you didn't miss this one: Man Bites Dog!

Earlier this month at a shopping mall in Edinburgh, a blind man was seen apparently attacking his guide dog, in fact allegedly biting the animal. Animal lovers have been stunned by the incident.

The Guide Dogs organisation today said that the animal had been withdrawn from its owner pending investigations of the allegations against him.

Lothian and Borders Police today confirmed that a man has been charged with breach of the peace and a charge of animal cruelty. He's been reported to the procurator fiscal and will appear in court at a future date.

"Procurator fiscal". And some of you thought that Canadians said funny things.

But anyhow, none of this is anywhere near as funny as Pellet-Gun Bill. I still have to pee every time I read that fine series.

[iverglas]

99. c'mon folks

The blind guy was British. Obviously, he had to resort to biting his dog because he was British. If he'd been USAmerican, he'd have had a permit to carry a concealed firearm ...

[MrSandman]

100. I only hope his shots were current...nt

on edit.. is that a double entendre?

[beevul]

101. Or this?

"Pit bull came to her aid"


"OTTAWA -- It was about -40 C and Noella Mitchell lay helpless on the handicap ramp leading up to her home. She'd soon be staring into the eyes of a pit bull and thinking she was about to die. The 42-year-old woman, who has Graves' disease, which causes muscular weakness, wasn't able to get up."

""When I saw her I thought I was dead," said Mitchell.""

"But to Mitchell's surprise, Cloe began licking her face and trying to bring attention to her fall. "She sat there beside me, howling and barking.""

""Ontario has become the first province to ban pit bulls. And Mitchell said she used to lock up the dog, but "I will never lock her up again.""

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/03/06/952043-sun.html

*ducks*

[Pert_UK]

102. Utter, utter crap....

"gun grabbers may complain because he didn’t wait until the sheriff or police arrived!"

Just because you put an exclamation mark after it, it doesn't make it true......

Nobody is going to complain that somebody used their gun to protect a woman and her child from an attacking dog in a situation like this. Please stop making such ridiculous suggestions, it just makes you look foolish.

GUN LOVERS MAY COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE 3-YEAR OLD WASN'T ARMED!!! See?

For the record, Pit Bulls are illegal in the UK, just in case anyone was interested...

BTW - this is a very badly written article....a guy turns his truck round to get a second look at a woman playing with a dog? WTF?!?!?

And as IverG pointed out earlier, this guy left a woman being attacked by a dog, drove home, got his gun, came back and shot it........He didn't think to maybe hit it with something lying around to hand? I mean, sure, maybe I wouldn't have had the guts to do it either, but doesn't it sound weird to you that his first reaction was to LEAVE and then come back???

[MrSandman]

103. Heck, Pert, the guy was probably...

Thinking of the headlines:

"Man Shoots Dog" vs "Man in Dogfight."
(sarcasm off)