I don’t think that can be safely assumed. He went after his pup. I strongly suspect releasing was an accident.
All dogs deserve love. There are no bad dogs; only bad humans.
I have, rather seriously. I still love dogs and want humans to be better caretakers of their pets.
But I took us a bit off topic and would request we return to the topic of the reckless shooting.
Bingo. And not been armed and dangerous to her family and the families around her.
Speak for yourself.
OUR dog IS an absolute angel.
I said that as a joke, but she really is.
The best outcome here was running out into the street to shoot a neighbor’s puppy. How the hell do you even end up in a mindset like that?
In Texas, keeping a piece with you at all times is unfortunately not an uncommon thing at all. I have personal experience with people that do this. The barrier to getting a concealed carry permit are laughably low and someone having a handgun in a purse or backpack is pretty much expected.
As for why people are so fearful that they feel that they need to be strapped at all times? Fuck if I know. I mean I can get it as more of a justification if you’re out in the back country and need to worry about wild animals and such, but this is an EDC kind of thing for many people when they are just going to McDonalds FFS.
and yet she hates me!
( though it is possible that’s more about me than about her 
)
And they’re now on track to remove the permitting process
I’m sorry, but I mean…you are a cat, right?
I know of many people who conceal carry in Texas. Often they don’t mind telling me because I think they assume I do too (I don’t). I’m quite confident most of them are more likely to inadvertantly injure or kill themselves or someone else than have their imagined adrenaline-fueled stand. Many of them probably don’t even actually fetishize shooting people (or pets). They’re just wholly unqualified to tote a gun around.
I assume it’s because they need to be ready to defend themselves from all the other nuts who are strapped at all times.
Funny how “well-regulated” are literally the second and third words of the Second Amendment, yet somehow making guns less regulated is considered a moral victory?
now see, this is why i prefer the 5th amendment over the 2nd.
If she had, the puppy would be dead
At some point, someone will give me an actually compelling reason for civilians to own handguns. Not the delirious fantasies of someone who’s watched too much Fox News or 80’s action movies, or played too much Call of Duty. Not people who prioritize their deadly weapons over their fellow humans, because a legal interpretation of an amendment to an official document written over two centuries ago says they have the right to. Like, actual situations where not only was the presence of a gun a deciding factor in its positive outcome, but where no other solution to achieve a similarly positive outcome was feasible. Because I do not believe such situations exist. And if they do, they’re so vanishingly rare that they’re not worth the decidedly negative aspects of handgun ownership.
I believe my first response on seeing the pup while on my bike would be to pedal faster and get out of the way. Stopping and taking the time to let the pup close ground seems counter productive. On the other hand it seems this lady is suffering from a condition called stupid and she might have had no thoughts at all except, have gun-must shoot.
i hope it’s clear in context that my reply was to someone who thought the problem here was her poor marksmanship.
i think the gun was the problem. not the even person per se, definitely not the dog.
we have ample evidence ( anecdotally and by comparing statistics ) that guns increase the chance for harm and violence in whatever context they exist.
a person who carries a gun around with them has already “agreed” to an outcome that involves death and violence. you don’t carry a gun unless you are ready to use it. you don’t use a gun except to cause serious injury and death.
[eta]
the nra has plenty of anecdotes for you. and i’m sure there are people on the bbs who can provide some.
the problem is that those situations are vanishingly rare when compared to the death and violence resulting from living in a country where we are awash in guns.
people are led to believe that if they are only a “smart” “responsible” gun owner – a good marksman or whatever – they can defy the odds, and their own personal situation can be improved.
it’s completely wrong. but people act this way with respect to things like driving, social distancing during coronavirus ( i feel healthy, so everything’s fine. ), and so many other things as well. like somehow statistics just don’t apply to them.
that’s why we need strong laws because otherwise there’s nothing to stop the individuals who believe they can “game” themselves out of all the inevitable negative consequences of their purchases.
I’mma disagee with you a little.
A person who carries a gun agrees that a situation may arise that will require an outcome that involves death.
I’m not a gun carrier, never have been. I own a few guns to deal with forest pests and “varmints”.
I truly don’t understand folks that fear everything so much they need to carry a deadly weapon at all times. But at it’s core it is a tool/weapon that will only do what it’s user tells it too. The gentlewoman in question is the only one that caused the outcome.
So, just curious - how do we apply the ‘good-guy-with-a-gun’ paradigm here?
It’s called “itchy trigger finger”
Don’t hate Texas because of their stupid mother’s who shoot puppies, hate Texas because of their stupid governor and legislature.
There might be local ordinances that require (as in this case) a citation. Yes. A bit overboard on safety… and yet…
