BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Louve00 quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Louve00 If he was fearless enough to fight off a dog or dogs, especially if he got passed them, then that, to me, would be determining your life could be in danger. But, you gave the guy a chance to stop, put his hands up and face you as a perpetrator, not an aggressor, you took a stance more people should. With several dogs chewing on you, you want us to believe that you would put your hands up and say I give up while he gleefully let the dogs have a little snack...roflmfao....how droll What's droll here is your comprehension of what my words meant. Since you obviously aren't a mindreader, or even someone who can understand the meaning of 'a different approach', I will take a couple of words to see if then you might understand what I was saying. Turning dogs loose on an intruder, when you have the means to blow their life away with a weapon, is the "humane" way to deal with someone who is not as civil and refined as the person deciding not to make it an automatic deadly invasion. Actually, no, I wouldn't expect him to get up after a dog attack and be able to talk about anything. But he would be alive today to apply his experience of the attack, and possibly remember what it got him. All I'm saying is being rational in an irrational scenario could be golden. If you prefer not to be golden, then that decision is yours. A large dog, or in his case large dogs can kill a man, and it is a lot less humane that a couple of rounds in the chest.
< Message edited by BamaD -- 5/18/2014 3:17:40 PM >
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|