Posted on 02/05/2016 12:28:14 PM PST by nickcarraway
Cops shoot dogs every day in this country. Why should they get to do it and the rest of the government can’t?
They shouldn’t get to do it. (There may be some instances of self defense)
I've put over a hundred animals down- mostly sheep- using a .22. I generally prefer a rifle to a handgun [though a .38 revolver loaded with light target wadcutter loads works okay]
I've never yet had so much as a bleat, woof or moo out of one so headshot. The pupils immediately dilate and *the lights go out* and that's it.
It beats using IV poisons or other alternatives, though I knew one old country vet who was real good at it. I always sent him a Christmas Card and tried real hard not to get him mad at me.
another reason to ban guns.
this sort of violence needs to be stopped.
Well, we are talking pit bulls...
Agreed. A .22LR standard velocity in a single shot “Chipmunk” rifle is my euthanasia weapon of choice. One shot to the back of the head where the spine meets the skull works every time. There is nothing inhumane about it. When its time to put the critters down they’re usually too far gone to feel anything and their suffering is ended.
And they are selectively targeting pit bulls? Good.
Very true a well placed 22lr is very humane and most the times the animals hardly twitch
I agree if done right a bullet can be humane. That said I know someone who put down his own dog with a rifle. Dog died instantly but he said he could never do it to another and still feels bad about it.
This story makes me physically ill. The way we treat unwanted dogs and cats in our society is a national disgrace. The law really should be changed to extend to animals a panoply of rights commensurate with their level of functioning—which is at least as high as that of a preverbal child or people with a disorder that impairs their intelligence.
Well maybe a 9 mm would end the dogs' lives more quickly?
More animal rights ideocracy.
A bullet to the head has been a humane way to end an animal's life for at least a hundred years.
They have even improved on the method using pneumatically fired retractable pins very similar to a pneumatic hammer. They are commonly used in a slaughter house for putting down cattle.
A city of less than 10,000 citizens does not have a lot of cash available to be spending on animal shelters trust me. They need a cheap efficient way to but down pets that people have dumped on the animal shelter. A small town can not afford no-kill shelters and they can not afford the extra cost of injectable euthanizing drugs.
I do not like to see animals mistreated but I also know that government has to rational and cost conscious.
Use a 12 gauge then.
So a dog should have the same rights as a Downs Syndrome Child?
You need to rethink your thinking here.
“extend to animals a panoply of rights commensurate with their level of functioning—which is at least as high as that of a preverbal child or people with a disorder that impairs their intelligence”
Reparations for dogs!! Their humans can be responsible for spending the money wisely. My Westie trusts me completely.
Do you wear leather shoes? Are you a vegan?
This method of killing is fast, painless and humane. You don't like guns. Go away.
My uncle shot dozens of hogs for slaughter with a .22. They all went down just as you say, and we're talking 300+ pound animals here. Of all those there was one exception. Three shots with the .22 and the hog just grunted. He walked back to the house and got my grandfather's .35 Remington. That was it. Turned out the hog had some sort of double skull bone.
I don't mean to insult you but this is a very dangerous idea.
When you equate animals to humans in law you are not elevating animal rights to that of humans you are lowering human rights to that of animals.
They right of human beings was in the United States raised to an unprecedented level when the Constitution was ratified. It has been slowly declining ever since.
For most of human history those in government had absolute power over life and death. The gravitational center of history is always trying to drag the balance of power back to that center where the common man is totally subject to the will of those that govern just like an animal.
Man was made in God's image and we can not elevate animals to that level without dragging man down to the animal's level.
They right of human beings was in the United States raised to an unprecedented level when the Constitution was ratified. It has been slowly declining ever since.
For most of human history those in government had absolute power over life and death. The gravitational center of history is always trying to drag the balance of power back to that center where the common man is totally subject to the will of those that govern just like an animal.
Man was made in God's image and we can not elevate animals to that level without dragging man down to the animal's level.
God's law in the Old Testament told us to treat animals humanly and we are still obligated to do so today. But God separated man from the animals by giving us souls and free will so men must be set above the animals.
As one who was with my pet when she was injected at the vet, I totally agree. As long as you know what you’re doing, a bullet is more humane.
The article fails to point out that many “shelters” use vacuum suffocation to kill unwanted or injured animals. A bullet to the brain or carbon monoxide poisoning is much more humane than that.
The path from barbarism to civilization is slow and circuitous, with many atavistic setbacks (and trolls) along the way. No, we don’t euthanize disabled humans, even when it would be most convenient and cost-effective to do so. For those of us who view our dogs and cats as family members, discarding the splendid animals who end up without homes is equally unacceptable, regardless of how “humane” the method of disposal might be. Those who believe that animals are no more than property are gradually being bred out of the gene pool, at least in Western countries where there are sufficient resources to support a more enlightened and less primitive, backward approach to animal welfare. When resources are scarce, and survival is at issue, it could sometimes be viewed as a rational adaptive strategy to conserve and apportion resources through such extreme measures as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia; but that is not the situation that exists in most Western countries today. These considerations are separate and apart from the religious aspects noted by Pontiac (whose literacy and civility are appreciated); but for those religious people who believe in the souls of animals, these aspects provide further support for expanding the rights of animals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.