[meandog]

I’ve been attacked before and the owner was nowhere around. Nothing happened to the owners and I was the bad guy for making the city take their sweet angle away. As I got older my brother couldn’t even go outside alone because another neighbor got a “harmless” dog that wouldn’t stay in their backyard. It’s sad when you have to walk your family out to the car with a loaded pistol pointed at a growling Rottweiler standing in your yard. It took the city months to finally haul that one away. Thank God everyone kept their children locked in their houses. So you guys are saying that I should just deal with it and not make a fuss huh?

No, I am saying that if you face a situation that you describe you have a perfect right to shoot the dog--SO LONG AS YOU'RE BEING ATTACKED--attacked means that you're not on your neighbor's property unless invited, that you're not exacerbating the situation of a dog protecting what it perceives as its territory, and that if it is merely barking at you as you pass by you don't perceive that than more than it is: a warning.

[mutantcoil]

I feel that I should not be forced to make those decisions about animals in a suburban neighborhood. What happens if no one is there to defend a child? Shouldn’t kids be able to go outside and play without fear of animal attacks? When these dogs get out of their enclosures, as the often do, they defend their territory as you say. What if a child wonders into that unfenced yard, as children do when they play?

[cspackler]

No, I am saying that if you face a situation that you describe you have a perfect right to shoot the dog--SO LONG AS YOU'RE BEING ATTACKED

So, if my neighbor has a dog that decides to sit in my yard and growl and snarl at me, I don't have the right to kill it? Guess again, my family is more important than anyone's dog.