TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote: With all due respect, you really have your head in the sand if you don't think there are people out there that:

Are terrified/afraid of dogs.
Harbor a hate for certain types of dogs.
Don't own dogs, and know little about them (except they are scary).
Have children that are afraid of dogs.
Immediately retreat or go on the defensive when a dog approaches (regardless of posture).
Perhaps work in a profession that increases the likelihood he/she will encounter a dog being protective of its master, property or premises.
Perhaps work in a profession that has provided him/her with training in how to deal with large dogs.
Has had a negative experience with a dog, and now regards ALL dogs of a certain breed or size to be a certain threat.

You honestly don't believe there are people like that? You don't think these feelings would influence how a person reacts if approached by a dog?

BigBlueDodge wrote:I want to know what he was carrying (caliber) when he shot the dog. He hit the dog in the head, at near distance and the dog did not die?

On a side note, when I read this story I think of the National Park System gun ban, because I can see the same situation happening there. Guy goes to Yosemite and get's out of car to take picture of buffaloes eating on side of road. Buffalo get's irritated that tourists are around, and buffalo makes a false charge at tourist to assert his space. Tourist construes false charge as an attack, pulls out gun and proceeds to shoot buffalo.

The problem we have is that most people aren't animal biologists and understand animal behavior. In this article, the guy saw that the dog was a pit pull and automatically assumed that it was viscous and threatening. Would he have done the same if the dog was poodle or beagle, or any other breed? Was the dog truly trying to attack his kids, or was he just being curious. I think there are so many better ways for dealing with dogs rather than using a gun. This is an unfortunate case. There is no convincing evidence that the dog was being agressive to this mans kids. His innocence seems to be based on the fact that the dog did get close to his family. Two facts seemed to have sealed the deal, the dog was a pitbull, and the dog got in close proximity to his family.

I fully support drawing a weapon to put down any threat to one's self or family, in the face of an attacker (be it human or dog). But this story just doesn't seem "convincing" that anyone's life was being threatened.