Do you require more than this, formerkywrestler. Should be pretty sufficient for anyone.

 

One thing to remember, thwarted crimes rarely get reported compared to committed crimes.

 

Exactly, they just make for good stories later on.:popcorn:

When the robber shoots my dog ill need my gun.

When the robber shoots my dog ill need my gun.

 

 

This may a bit cold, but I laughed out loud at that one. :lol:

remove post

Edited August 21, 200917 yr by RowdyRedRam
wasting space

If someone breaks into my house, I'm not sure I'm going to do much damage by holding my dog up and pointing it at the intruder. However, a trigger-pull would probably send a pretty good message.

I disagree...only the unarmed are civilized. The armed feel no compulsion for civility...they have guns and can force do whatever they want...that's their right.

 

Saying because someone owns a gun, they are not civil is as stupid as saying because someone is black, they must be a drug dealer. Both statements are simple minded and show a bias toward a particular group. If you don't like guns, that's fine. It's your right to not like them. What is not civil is to insult a huge number of folks just because they don't think like you do. It has been my experience that the bulk of legal gun owners are some of the most responsible people in society.

I've said it numerous times on here, and I'll say it again.....If someone breaks into my house, I'm shooting first and asking questions later. I don't care if they're armed or not.

 

And there is no way you can convince me a dog is going to have the same impact on a criminal that a bullet in the chest will.

Saying because someone owns a gun, they are not civil is as stupid as saying because someone is black, they must be a drug dealer. Both statements are simple minded and show a bias toward a particular group. If you don't like guns, that's fine. It's your right to not like them. What is not civil is to insult a huge number of folks just because they don't think like you do. It has been my experience that the bulk of legal gun owners are some of the most responsible people in society.

 

There is a smiley at the end of that sentence... why so serious?

I've said it numerous times on here, and I'll say it again.....If someone breaks into my house, I'm shooting first and asking questions later. I don't care if they're armed or not.

 

And there is no way you can convince me a dog is going to have the same impact on a criminal that a bullet in the chest will.

 

I tend to think like you. If you break in my house at night, you're in trouble. I have a wife and two little ones that depend on me for protection and I'm not about to let them down if I can help it.

Honestly, I think a dog is a much better detterent to crime than any gun.

 

I believe many of you are either ignorant or simply ignoring the real point being made.

 

NO ONE believes that if an intruder with a gun ENTERS your house that the dog is going to be a better weapon than a real gun.

 

The point being made and easily discernable to most is that an intruder whose intent is to enter a house in most crimes will think twice BEFORE entering if he hears a dog. Why? Because the dog will wake the owners and the thief will not be able to do what is the most common crime - thievery.

If someone breaks into my house, I'm not sure I'm going to do much damage by holding my dog up and pointing it at the intruder. However, a trigger-pull would probably send a pretty good message.

 

If you had a large dog for protection, I doubt you would want to hold it up and point it at anything.

 

A gun could also get you in trouble, if somehow you get attacked and the gun gets taken away. The intruder might not have had a weapon before, but in that case they would now.

 

I have a pistol with a loaded clip near by at night as well, so I understand why someone would want one and I understand the "I'm shooting first and asking questions later" line of thinking. I feel the same way...but there are risks you take with having a gun.

I believe many of you are either ignorant or simply ignoring the real point being made.

 

NO ONE believes that if an intruder with a gun ENTERS your house that the dog is going to be a better weapon than a real gun.

 

The point being made and easily discernable to most is that an intruder whose intent is to enter a house in most crimes will think twice BEFORE entering if he hears a dog. Why? Because the dog will wake the owners and the thief will not be able to do what is the most common crime - thievery.

:lol: :lol:

 

I don't think this forum covers your criteria.

I've said it numerous times on here, and I'll say it again.....If someone breaks into my house, I'm shooting first and asking questions later. I don't care if they're armed or not.

 

And there is no way you can convince me a dog is going to have the same impact on a criminal that a bullet in the chest will.

Even in Florida, where we have the "My Home is My Castle." law, when you shoot an unarmed man, regardless of what he is doing, you're going to be arrested and go on trial for manslaughter, at the very least.

 

However, the last thing I want to do is shoot somebody. Therefore, I keep a pump action 12 gauge under my bed and shells in my lock box on the night stand. My hope is that the intruder will hear me rack a shell, and hightail it, not push for a confrontation.

However, the last thing I want to do is shoot somebody. Therefore, I keep a pump action 12 gauge under my bed and shells in my lock box on the night stand. My hope is that the intruder will hear me rack a shell, and hightail it, not push for a confrontation.

 

Agreed. Love that sound too.

If someone breaks into my house, I'm not sure I'm going to do much damage by holding my dog up and pointing it at the intruder. However, a trigger-pull would probably send a pretty good message.

 

By the same token, if you're silly enough to restrain your dog from doing his job in that manner, you probably deserve to be robbed.