I'm not sure how people can question whether or not to shoot a dog that is a clear and present threat to life and limb but not question the same about a human attacker. As the son of a vet, I grew up in a gun-free household with animals, raising and protecting baby squirrels, rabbits, etc. We never had fewer than 4 pets in the house. However, I know from experience in the office how dangerous and aggressive animals can be - even bad cats, which are far weaker than dogs, can rip you to shreds. Any animal bearing any number of legs that attempts to attack anyone where they don't have the right to protect things will get kicked, stabbed, or shot if necessary. People don't realize how many aggressive dogs there are out there... to fully understand, you'd have to talk to a guy like my father-in-law, a UPS driver who has been bitten countless times despite assurances of owners and electric fences.
EDIT:That's a great example of why you shouldn't assume! Thank you for sharing.
EDIT:That's a great example of why you shouldn't assume! Thank you for sharing.
Last edited: