Why a working dog is better than a gun - Page 2

This guns issue is really so hard to accept, if you look at outside world, you will see that there is no other country in the world that has the guns/killing issues other than the US.
I am not talking here about other countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria where they have turmoil due to political issues and where they have illegal factions, and what is so called Jihadist etc.
Can you name a west European country having your same issues with guns and repeated massacres due to some one sometimes called crazy, ill or whatever who owns several gun machines with society allowing buying and owning and using guns in the open? CAN YOU? You have a problem with your rules about gun buying, these rules should be changed, it is obvious but strangely so many Americans are against it, why so beats me !!!!

Ibrahim

The purpose and invention of a gun is to kill people. Oh, animals, too. People, though, are the biggest threat. I don't think it is really that easy for everybody to just squeeze the trigger in a self defense situation, let alone have the presence of mind to make it a wounding shot. 

Otherwise, why wouldn't every defensive shot fired be looked upon as bad shooting, if it also made a kill shot? 

I prefer to be the protector of my dogs. They usually reciprocate. We hope to both come out of a bad situation, alive.

Well a dog can be a killing weapon as can a car a knife a hammer and more so according to your point of view nobody should own any of those items because they have all killed. 

There are tools that can kill when used wrongly, like a car. But a car wasn't manufactured for the purpose of killing, it was produced for transport purpose, everywhere you need to have training for driving and getting a license, then there are rules for using roads, tickets,license withdrawal etc and all that is imposed by the GOVERNMENT not individually.
Guns were manufactured to shoot and kill,not for anything else. If someone claims a gun can be used for personal protection, well without strict rules this shall lead to crimes and to misuse. The best is to band owning and using guns for the public and government does its duty to impose security for all, like all countries do except the US obviously.

Ibrahim

I don't fall for that argument, either, Ibrahim, because while some tools can be used as weapons, that is not their purpose. One can use their hands, too for murder.

One can never argue that a gun is not made for killing. A car is made for transportation. A hammer drives in nails to wood. See, don't be fooled, Ibrahim, I am not. 

beetree,

What is more dangerous is this senario:

When there are lots of guns in a country, any problem between varying groups of people will lead to massacres, I know this for a fact, I am watching it happen in our region, just have look at what Muslim hardists did to Christians in Iraq, also what Shia and Sunni are doing to each other, look at Syria and Libya. Those thousands wouldn't have be killed if there were no guns. Naked hands wouldn't kill thousands, but guns would easily.
Lot of weapons were smuggled from Libya to Egypt and with Muslim Brotherhood loosing the presidency and knowing how stupid and narrow minded they are, the country may explode.
No guns in the hands of the public is safer, we know it, you should realize it too. I am certain Americans are more clever than kill each other and destroy their country but to make certain you need better regulations.

Ibrahim

They both have their pros and cons depending on the situation.  My vote is for both.

Dogs are great deterrents but a worthwhile PPD dog is a significant investment in both time and money I've found and is not practical for most people.

I've spent thousands of $ on my GSD and she's still months and months from doing any protection work and in 10 years I'll have to start over, not to mention all the $ and time on the upkeep of a dog.

I bought a 20 gauge youth model 870 clone for $170 new at walmart and spent $20 on buckshot and it was ready to go.  And most guns last a lifetime.  That's hard to beat.

Ideally the dog warns and deters and the gun is never needed but you never know.  I think some people overestimate their dogs' protection abilities.  

If I had to choose only one for self defense--I'd take my shotgun no question.




 
 

It won't be easy to convince anyone over here, except just me, we are singing to each other's choir! I wish it were more important to learn not to offend, instead of defending one's life, in public situations. 

I didn't watch much of the trial, so I won't be arguing against the jury decision. We either believe it works imperfectly, or be at the mercy of the media when letting mobs decide what is justice. 

I have had a trained protection dog before. He unfortunantly passed away in 2009. GREAT DOG! I also own several guns and am a good shot, if I may say so myself! There is a time and place for each "weapon" so to speak. I sure as hell am not sending my dog into a gun fight! Anyways the best protection dog gives you that extra few second to get to your gun if need be.

If what happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin had not played out as it did. Lets say Trayvon did what he did to another person and ended up killing that person. Then either way someone would loose their life in a senseless act.

 

well, at this house, we've got a bunch of dogs & a bunch of guns.  nobody bothers us & we are no threat to society.
pjp