kevinlwilliams67 Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 neo, What are you calling a 50 cal magnum, cause I thought my 50 cal Desert Eagle was awesome. Can't imagine a 50 Cal magnum handgum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 I believe S&W makes a .50 Magnum revolver...(500 Magnum) Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 I've used a .38, 9mm, .357 and a .22 rifle. At targets, and the lasered shoot, don't shoot. It is a bit un-nerving at how fast people are to use a weapon. The gruesome thing is that when you pull a weapon, in this situation, the dog owner may pull on you. The thought to remember is when you pull, be prepared to kill. I am not anti-gun nor anti dog. But I am for making sure that gun owners are trained and should pass set guidelines as one needs to do to receive a Driver's license. The same for owners of breeds that are protective, easily trained to fight. Owners should be accountable - even if Parents of the one who was bitten. Too little. Some "normal" breeds when chained up for hours outside will be nasty, that's cruelty and can and should be reported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "I bet that dog won't have a chance with a single shot directly to the head with my .50 magnum." Hell, get a street sweeper. With a few slugs and buckshot, you could turn the pit-bull into mush..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. Remember the thread a few weeks ago? Here we are again with yet another unprovoked attack. Contact your local, state and fed reps, voice your concern and outrage. That is the only way this scurge of a fighting machine will be delt with. I don't see the "coolness" of these dogs. There are some that say "ban them and another dog will take it's place". The poodle, yorkie, ect.... Dodger, I agree 100%, as a fellow LE person, we get to see the aftermath of reacting with fire power, before thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben. Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 4:48:20 PM Royster wrote: Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. ---------------- Care to name any names? I love how this subject keeps getting brought up. You guys need to take off the blinders a bit. What percentage of Pit Bulls ever display violent tendencies? Oh, you have no idea? Great argument you have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:03:06 PM ben. wrote: ---------------- On 6/6/2005 4:48:20 PM Royster wrote: Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. ---------------- Care to name any names? I love how this subject keeps getting brought up. You guys need to take off the blinders a bit. What percentage of Pit Bulls ever display violent tendencies? Oh, you have no idea? Great argument you have there. ---------------- No..... I don't care to argue about it. I can tell that in 20 years of police work, I can only count 2 times that I have been to a call where another breed attacked a person ( both times the dog was provked). On the other hand, more times than I can recall pits were a problem. Gang bangers and the "pit" fighting with each other (real world = bystanders get hurt), I personaly have had to use my service weapon to dispatch a "pit" that was in ligimate threat to me (owner gave attack command). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 If an owner gave the attack command to his german shepherd and the shepherd proceeded to take down the guy robbing his house, what would you say? "Good dog." The only difference is context. I guess I must be an ill-informed tree hugger type since I remember when the doberman was the evil breed, and I remember when the rottweiler was the evil breed, and now I see the pitbull is the evil breed. It called "hysteria," Royster. Notice how few doberman attacks there are in the news now that there are so many pitbull attacks? Yes, it's the story du jour. Lap it up. While tough to do while hugging the tree so tightly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people are the problem. Yes, people. People who ignorantly or maliciously breed the dogs, people who ignorantly or maliciously raise the dogs, and people who ignorantly or maliciously train the dogs. Yes, pitbulls are inherently potentially dangerous. So are handguns. I'm sure that as an LE type you see a lot of handgun injuries too, but I've yet to see a post from you calling for their ban. Why is that? Oh yeah, becuase the problem isn't handguns, the problem is people -- people who ignorantly and maliciously use handguns. We as a society should not be calling for the ban or destruction of the animals. We should be calling for appropriate punishment for people whose negligent or malicious acts cause harm via their animals. All dogs are potentially dangerous -- they've got those teeth, you know. Anyone whose loose dog attacks another person ought to be treated by the law as though they'd fired a gun into the air and let the bullet land on someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 4:48:20 PM Royster wrote: Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. ---------------- LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:13:37 PM Olorin wrote: If an owner gave the attack command to his german shepherd and the shepherd proceeded to take down the guy robbing his house, what would you say? "Good dog." The only difference is context. I guess I must be an ill-informed tree hugger type since I remember when the doberman was the evil breed, and I remember when the rottweiler was the evil breed, and now I see the pitbull is the evil breed. It called "hysteria," Royster. Notice how few doberman attacks there are in the news now that there are so many pitbull attacks? Yes, it's the story du jour. Lap it up. While tough to do while hugging the tree so tightly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people are the problem. Yes, people. People who ignorantly or maliciously breed the dogs, people who ignorantly or maliciously raise the dogs, and people who ignorantly or maliciously train the dogs. Yes, pitbulls are inherently potentially dangerous. So are handguns. I'm sure that as an LE type you see a lot of handgun injuries too, but I've yet to see a post from you calling for their ban. Why is that? Oh yeah, becuase the problem isn't handguns, the problem is people -- people who ignorantly and maliciously use handguns. We as a society should not be calling for the ban or destruction of the animals. We should be calling for appropriate punishment for people whose negligent or malicious acts cause harm via their animals. All dogs are potentially dangerous -- they've got those teeth, you know. Anyone whose loose dog attacks another person ought to be treated by the law as though they'd fired a gun into the air and let the bullet land on someone. ---------------- Well, first off. Your analogy of a owner of a shepard attcking a intruder is off base. Shepard, Pit, poodle or house cat, I would say good job (side note to home owner; dial slow). As they are within there rights. As referenced as LE type, care to explain? Yes, I am in law enforcement and quite proud of it. "Hysteria", not me. I am about as level as they come. So before trying to dull out generic physico babble, know your subject. As far as "lap it up", while other breeds in the past have been "story du juor" those were all pre street gang days. And yes I will "lap it up" as that is what my job is. How much time do you have working the streets? I guess not to much. You want to call for punishment for the owners of these dogs. Guess what, the laws are already on the books. That doesn't change the fact that punishment can only happen after yet another person is attacked. A firearm does not have a life, it can not act own it's own, Unlike an animal. I will not let you drag me into a firearm argument. There is many laws that some may take issue with, but they are there for the betterment of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 The analogy is right on target. A trained animal attacking a person at its owner's order is a trained animal attacking a person at its owner's request. Whether it is admirable or reprehensible is entirely a question of context. That was my point. LE type -- what needs explaining? That was your nomenclature, and I used it. I think you meant "dole out generic phycho babble." You know, like calling anyone who considers this a people problem a tree hugger. At any rate, "hysteria" had to do with media reports making it out that the pit bull is the great satan of canine being, and "lap it up" had to do with "go right on believing it." Nothing personal. Street gang days . . . red herring . . . so now you have bands of thugs with vicious dogs instead of individuals with vicious dogs . . . what's different about the dogs, again? Still a people problem. Punishment after people are attacked? Well yeah, that's how it works. You don't punish someone for running a red light until after they do it, even if they MIGHT kill somebody on the trip through the light. Not trying to drag you into a firearm argument, just using an analogy. Tell me Royster, if there are already laws on the books punishing people whose dogs hurt other people, how does banning the breed make it better? You take the dog away, euthanize it, they get another one, lather, rinse, and repeat. Or they get a legal dog and train it up to be a killer. Those german shepherds and malinois and akitas can be pretty dangerous, you know. What's changed when you get rid of the pits? It's still a matter of irresponsible people, and until we voters and those lawmakers and you LE types do something about the irresponsible people, nothing is going to change with regards to dogs biting people. That's all I'm getting at. This "ban the pitbull" stuff is just hysterical bull****. It won't do squat to solve the real problem. But hey, if it feels good to run around hollering that the sky is falling, knock yourself out. Just don't be so surprised when someone gets tired of hearing it and tells you to knock it off. Nothing personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 6:01:41 PM Olorin wrote: The analogy is right on target. A trained animal attacking a person at its owner's order is a trained animal attacking a person at its owner's request. Whether it is admirable or reprehensible is entirely a question of context. That was my point. LE type -- what needs explaining? That was your nomenclature, and I used it. I think you meant "dole out generic phycho babble." You know, like calling anyone who considers this a people problem a tree hugger. At any rate, "hysteria" had to do with media reports making it out that the pit bull is the great satan of canine being, and "lap it up" had to do with "go right on believing it." Nothing personal. Street gang days . . . red herring . . . so now you have bands of thugs with vicious dogs instead of individuals with vicious dogs . . . what's different about the dogs, again? Still a people problem. Punishment after people are attacked? Well yeah, that's how it works. You don't punish someone for running a red light until after they do it, even if they MIGHT kill somebody on the trip through the light. Not trying to drag you into a firearm argument, just using an analogy. Tell me Royster, if there are already laws on the books punishing people whose dogs hurt other people, how does banning the breed make it better? You take the dog away, euthanize it, they get another one, lather, rinse, and repeat. Or they get a legal dog and train it up to be a killer. Those german shepherds and malinois and akitas can be pretty dangerous, you know. What's changed when you get rid of the pits? It's still a matter of irresponsible people, and until we voters and those lawmakers and you LE types do something about the irresponsible people, nothing is going to change with regards to dogs biting people. That's all I'm getting at. This "ban the pitbull" stuff is just hysterical bull****. It won't do squat to solve the real problem. But hey, if it feels good to run around hollering that the sky is falling, knock yourself out. Just don't be so surprised when someone gets tired of hearing it and tells you to knock it off. Nothing personal. ---------------- Don't be suprised when folks get tired of hearing your sheltered close minded view of the subject and tells you to knock it off. Nothing personal. There are more supporters of a position of regulation regarding these dogs than not ( at least in this thread) I would move that you start a thread in support of this misunderstood breed. Or I suspect that you and others might enjoy living vicarously thru your puter? Nothing personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Olorin Your points are valid, however, we can't dismiss the fact that there are still numerous accounts of family pits attacking owners and family members.... Recall the link I posted at the top of this thread? "The distraught mother of the 12-year-old boy killed in his home in a pit bull attack insisted that the two family pets were not vicious." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 Royster, Nowhere have I argued in favor of pitbulls -- what I have argued against is the idea that banning them helps. There's a difference. Grasp it. As for the living vicariously bit, you've got a real knack for the psychobabble for which you earlier expressed such a dislike. What gives? Is intellectual consistency and integrity something you haven't learned yet? I notice you hae as any posts in this thread as I have. Who are you to talk about living vicariously? It's clear that not only is your mind made up, you're not even interested in talking intelligently about it. You're more interested in calling people names, accusing them of being sheltered and closed minded, and insulting them for doing things that you yourself are engaged in doing. You're a real sweetheart, Officer Friendly. I suggest we agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olorin Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 m00n, Yes, I do remember that, and I appreciate your coming to this in a reasonable way. Attacks like that are unfortunate and they are a problem. I'm still not convinced that banning the breed solves it, but it may be the case that if the breed were illegal those particular people would not have had the dogs. You just never know. There are cities where pitbulls are illegal, and people still own them there. It's not a problem with a quick, simple fix, though some folks would like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:13:37 PM Olorin wrote: While tough to do while hugging the tree so tightly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people are the problem. ---------------- Olorin, Thanks for that. Made me laugh out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 6:56:21 PM Olorin wrote: Royster, Nowhere have I argued in favor of pitbulls -- what I have argued against is the idea that banning them helps. There's a difference. Grasp it. As for the living vicariously bit, you've got a real knack for the psychobabble for which you earlier expressed such a dislike. What gives? Is intellectual consistency and integrity something you haven't learned yet? I notice you hae as any posts in this thread as I have. Who are you to talk about living vicariously? It's clear that not only is your mind made up, you're not even interested in talking intelligently about it. You're more interested in calling people names, accusing them of being sheltered and closed minded, and insulting them for doing things that you yourself are engaged in doing. You're a real sweetheart, Officer Friendly. I suggest we agree to disagree and go our separate ways. ---------------- without chewing the same meal again, your other posts sure have a flavor of pro pit. Grasp that. Who are you to question my integrity? This yet another thread in reference to pits attacking someone completly unjustified! I rest my case in regards to "living vicariously" thru thier puters, as I would welcome you to make the same assumtion in person. But then again the net has a way making even the most cowardly brave. As far as your "officer friendly" remarks, completely uncalled for. You live in a sheltered little world protected from real life by guys like me. The first folks to cry fowl, the man is keeping us down, not my lttle fluffy ect but the first ones to cry out for help or justice. I too agree that we agree to disagree. As far a seperate directions, I see you over looked the part about starting a thread where support of the pit is the topic. Might want to try that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 deleted dbl posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 "Well, first off. Your analogy of a owner of a shepard attcking a intruder is off base. Shepard, Pit, poodle or house cat, I would say good job (side note to home owner; dial slow). As they are within there rights. As referenced as LE type, care to explain? Yes, I am in law enforcement and quite proud of it. "Hysteria", not me. I am about as level as they come. So before trying to dull out generic physico babble, know your subject." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- One tries to ignore such drivel, but at some point it simply becomes impossible! The same nonsense ad nauseum. Just one question for the one who claims to be so intimate with the law! So you would say "good job" to someone who would inflict deadly force (as that is what you maintain the pit bull to be!) on someone for simply breaking into a house when they do not present a lethal threat and 'it is not at last resort', "As they are within their rights."????? Really???? In what country? Since when do property rights take precedence over human rights? And since when is deadly force appropriate when the situation does not present a 'last resort' lethal threat? This is utter and complete nonsense! And not based on any legitimate interpretation of the law! For someone so intimate with the law and in a position to enforce it, it is exactly this utter disregard for the law as well as the prejudiced opinion based upon your feelings rather then an objective interpretation of situational fact that renders such an attitude irresponsible! Go back and review the law! As 'your opinion' is in violation of it! Property rights do not take precedence over human rights! As it should be! In matters of opinion, many options are possible, but in the interpretation of the law this is an utterly simple case based upon ample precedence that requires no thinking at all. Perhaps that is why the point has been missed! So I would agree with your suggestion above, before one dole's out psychobabble, learn the law! And before your prescribe what is 'within people's rights', knowledge of the law is indeed useful, and a little knowledge of the law is indeed a dangerous thing! And deadly force is not appropriate when there are any other available non-lethal commensurate options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royster Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 ---------------- On 6/6/2005 7:21:27 PM dragonfyr wrote: "Well, first off. Your analogy of a owner of a shepard attcking a intruder is off base. Shepard, Pit, poodle or house cat, I would say good job (side note to home owner; dial slow). As they are within there rights. As referenced as LE type, care to explain? Yes, I am in law enforcement and quite proud of it. "Hysteria", not me. I am about as level as they come. So before trying to dull out generic physico babble, know your subject." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- One tries to ignore such drivel, but at some point it simply becomes impossible! The same nonsense ad nauseum. Just one question for the one who claims to be so intimate with the law! So you would say "good job" to someone who would inflict deadly force (as that is what you maintain the pit bull to be!) on someone for simply breaking into a house when they do not present a lethal threat and 'it is not at last resort', "As they are within their rights."????? Really???? In what country? Since when do property rights take precedence over human rights? And since when is deadly force appropriate when the situation does not present a 'last resort' lethal threat? This is utter and complete nonsense! And not based on any legitimate interpretation of the law! For someone so intimate with the law and in a position to enforce it, it is exactly this utter disregard for the law as well as the prejudiced opinion based upon your feelings rather then an objective interpretation of situational fact that renders such an attitude irresponsible! Go back and review the law! As 'your opinion' is in violation of it! Property rights do not take precedence over human rights! As it should be! In matters of opinion, many options are possible, but in the interpretation of the law this is an utterly simple case based upon ample precedence that requires no thinking at all. Perhaps that is why the point has been missed! So I would agree with your suggestion above, before one dole's out psychobabble, learn the law! And before your prescribe what is 'within people's rights', knowledge of the law is indeed useful, and a little knowledge of the law is indeed a dangerous thing! And deadly force is not appropriate when there are any other available non-lethal commensurate options. ---------------- "I was in fear of my life" END of story! That is the only statement one would need to make. What is your qualifications to pontificate the merit and interpetation of law? You are one of the primary reasons that the thread a few weeks ago was locked. You guys can stroke each others egos as much as you like, but I see that you too have overloked the origional posters flavor of this thread. Try starting on of you own, you seem to have all the answers in your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts