Thursday
(1)The old saying is that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is.
Well, how does "dog shoots man" fit in?
Isn't it nice to see the equality of freedom, in that the right to bear arms is applied heedless of colour, religion, gender or species....
...er...
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at September 9, 2004 04:37 PM
The punchline is, the dog shot in self-defense! Good thing he lived in the US and not the UK, eh?
Wotta country.
Posted by R C Dean at September 9, 2004 05:15 PM
(insert preemptive horrible pun about "the right to arm bears") ;-)
Posted by Dave J at September 9, 2004 05:32 PM
Remove the right to own guns, and only puppies will have guns.
Posted by Verity at September 9, 2004 06:03 PM
The anti-gun lobby are clearly not Darwinists; they preach that you are more likely to kill yourself or your family if the state lets you have a gun. Why not just keep quiet and let the problem disappear?
Posted by zmollusc at September 9, 2004 06:13 PM
Well, how does "dog shoots man" fit in?
I don't know, but I am sure that the Guardian will draw some patronising, collectivist lesson from it.
Posted by Michael Jennings at September 9, 2004 06:23 PM
Why the hell is it 'felony animal cruelty' to shoot a dog in the head?
I can't personally think of a cleaner and more painless way for a person without access to vetinary drugs and skills to execute the animal.
Any ideas?
Posted by Harvey at September 9, 2004 11:02 PM
Will this bring the NRA and PETA into the same camp?
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at September 10, 2004 05:36 AM
Harvey, "Why the hell is it 'felony animal cruelty' to shoot a dog in the head?"
As with so many criminal reports, we don't know the full details. Even if there's nothing more, I can't see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act, even though my criteria for good reasons would usually be much slighter than in the case of humans.
Posted by Guy Herbert at September 10, 2004 06:41 AM
"I can't see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act"
Guy - how about not wishing to pay for it's upkeep? An animal should just be a chattel in the legal sense, it's absurd to give them rights or to demand that a human look after it against his will.
I can see what you're implying, though, that any human who kills animals for the sheer pleasure of it isn't particularly honourable.
Posted by Monica at September 10, 2004 12:42 PM
"[...]it's absurd to give them rights[...]" Yes it is, just as human rights are absurd for the most part.
"[...] or to demand that a human look after it against his will." Rather depends. I'd say we have a moral duty not cause avoidable suffering without better reason than mere convenience. I'd look after a lost and helpless animal just as I'd look after a lost and helpless child--in either case not out of choice but sympathy. It is possible being unwilling to look after an animal for any length of time, I would decide to have the animal humanely destroyed, but only if I was unable to find it an alternative home after some effort.
I don't think sentient beings have rights, but I do think they are more than mere chattels.
Posted by Guy Herbert at September 10, 2004 06:08 PM
