A Florida man accidentally shot himself while he was shooting some puppies. Outraged? Others are too. Read on.
The man decided to shoot the seven 3-month old puppies in the head because he couldn’t find homes for them. He was holding one in his arms and another in his left hand along with a revolver when the dog in his hand wriggled and put its paw on the trigger, causing the gun to fire and injure his wrist. The man has been charged with felony animal cruelty. How outrageous! How shocking! How cruel!
Imagine, treating those poor puppies like unborn babies!
Many will rejoice that the four surviving puppies have been placed with an animal shelter.
“That should never have to happen,” said Bruce Rova, director of the Escambia County Animal Shelter. “There are so many options people have. We’ll try to find them a new home.
Too bad, women don’t have as many options. Oh yeah, they do.
I grew up in PA. When country folk have an old dog they usually take him “out back” and administer euthanasia w/ a bullet. Thought puppies are usually suffocated or drowned. (It takes a certain kind of man to shoot a puppy. A harder heart, and a better shot, one would think.)
Sometimes I wonder if the outrage people feel for animal deaths can be a teaching moment to get people to think about abortion. Easier said than done?
I’m not sure I understand how suffocating or drowning puppies is kinder than shooting them. In fact, I’d think that shooting would be less painful for the puppy (while more traumatic for the person doing the killing).
The thing that outrages me is that this guy is being prosecuted—for a felony, no less—because he was trying to do what he thought was a kindness to the puppies.
What outrages me is that it’s a felony to do this to puppies but it’s not a felony to do it to unborn babies.
Just imagine the outrage if this guy was caught dipping these pups in corrosive fluid or ripping them apart with pliers. After all, they are cute innocent animals, not inconvenient unborn babies…
It’s a good thing he didn’t put the puppy on his head, I think.
<i>Itmment_id>
kclark@mindspring.com
http://pewlady.blogspot.com
209.91.58.188
2004-09-10 20:38:12
2004-09-11 00:38:12
Okay, I get it, if Al’s right. It’s a strained effort to coin a word. (Nice try GOR—actually, who knows, maybe yours is the right guess.)
Call me a “heretic,” but I know it’s not a duty to agree with the Pope when he doesn’t speak ex Cathedra.
On the other hand, call me a “papist,” (sorry, but the word “Mottramist” hasn’t caught on yet, obviously—good luck, by the way), but I find words like “babbling,” “obscene,” and phrases like “living in a dream world” and “unfaithful to tradition” offensive when referring to this particular Holy Father.
Call me a “realist,” but you know something? Hard as it is to fathom, one person (emotional as he is) wasn’t the only one who merely witnessed the 9/11 attacks. Some people actually did more than “witness” them.
And call me a [fill in the blank], but the “Koran-kissing” non-issue has been analyzed to death and has been sensibly explained numerous times. One either gets it (it’s not all that complex) or, having gotten it, one continues to bring it up like it’s a hot issue.
Al’s right about “Mottramist.” The coinage was by Mark Cameron, though the blog page on which he did this no longer exists. It refers to people who, like Waugh’s Rex Mottram, are so eager to be what they think of as Catholic that they go along with whatever the Pope says. Mottram’s catechist complains in “Brideshead Revisited” that he was trying to explain to the dunderheaded Mottram what Catholics are obliged to believe, and he asked Mottram if the Pope said it was raining outside, but it really wasn’t, would a Catholic be obliged to believe it. As Al points out, Mottram replied (paraphrase), “Yes Father, but I suppose we’d be too sinful to see it.”
I am always amazed at the questions reporters never ask. For instance,“Mr. Rova, in the event you are unable to find them a home, will you put them to death and, if so, by what means?
As for the shooter, it might be interesting to get his neighbors comments and find out if there are any bullet holes in trees, barns, automobile, etc. Might be a rather exciting neighborhood.
I am always amazed at the questions reporters never ask. For instance,“Mr. Rova, in the event you are unable to find them a home, will you put them to death and, if so, by what means?
As for the shooter, it might be interesting to get his neighbors comments and find out if there are any bullet holes in trees, barns, automobile, etc. Might be a rather exciting neighborhood.
I am always amazed at the questions reporters never ask. For instance,“Mr. Rova, in the event you are unable to find them a home, will you put them to death and, if so, by what means?
As for the shooter, it might be interesting to get his neighbors comments and find out if there are any bullet holes in trees, barns, automobile, etc. Might be a rather exciting neighborhood.
I am always amazed at the questions reporters never ask. For instance,“Mr. Rova, in the event you are unable to find them a home, will you put them to death and, if so, by what means?
As for the shooter, it might be interesting to get his neighbors comments and find out if there are any bullet holes in trees, barns, automobile, etc. Might be a rather exciting neighborhood.
Perhaps this Pope knows of whom he speaks or to whom he speaks. We are capable of destroying a single enemy post in the midst of a neighborhood with little collateral damage. The Russians have no concern for such niceties. they will eliminate the entire area and not think twice about it. Enemy destroyed, Da? this Pope understands why there was no terrorism in red Poland – because the Russian army understood brutality. John Paul’s comments came when we all expected a turn by the Russian Government toward a two eyes for an eye policy. Why didn’t he speak in Latin so Dom could rattle off a perfect translation.
Perhaps this Pope knows of whom he speaks or to whom he speaks. We are capable of destroying a single enemy post in the midst of a neighborhood with little collateral damage. The Russians have no concern for such niceties. they will eliminate the entire area and not think twice about it. Enemy destroyed, Da? this Pope understands why there was no terrorism in red Poland – because the Russian army understood brutality. John Paul’s comments came when we all expected a turn by the Russian Government toward a two eyes for an eye policy. Why didn’t he speak in Latin so Dom could rattle off a perfect translation.