Gentle reader et all
WARNING
This is about guns and the rules of engagement - meaning when they can be used, and the moral and human realities of carrying a gun for self defense. There is some strong language and stronger sentiment, but as my wife told me today - I am sensitive and emotional and that may be a deadly combination.

Since guns, defending ones self from 2 and 4 legged animals, light weight ammo have been topics. And we have discussed the legal issues - which most of us are not qualified to discuss BTW. Somehow the ethics and Rules of engagement have not been brought up. No military can move in enemy territory without rules of ebgagement, or everyone would die. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

You can't walk down a street with a concealed weapon and think that you have the moral right to use it just because you have a legal right to carry it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> If someone does something that offends you, you may not brandish your weapon just because you have one and you think you are in danger. Likewise you cannot shoot someone for being wierd or maybe being offensive. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I do own guns and I do know how to use them - I can shoot a fly off'n a plate of grits at 100 feet and you say which eye to hit. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> seriuosly <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> BUT I only rarely carry a gun, because under the wrong circumstances I would use it. Under the wrong circumstances someone meaning no real bad would be dead. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

People see glorified killing and shooting on tv and are insensitive to what it means to kill something and seeing its [ a former human who someone loved] formerly alive body splatted with blood miles from nowhere. You're gonna have a real tough time with a jury. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

The only thing I can reccommend is a licensed qualified handgun course that teaches more about when not to draw a weapon than about how to kill someone.

I understand hunting and I understand the need for game management, BUT - theres a photo at the local sportsman shop of the manager with huge grin sitting on seven dead coyotes. I understand the need for game management , but I'd like hit him in the teeth with a ball bat - once for each life that he gleefully took. He could have atleast been solemn. So yeh I suppose if I ran into him in the woods and he shot my dog, and I had a gun, he would never see the sunset. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I'm not proud of saying that. Its why I don't carry. I know I never miss and if I draw - somethings gonna die and I've seen things die before and it made me sick. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I encourage any one who might consider carrying a gun to look inwards at themselve first and ask themselves whether they really are mature enough to carry a gun and never want draw it. You must have premeditated concepts of when and under what cirumstance you can draw your gun and never ever do it against your own rules of engagement.

Finally - what makes you think you will be first to shoot - the 1 out of 1.3 bullets fired in the average gun fight. The very few times in my life when I wished for a gun, I was extremely happy that had none. You could precipitate your own death by brandishing a weapon and having someone else shooting you in self defense.

Finally many of our police members will tell you that if you are not DRILLED in the use of firearms, meanig trained AND practiced AND competent, the other guy will be the first bullet, OR you kill an inocent person. worth it? And yeh I was in the NRA what of it? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I often wish that the gun-owning community spent more time discussing this subject than they do defending the Second Amendment.

I have often tried in the past to turn gun discussions into this channel, and always began by stipulating that I accept the Second Amendment and beleive in their right to keep and bear arms. But once that point is settled, then this subject - when does one have a moral right and a rational motive to use their gun - becomes the imperative issue.

I find that when I try to steer this turn in the argument, sadly, it leaves most gun owners vehemently trying to get the argument back to the right to own guns. They feel secure in that argument. They prefer it. It is familiar and they know all the answer by rote. They do not seem nearly as comfortable discussing the responsibility side of the issue. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Since I already accept the right to own guns, this leaves them berating me for a position I don't even hold, to avoid an issue I think is of vital, life-and-death importance. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

So thank you for posting this.

Perhaps, before complete government control was instituted you could shoot a dog killer and get away with it. Your own self defense is no longer in your hands, Jim. You MUST allow the gov to handle these things for you. They might even fine the guy up to $ 50.00 (US) for shooting your beloved dog.
The point I am trying to make is that you have permission to carry a gun - that's it.
You do not have permission to use it - and if you do you know what might happen -jury or no. Eventually we should all get used to the idea that guns are only for target practice in approved locations, and thats it. Be glad they have given you that much freedom and don't push it.
PS your vote doesnt count either, unless you are a super delegate.

First let me state that I am a retired law enforcement officer. Shooting at paper targets and shooting at a human being are very different. The human usually shoots back and usually shoots first if given the chance. Knowing that fine line of when to shoot and when not to shoot is the key point. The seconds it takes for you to make a decision to shoot is nothing compared to the hours and days the attorneys have to try to prove you wrong. I have, and I carry firearms most of the time. I respect those who choose to carry firearms but please, please know when you can and when you cannot use deadly force. Some states have classes on this subject and if your state or county has these classes I urge you to take them.

Jim, I've taken said "licensed qualified handgun courses' and 'hunter safety courses', and shot target for many years. I shoot weekly but haven't hunted in 20 years.
41 states now have a "CCL" (concealed carry license) and to get that license, one must go through a battery of background checks, get double finger printed, take a written test, qualify with 50 shot range test, go through 10-15 hours of classroom work, and pay about $260 for all this. "Non violent conflict resolution" is drilled into license candidates heads, all through the class room study. We learn about 'options', the gun being the last big equalizer.
"Situational awareness" is a big part of the classroom work. It boils down to "deadly force may be used if you fear for your life". And, we don't shoot to kill, we shoot to 'stop'. Shooter training is "center of mass", again, to 'stop'.
The first Texas CCL death happened in Dallas when two motorists bumped mirrors in tight traffic. The shooter was a frail guy, trapped in his car buy a very large, out of control guy, who tried to pull frail guy through his car window. Frail guy got to his weapon and stopped the big guy, who happened to die in the conflict. Turned out, big guy had multiple assault arrests and mental issues. Frail guy was 'no-billed' by the Grand Jury.
Had the tables been turned and frail guy attacked big guy, big guy would now be in jail for manslaughter, had he used his gun in the conflict. The situation matters.
So, to 'stop' another human with deadly force, you must be 100% at the end of your rope, no other options. You are not a policeman, superman, hero guy, or self appointed public guardian. Self defence, period. Third party deadly force is allowed IF life is in jeopardy, again defence. Texas adopted the "Castle Doctrine" where deadly force can be used for theft, at your home. Most folks would rather get new stuff with insurance money, then take a life. You may now carry a concealed handgun in your car in Texas, no license needed.
Between 1995 and 2004, handgun murders in Texas dropped by 18 percent. I think what's happened is that people are being trained, finally. You could call the CCL program a "well organized militia" and because of that training, some people don't carry at all and realize a gun does them no good, however, they come away licensed and trained. Criminals realize that....hey, that guy might have a gun in that car I'm about to carjack. The mere presence of a weapon can change anyone's attitude, 180 degrees, no shots fired. A CCL holder is bound to call 911 if he/she is forced to brandish their weapon to thwart a conflict, and any/all shots must be accounted for, should the weapon be fired.

So, to sum up, if you truly fear for your life, deadly force is justifiable. The courts will get the last say, and you will face them.

Not that I use my guns much, I worry more about am I going to get arrested for transporting a gun correctly and how do I get it from point A to point B legally? I understand now, at least in Kalifornia, the gun and ammo have to be separate, like gun in vehicle and ammo in trunk or back of truck. I don't have to worry about keeping a weapon away from children since I don't have any.

At what point can you shoot someone, someone is in your house, you can't just shoot them until you feel your life is in danger. Over on TT, The Backpacker, Prosecutor had a good post about if you shoot someone, even in the right, don't say anything, let them haul you away and call your lawyer. I can't remember what he said you could say in a few words to the cops, but whatever it was, they would respect you for it, at least if you were in what appeared to be in the right.

Even though I have been around guns since my teens, I haven't been hunting or target shooting enough to feel like a man among other gun toting men. I guess it all comes down to experience, feeling comfortable with a weapon.

In the late 70's, I made friends with a couple guys who grew up hunting and the few times I went out hunting with them, when we flushed a bird, they had a shot off before I had my shotgun off safety. I got the bird a couple times, when they missed, I got the second go round in.

Very good points Rich. Paper does not shoot back and stands still waiting to be shot.

If you are going to carry a firearm it is your responsibility to know the rules.

The first place to start is your state law. There is no excuse for not knowing the laws. They are available at any library and on line.

Next there may by local laws and ordinances, check those out too.

If you use a firearm on someone or someone's animal, you may conceivably be clear of criminal liability, but can still be sued civilly. In civil court the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff only needs to prove their case 51 percent to prevail. Legal costs and damages, should you lose, can be astronomical.

The criminal codes often define terms like "reasonable force" "necessary force" etc. Your actions, motivations and everything else will be scrutinized in court later and these definitions and the laws will be held up against the actions that you took. Decisions in lethal force situations are often made in a split second. There is usually little or no time to ponder complex issues in a lethal force situation. There is no time for moral weighing if you want to prevail in defending yourself. You will be judged by people sitting in comfortable offices and courtrooms months or years later. They will have all the time in the world to consult law books, case studies and examine what you did or didn't do in that cold and lonely place where someone was trying to kill you.

Trained law enforcement officers have to regularly qualify with their weapons and be well versed in state law and their department policy. When they survive lethal force encounters they often don't even remember the specifics of their actions (like reloading their weapon under stress), but they fell back on their training during the incident. Their actions were autonomic due to constant practice and repetition. Attorneys for the plaintiffs often attempt to attack the officer's credibility on these issues. The officers must be cleared of criminal, civil and departmental scrutiny. If you choose to arm yourself, you must be well trained in the legal aspects of using force as well as the proper and proficient use of the weapon.

There are many private vendors who can and will provide this training to the private citizen. These courses are costly and some are better than others. Check references and do research. If you can document your training it might be helpful in later legal proceedings should you ever be in the position where you must use your weapon.

Some may ask, "Why a gun?" The answer is that it is not the universal answer. That is why the police have other force options like impact weapons, OC spray, Tasers, control holds and verbal commands. In a violent potentially lethal attack the goal of the victim should be to incapacitate (not kill, but that is often a side effect) the attacker as soon as possible to stop the attack. The quickest way to incapacitate a highly motivated attacker is to disrupt the brain function with a piece of lead moving at a high enough velocity to enter the cranial vault. Short of that you are in the position of waiting for the attacker's blood pressure to drop significantly from wounds or for them to make the mental decision to give up after feeling the pain of a lesser force option. There are many documented cases of suspects killing people after being mortally wounded, thus the need for quick incapacitation.

I believe very strongly that law abiding citizens have the natural right to defend themselves and others from criminal attack or from animal attack. There is nothing morally wrong with defending yourself and no government should interfere with that right. With this right comes great responsibility for which you will be held accountable.

Disclaimer
This is just an opinion and personal observations, not legal advice. I am not an attorney. If you have specific questions about legality, consult the laws and talk to an attorney.

Jim, I agree with most of what you say, but my concern is with the end statement. It touches on the one area I see anti-gun advocates use time and time again. You're not quite there, but are close.

The idea is the fear-mongering argument that a gun will do you no good because you aren't trained well enough to use it to protect. There seems an undercurrent that every criminal (or sadly, just plain fool in some cases) is a commando whose only purpose is to outgun you.

This simply isn't the case. In most cases, urban criminals have little or no actual training with the weapons they carry. Granted, this makes them most dangerous to the bystanders that were never the actual target in a shooting, but it also begins to debunk the idea that "having a gun does you no good, and you will likely die from your own weapon if you carry one."

Yes, if an adversary has the drop on you in the midst of a robbery, the wisest move is give him what he demands, but this does NOT mean your weapon remains utterly useless in all settings. The previously mentioned incident in Texas shows the truth of this.

I often hear that just because you've attended a CCL course and fired many rounds at the range, this doesn't make you prepared for real shooting against a living target. Granted, there is a difference, and I know it first hand. But if training isn't enough then logic says there are only two alternatives: passively be victimized or seek out a shootout with NO training. Neither are acceptable alternatives. For the law-abiding citizen, training is the ONLY thing which can bring him or her anywhere near preparedness. I find it much desirable my loved ones have SOME training rather than none, even if they are not able to obtain regular training every weekend or within the context of their professional life.

Based on the accounts from the death of Meredith Emerson, I suspect that if she had been carrying, she may well have survived her encounter in the north Georgia hills. She fought visciously against her assailant, according to his confession, but was much smaller and unable to ultimately fend him off. No one can say with certainly a firearm would have made the diference, but to say it certainly would have made NO difference plays into a tired, faulty argument from the anti-gun constituency.

Bearpaw
I certainly agree with your sentiment but this is NOT an antigun thread. NOT. This is - ok now we have guns - now do we have a really serious plan for using it?
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> In fact please do not hijack this thread into a pro or anti gun arguement. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> This is about resonsible gun usage if you already have one - thank you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Personally:
I think there should be more guns in homes and people should fear breaking and entering. Certainly here in Central Orygun every body has guns [and dogs] and you would be crazy to break into a house with someone home. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

But using a gun in your home is not the subject of this forum , nor is gun ownership- its camping. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and if you do carry camping - are you prepared?

Besides the supreme court decision in DC pretty much gives you want in interpretation of the second amendment. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I'm simply looking to prevent others from taking the same old line I've heard far too many times, a line designed specifically to frighten citizens into not carrying.

As for when, the obvious answer is when absolutely necessary. Except when hunting or as a Marine, I don't carry in the backcountry. But in light of the occasional incident, particularly regarding women, I would not oppose their carrying when hiking solo. I'm speaking in regard to two-legged predators of course.

But when? When facing threat of imminent harm. Should one brandish? Only if one is about to use the weapon and they brandish as they draw and fire. Of course the previous posts principally address the issues involved frontcountry issues. The idea that one must immediately dial 911 when using a weapon must be amended to "one must [as soon as possible] contact authorities when using a weapon".

The real key is that particulars vary from state to state. They also vary in terms of the make-up of those who would sit on a jury. A reasonable case of self-defense would not likely result in criminal or civil conviction in the rural areas of Tennessee though things would be much dicier in a courtroom in downtown Nashville. It would be worth bearing this in mind before heading into the backcountry in various regions. I would be less inclined to use a weapon in the Sierras than in the region around Big Bend (outside the park) in Texas.

So when? In circumstances where one decides it is better to fire and risk court/jail than be assaulted and possibly killed.

Beyond this point, you could discuss regional peculiarities, but I wonder if we'll see much discussion to add to the debate.

Two reasons I made the above statement....
1) if you had to un-conceal your handgun, the incident must be extremely serious and therefore must be reported, quickly.
2) There are 'incidents' where a 'brandishing incident' happened where the two actors went their separate ways. Attack-er called the authorities and reported an "old man drawing a gun on me at the 7-11 gas pump!" Attack-ee was arrested and held. 7-11's security cameras told the real story, and attack-er was arrested. (again, turned out to be a known suspect with outstanding warrants). Had there been no security cameras or witnesses, attackee would have been charged and attack-er would be free to attack again. Call the police, immediately!

The Meredith Emerson incident, I believe, was un-defendable (by Meredith). I suggest she was 'schmoozed' into confidence, no different than Ted Bundy's victims. So, carrying a weapon won't protect you from being 'sniped' or 'con'd'. Would she have been justified to use deadly force? No. Right up until she turned her back, then it was to late.

If you fear for your life, you may use any force up to deadly force. It's an option. A civilian and LEO have a different set of criteria in which to decide. A civilian isn't an "officer of the court" or "professional witness of the state". A civilian's only available action is to 'defend' themselves.
The mantra, "When seconds count, help is only minutes away.", is the thinking behind civilian deadly force.

Actually, in Gary Hilton's confession, some of which has been publicized, he says the initial blow did not kill Meredith Emerson, who then fought very visciously to defend herself but was eventually overwhelmed. It is possible that had she been carrying the weapon in a fanny pack or similar concealed location, she may still not have been able to bring it to bear. Then again, she may have, and the results might have been dramatically different.

A great deal also depends on the demeanor of possible assailants. Having spent a great deal of time within the hiking community, particularly the eastern hiking community, there are definitely certain norms that you pick up on. Often, they simply serve to note that someone is a novice to backpacking, but other times, they raise red flags that a person is not out there to backpack at all. We often hear the advice to pay attention to those instincts that tell us someone is not quite right.

In such a case as deadly force, this is critical, particularly as it pertains to accessing a weapon if necessary. The extra notice that such cues provide can make the few moments difference in successfully resisting an attack. Slightly opening the fannypack/safepacker or whatever holster device is in use when suspicions are aroused (without actually exposing the weapon to others' view) could literally make all the difference in the world, your world.

Jim,

The three S's are the code of the west.

Shoot,

Shovel,

Shut-up.

The "rule" is that you should not shoot anything you are not willing to bury. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I have to wonder if she saw or suspected the first blow. That's the part I doubt. Somewhere in that incident, she got too close, for whatever reason. Looking at that old coot monster, she could have out run him easily. He ain't going to out run the prison homeys!

And the 'fanny pack' carry option....that's why I started the 'ultra-lite carry' thread last month. With some of the new and tiny .380's, .22 mags, 9's and .38's, front pocket carry is very possible. Keeping a hand in the pocket is quicker and less of a tip-off than a hand in the fanny pack. I still do the fanny pack thing but am trying to get away from it by downsizing.
Working in my park, yup, you can certainly get a sense of what people are about, sometimes long before they know you are there. Gotta keep the radar up, stay aware, AND KEEP YOUR DISTANCE!!! Then the gun won't see the light of day and a choice to 'stop' an attacker isn't part of the thought process.

Lets look at it another way. Are you mature enough to be raped and murdered? Are you mature enough to be killed and eaten? Are you mature enough to watch your pet dog killed and eaten?

Through no fault of your own, are you mentally and morally prepared to be a victim?

Now flip things back again. I carry a medical kit, even though I never use it. I carry jumper cables and tire chains in my truck even though neither have been removed from their original packages. I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck too and yet I have never, ever come upon an accident where it is needed.

I'm not a trained and licensed paramedic, firefighter or mechanic. But with my fire extinguisher I can put out a small gasoline fire before it becomes an inferno. Without it I can only stand back and watch.

A firearm is a tool for projecting lethal force. If you need to kill something a firearm is the best way to do it. With a firearm, a 115lb woman can kill a 115lb wolf that is killing her dog, or she can kill a 250 man who is bent on raping and killing her. Without the firearm she can only stand back and watch. Or die.

Do you need a little training to use a fire extinguisher effectively? Yes, at least read the instructions on the label. Do you need a little training to use those jumper cables? Yes, but it is hardly rocket-science. Do you need a little training on how to use a firearm? Yes, a little, but they are pretty simple.

Do you need to decide whether or not you want to be a victim? Yes, because that will determine if you have a medical kit, tire chains, jumper cables, fire extinguisher and a firearm.

I don't normally partake in these discussions, but you bring up some really good points that I agree with Jim. A little background on me is that I am a gun advocate and own several guns. I also had a concealed carry permit at one time. Normally I don't carry nor do I keep loaded guns around in my house. My guns are unloaded under lock and key 99% of the time. I use them solely for target practice and collecting.

Why? Why would I have guns for no apparent use? Well, for me it goes back to the concealed carry permit. As others have already indicated one has to go through a course and pay quite a bit to get one of these permits. I did it just to "exercise my right to bear arms". I am glad I did it because the class really opened my eyes to the consequences of shooting someone. This lead to some deep reflection on whether or not I could actually do it, and do it knowing I did it because I had to. I came to the conclusion that I didn't feel comfortable that I would make the right decision in a situation like that. Thus, I don't carry or keep a loaded gun around the house.

I think that's what all gun owners need to do. If you have put detailed thought into the consequences of shooting someone, and feel like you can make a good unclouded decision to do so under duress then go ahead and carry. I just think too many people haven't put this type of thought into it. Who knows, maybe one day I will change my mind and carry.

I also believe as others have said that if you are gonna draw it then use it. I fully believe that drawing a weapon to "scare" someone is a bad idea, and too many people have been shot with their own guns.

> I also believe as others have said that if you are gonna draw it then use it.
> I fully believe that drawing a weapon to "scare" someone is a bad idea

You don't draw a weapon to scare someone away, you only draw if your intention is to fire. HOWEVER, if in drawing it you do in fact scare them away, you do not fire. That is what actually happens the majority of the time.

I totally agree with that. Just implying you have a weapon with body language will deter many bad guys.

I would never provoke a robbery into a life or death situation even if I was threatened with a gun. I've been flat out broke and homeless so losing material things doesn't scare me a bit.

I've been profiled by the police and totally shook down and searched. That's as humiliating to me as being robbed, but I wouldn't provoke an officer either.

I have met people who are soulless though, (one is doing life in an Oregon prison for raping two women and killing one of them) and I understand that they will kill without remorse.

Just for the record, I don't own a real gun, but I am totally confident that if I did have one I would not brandish it unless I was prepared to use it, I would not shoot to kill ( a human), but I would keep shooting until the threat was completely diminished. If that resulted in their death, oh well. A baseball bat, heavy blunt object, or even a few knuckle punches to the adams apple will yield a similar result. I prefer those options to a gun for self defense, that's mainly why I don't own one.

If you're in a situation where you HAVE to fight for your life (or the life of a loved one), taking a life becomes an option. That's the only time it's an option. That's pretty simple. Jury decisions are not so simple, but that would never even enter my mind in the heat of the battle.

Bill

Shoot, shovel, shut up?

ah, food, this may sound cute to you, but it is sayings like this which undermine all respect for the idea that gun owners are willing to be responsible members of society. Sure, you can say it. You can laugh at it. But the subject is killing, the joke seems a bit hollow.

Like it or not, you are enmeshed in society. You derive a thousand benefits every day from the good will and hard work of thousands of other people, often people you've never met. The laws of society protect you in more ways than you could ever know or count. The willingness of other citizens to band together and tax themselves for the public good is the reason why you live the life you do.

When you pretend you are a cowboy in an empty, lawless land, beholden to none and a law unto yourself you are engaged in a fantasy life. Please do not let these fantasies of shooting, shoveling and shutting up become real anywhere near me or anyone I love. Thank you.

a 115lb woman can kill a 115lb wolf that is killing her dog

How interesting. I haven't been aware of an epidemic of wolves eating housepets. The last I heard, they were endangered in the lower 48 states, and totally missing in Hawaii.

However, if a wolf ever were to come careening out of the trees and pounce on a that lady's dog, I do not doubt that firing a gun at the wolf would at least get the wolf's attention. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, but any 250 man trying to rape me is in for a surprise. I have no doubts that I could and would poke his eye out, break his fingers, or do some serious damage to something he values. I don't need your firearms, thanks. He'd probably get it from me, and THEN I'd be in trouble, because I'd be facing a large ARMED man. Guns make me nervous and you need to not be, to use one effectively. Better the unarmed man who I can throw over my shoulder and knock his gonads into his chest cavity.

As long as you educate yourself adequately the forest should not be a scary place. There will always be risk but I feel more at risk walking around my home town than I do in the Sierras. More muggers, rapists, car thieves and gang members here. They don't have the right shoes/gear to follow me into the mountains; those saggy drawers trip 'em up every time.

For the last few weeks, gray wolves have been delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana & Wyoming) and have been delisted in the Mid-West for quite some time.

Based on the frequent takings, they seem to be defacto delisted in AZ and NM.

aimless,

Not meant to be cute. The use of deadly force is like changing a diaper. It is not a pleasant task, but it does need to be done. I do not trust someone that is not up to the job nor do I trust someone that enjoys the job.

I wish we could rely on government services or even the goodwill of our neighbors to keep us and our property safe.

I do not believe deadly force against a human is appropriate to protect property, but IS appropriate against an animal. The topic was "rules of engagment." In my youth some neighborhood dogs began running in a pack. Mind mannered pets in the day and a pack animal at night. We tried hazing with noise including shots. We called animal control and were told they did not have the resources to help. We knocked on all the doors in the nighborhood and discussed the problem. We recognized several of the dogs during these visits and were met with firm denial. The final solution IS shoot, shovel and shut-up.

Check with your local police department about enforcement of TROs. Sorry, but sometimes our society is unable to do what needs to be done.

I DO believe in the rule of law. That is the reason that my state has a "make my day" law.

I've got news for you - Hollywood is fake. Gennifer Garner couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. Size does matter when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. To think otherwise is to be paddling on the river Denial.

Attitude is probably the key ingredient to surviving an attack, so your will to fight is a very good thing. Your statement "I don't need your firearms" is true because of the statistical improbability of your being attacked, not because of your notion that the size mismatch isn't important.

Given the stats, I don't think there is a thing wrong with your chosing not to take advantage of the tool known as "gun". But, if you are the unlucky one, like that lady killed a couple months back by the 62yr old geezer, oh well.

As others have noted, they are delisted. In Idaho, munching the family pet is the second biggest interaction problem with Wolves, the first being killing of livestock. So yes, wolves will attack and kill Fido simply because Fido is another canine and isn't part of the pack. Wolves kill coyotes for the same reason.

I spent some time last year with Idaho wolves and there were zero coyotes. It was strange to hear the deep-voiced howling at dusk instead of the high-pitching yipping. And Idaho has specifically allowed pet owners to blow away wolves that are trying to munch their "kick me" dogs.