I have been, for the most part, agnostic on the subject of gun rights. The courts have settled on a fairly expansive reading of the second amendment and it seems, to me at least, to be a settled issue. Lately, though, I’ve been forced to re-think my position on this subject.
In Commerce City, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, a man shot a dog which jumped over a fence into his yard and may have attacked his dog. The police have declined to file charges because they believe that they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.
In Bellingham, Washington, a banker who was annoyed at hearing a dog barking in one of his neighbors’ yard, grabbed his rifle and shot a 13 month old Corgi in the chest. Afterwards, he was mortified at what he’d done…because he’s shot “the wrong dog.” Apparently, he believed he was justified in shooting a neighbor’s dog if it annoyed him.
Could both of these situations have been solved without guns? Of course they could. They could have been resolved much, much better without guns. People resolve these kinds of conflicts all the time without shooting dogs. But, when all you have is a gun…