hickcock45 and gun safety

>>34025874
>no time stamp
No thanks

>>34025921
11:35

>>34025940
Yeah, you're right. That was kinda shitty

>>34025874

Dogs are invulnerable to bullets, unless fired by law enforcement. That's why kill shelters have to use gas.

>>34025972
Just shot my neighbors dog, can confirm. He just gave me a smug look.

>>34025940
Looks more like 3:00 to me. If the dog was at the 11:35 position when Hickok started shooting, then I'd be concerned. He squeezes off a few shots, and stops, before the dog runs "down range" and into frame.

>>34026085
>He squeezes off a few shots, and stops, before the dog runs "down range" and into frame.
The dog is still down range. Something like this would be absolutely unacceptable if it was a human, even less when it's a pet that you can't expect to act reasonably and not run into the line of fire.

Not to mention possible hearing damage.

>>34025874
I dislike most dogs, so I find this sort of funny.

>>34026136
Except it's not a human. It's his dog, he can legally kill it at any time.

Works for the atf

>>34025874
>Defend this.

Ok
Its just a dog
He can aim and he isn't aiming at the dog
Its not a person
There isn't any branches that can deflect bullets
Its a dog

Did i mentions its a dog?

>>34026492
>he can legally kill it at any time
That's factually wrong.

>>34026136
He turned to the side and chose to make a new direction of fire at that point the dog is not longer down range it's to the right of the firing lane.

>>34026478
Get out

>>34026530
Acktchuallie'thsumth've, it's not illegal to dispatch pets. A gun is considered a painless method of dispatch and thus it's not animal cruelty and thus not illegal.

>>34026548
The dog runs to the place he shot at literally seconds after he's done. It could very well start running earlier and catch a bullet. You can't expect a dog to stay on the side and out of the line of fire.

>>34026583
Putting down old, sick or dangerous pets is legal. Killing them "at any time" is not.

By your logic it's legal to kill people at any time because it's not illegal to kill in self-defense.

File: 1493703319891.jpg (57KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x960px

>>34026583
Are you implying that Hickok can hit a killing shot the first time every time even while accidentally hitting a sprinting doggo that he wasn't trying to aim at?

>>34026587
>After he is done

He is in control of the gun. The 4 Cardinal rules include being aware of your target and WHAT IS BEYOND IT. This includes things coming in from the sides.

Hickock was very aware of the dog before he shot and he knows what he is doing.

>>34026610
Animal's aren't people. Also you need to go look it up. It is not illegal. You know for something to be illegal there has to be a law against it. The absence of a law means that it is legal.

>>34026616
You've seen him shoot.

Also he wasn't aiming at the dog and he was aware of the dogs position while he was firing.

I have shot passed people in similar environments. Any vet or person who had taken a training class has done it before.

>>34026610
Find me a law against killing your pet mister lawyer. People put healthy pets down because they don't want to deal with them during a move.

>>34026626
>Hickock was very aware of the dog before he shot
He has no direct control over the dog's behaviour and can't expect it to stand away from the line of fire.

>he knows what he is doing
What kind of excuse is that?

Would you allow me to point a gun at you/your dog or shoot while you/your dog are down range because "I know what I'm doing" ? Come on now.

>>34026638
>Animal's aren't people.
No shit. What is your point?

>Also you need to go look it up. It is not illegal. You know for something to be illegal there has to be a law against it. The absence of a law means that it is legal.
I think you need to look it up. Laws against animal cruelty exist. If you kill a pet for shits and giggles it's animal cruelty.

>>34026675
>Find me a law against killing your pet mister lawyer.
Look for anti-cruelty laws.

> People put healthy pets down because they don't want to deal with them during a move.
Which is illegal.

By your logic killing people is legal too if no one finds out.

>>34026692
>Which is illegal.

Post the exact law pls, because I think you're full of shit.

>>34026692
It doesn't matter if he has no control of the dog he has control of the muzzle and trigger. It's really fucking hard to shoot something accidentally

>>34026692
It's not animal cruelty to kill an animal.
You are wrong.

>>34026692
>animal cruelty
>shoot a dog

Yeah lol what city have you lived in your entire life?

Maybe he's ex ATF?

File: 1429829303977.gif (91KB, 322x324px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 322x324px

>>34026583
>Acktchuallie'thsumth've

>>34026717
>Post the exact law pls
Varies depending on the state, look it up yourself. I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

>I think you're full of shit
So you think anti-cruelty laws don't exist? k.

>>34026721
>It doesn't matter if he has no control of the dog he has control of the muzzle and trigger.
So it's safe to point a loaded gun at someone because I have the control over the muzzle and trigger? You can't be serious.


>>34026733
>>34026757
Shoot your dog next to a police officer and tell him you did it for shits and giggles, guess what happens.

>>34026692
These Tennessee anti-cruelty provisions define "animal" as a domesticated living creature or a wild creature previously captured. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals (a Class A misdemeanor) if he or she intentionally or knowingly tortures, maims or grossly overworks an animal; fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, care or shelter for an animal in the person's custody; abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody; transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; or inflicts burns, cuts, lacerations, or other injuries or pain. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section, with dog fighting incurring a felony penalty and cockfighting resulting in a misdemeanor in most cases. A person commits aggravated cruelty (a Class E felony) to animals when, with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal. Exclusions include animal farming, research, veterinary practices, hunting, trapping, "dispatching" rabid animals or wild animals on one's property, among other things.

You are wrong. You are trying to argue your opinion as to what is justified or reasonable as a reason to kill an animal

If you intentionally kill an animal there are a million things you could use as justified cause


And if you accidentally kill an animal you are free and clear because you had not intent.

>>34026777
>being this autistic and butthurt

I'm going to go adopt a dog I can't even own in my apartment and shoot it because of you

File: 1473580170901.jpg (54KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 630x472px

>>34025874
>his dog goes looking for kill at the spot the last shot hit
I really wish I had a dog

>>34025874
Darwinism

Done

>>34026777
>Not here to spoon-feed you

You are arguing that it's one way and everyone disagrees with you so the burden is on you to prove it

>>34026777
>I'm not here to spoonfeed you
How convenient that you don't have to support your claims

>>34026777
I was specifically saying he never pointed the gun at anything but the target because he had control over it you fucking autistic fuck

>>34026785
> A person commits aggravated cruelty (a Class E felony) to animals when, with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal.
Which proves that you cannot " legally kill it at any time" which my point the entire time.

>>34026810
>>34026811

>>34026785 is a good example of an anti-cruelty law.

>>34026822
Exclusions include animal farming, research, veterinary practices, hunting, trapping, "dispatching" rabid animals or wild animals on one's property, among other things.

Can you not read ?

>>34026777
>Making an argument with no sauce
>I ask for sauce
>Suddenly that's spoonfeeding

So was it spoonfeeding when I had to cite my sources in college papers, or when good journalists name their source?

>>34026832
>Exclusions
Can you?

Again, do you also think it's legal to kill people because it's not illegal to kill in self defense?

>>34026842

>>34026785 is your sauce.

I also feel it's only appropriate to call you a retard for doubting the existence of anti-cruelty laws.

>>34026492
ATF pls go

>>34026862
You didn't provide him with shit and that sauce disproves your assertion

>>34026862
You can pretend like exclusions means something else but to everyone else it means not illegal

>>34026881
>You didn't provide him with shit
I did.

>that sauce disproves your assertion
My assertion is that you cannot legally kill pets at any time.

That sauce clearly states that

>A person commits aggravated cruelty (a Class E felony) to animals when, with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal.

Which means it is indeed not legal to kill pets at any time, only with justifiable purpose and without aggravated cruelty.

>>34026907
No you didn't I posted that you fucking cuck boy

>>34026903
>You can pretend like exclusions means something else
"Exclusions" literally means "things that are not included".

>to everyone else it means not illegal
It's not a matter of opinion.

The law clearly states it's illegal to kill a pet without justifiable purpose and with aggravated cruelty. This makes it illegal to kill it "at any time".

>>34026940
I didn't say I posted it. I provided him with the link to your post. Reading comprehension.

>>34026907
The determination of rabid or dangerous animals falls under the judgment of the owner. You can also kill animals at will if you say you are breeding them

It's also not illegal to accidentally kill an animal

>>34026960
You are the most autistic piece of shit I've ever seen

>>34026942
>Exclusions" literally means "things that are not included".

Meaning not illegal

>>34026973
>The determination of rabid or dangerous animals falls under the judgment of the owner.
That's correct. This does not mean you are allowed to kill it "at any time".

>You can also kill animals at will if you say you are breeding them
That needs more context.

>It's also not illegal to accidentally kill an animal
Never said it was. It's clearly irresponsible, but I'm only arguing it's illegal to kill an animal "at any time".

>>34026986
>get proven wrong
>y-your j-just a-a-autistic
k

>>34026997
Yes, it's not illegal in those few specific circumstances. It does not mean it's legal to kill a pet at any time.

>>34027011
It does tho.

>>34027022
>thing being legal in a few specific circumstances means it's legal at any time
I hope you are just pretending, for your sake.

>>34026492
Kansas here, we can't do that here. Not sure what the laws are in Tennessee though.

>>34027011
exclusion == not illegal

>>34026610
Dogs are chattel. They're property. They do not have the same rights as humans. If an owner doesn't want a dog anymore they're legally entitled to kill it at any time.

>>34027038
In those specific circumstances, not at any time.

This shit happens all the time with hunting dogs. The nice thing is hickok can aim.

>>34026942
What's the dog gonna do, call the fucking cops? Do you realize how autistic you sound?

>>34027044

>>34026785 clearly proves you wrong.

Since I called the other Anon retarded for doubting the existance of anti-crulety laws, it's only fair to call you retarded as well.

>>34027052
>What's the dog gonna do, call the fucking cops?
Dead people are not going to call the cops either, that doesn make manslaughter legal.

>Do you realize how autistic you sound?
Do you realize how wrong you are yet?

>>34027058
It proves him right now wrong
You are fucking autistic and you aren't getting that the exemptions are what make it fine for you to kill your dog

>>34027074
>It proves him right now wrong
It clearly proves him wrong.

>exemptions are what make it fine for you to kill your dog
Only if specific circumstances are met, not at any time.

>y-your just a-a-autistic
k

File: 1462775558501.jpg (8KB, 200x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x282px

>>34026777
Listen retard, I know you're having a hard time here so I'm going to spell it out. Killing a dog is not abuse. Killing it in a needlessly cruel or unusual way is, of course, but the mere act of killing your own dog, whether or not you have a reason to do so, is perfectly legal.

Pets are property, they do not have human rights. The abilty to destroy said property is an inherent right of the property owner. So long as the property is destroyed and disposed in a manner in accordance with the law there's nothing illegal about killing a pet.

>keeps stutterposting for no other argument, but when called autistic
:thinking:

>>34027066
Dogs aren't people the law does not protect them.

The guys who killed Marcus lutrells service dog. One of them got two years for animal cruelty but only because he beat the dog with a bat before shooting it.

The other got probation and the two people in the backseat of the car didn't even get in Trouble because it's not illegal to watch someone kill a dog and not do anything like it is with people it doesn't make you an accessory.

It's not fucking illegal and you are fucking stupid

>>34027066
No one is going to conduct a grand jury investigation on a dog that got shot. It's okay though I just finished nutting in your moms ass so she can come make you some tendies

>>34027058
Point me where in that paragraph it said that the killing of an animal via gunshot is illegal. Euthanasia isn't cruelty.

File: 1485896962960.jpg (225KB, 420x601px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 420x601px

>>34025874
Blow it out your ass OP. I've been out hunting with my dog a hundred times. Unlesd you're a fucking awful shot then you're fine. In Hickok's case the man is a crack shot. Sorry you were triggered

>>34027096
>Killing a dog is not abuse. Killing it in a needlessly cruel or unusual way is, of course, but the mere act of killing your own dog, whether or not you have a reason to do so, is perfectly legal.

>whether or not you have a reason to do so

>>34026785

>A person commits aggravated cruelty (a Class E felony) to animals when, with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal.

>no justifiable purpose
You're factually wrong. Swallow your pride.

>>34027102
>Dogs aren't people the law does not protect them.
Anti-cruelty laws clearly do.

>The other got probation and the two people in the backseat of the car didn't even get in Trouble because it's not illegal to watch someone kill a dog and not do anything like it is with people it doesn't make you an accessory.
That doesn't have anything to do with legality of killing an animal.

>It's not fucking illegal and you are fucking stupid
No u

>>34027114
>No one is going to conduct a grand jury investigation on a dog that got shot.
That doesn't make it legal.

>>34027115
>justifiable purpose

>>34027135
His dog only started running to where he shot when he was finished, too

>>34027146
>replying to everybody
This is the mark of a man backed into a corner

>>34027146
Get out, no one wants you here.

>>34027160
So a man not backed into a corner would only replay to one person and ignore the rest? You're not making any sense nor making a point.

>>34027166
Make me.

File: 1459471084419.jpg (21KB, 141x204px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 141x204px

>>34027146
>no justifiable purpose
Sorry, retard, but "not wanting to own a dog anymore" is a justifiable purpose. Stop now before you dig yourself any deeper.

>>34027146
No one wants you here

>>34027146
no one wants you here

>>34027146
no one wants you here

>>34027146
Fuck off, no one wants you here

>>34027176
>"not wanting to own a dog anymore" is a justifiable purpose
In what court?

Use your limited imagination and guess what would happen if you shot you dog next to a police officer and then said "I didn't want to won it anymore".

>>34027179
>>34027183
>>34027197
I don't want you here either.

>>34027209
Fuck off, retard

>>34027211
No u

File: ggfgfgf.png (20KB, 1038x292px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1038x292px

>>34027209
it's not just me

>>34027209
>In what court?

all of them, the case would never even be taken to court because its not illegal.

>>34027223
And I care because?

>>34027231
> its not illegal
It's clearly is according to >>34026785

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

>>34027209
>Use your limited imagination and guess what would happen if you shot you dog next to a police officer and then said "I didn't want to won it anymore".


barring all of the other bullshit evolved the cop
either wouldnt give a fuck or would arrest you and you wouldnt ever have to go to court.

>>34027247
it's not illegal, you are wrong.

We did run and gun drills constantly in our pre deployment work up. Every other guy runs while the others provide covering fire. Repeat until 400yds downrange. Safe enough.

>>34027255
>or would arrest you
Guess why.

>you wouldnt ever have to go to court
That depends just how many fucks the cops or other witnesses give. It's still illegal.

>>34027265
It clearly is illegal to kill a pet at any time without a justifiable purpose. Try actually reading the linked post next time.

File: a8c.jpg (30KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x333px

>>34027209
Holy shit, retard, you're back for more. Try to read next time. Let's recap: A dog is property. The owner of said property has the right to destroy said property whenever they so choose so long as the property is destroyed and disposed of in a manner in accordance with the law. Tennessee law requires some forms of justification to destroy a dog. Since the owner of said dog reserves the right to destroy it the justification for destruction is the fact that the owner wants to destroy their property in the first place.

I'm not going to even touch your absurd hypothetical. Why would there be a police officer on my property watching me euthanize my own dog?

>>34026804
I dont even care about this debate but it is on both sides to provide evidence in a debate you fucking mong

>>34027285
>Guess why.

because the majority of cops don't know shit about the law.

>That depends just how many fucks the cops or other witnesses give. It's still illegal.

it doesn't matter how many cops saw it because its not illegal

>It clearly is illegal to kill a pet at any time without a justifiable purpose. Try actually reading the linked post next time.

i am the one who posted it, i live in Tennessee and i am telling you that you are wrong.

>>34027285
No one wants you here

>>34027303
>Since the owner of said dog reserves the right to destroy it the justification for destruction is the fact that the owner wants to destroy their property in the first place.
Killing the pet for the sake of it wouldn't be considered a justifiable purpose by any court. It's called "anti-cruelty law" fro a reason.

>Why would there be a police officer on my property watching me euthanize my own dog?
How is this relevant? It's supposed to demonstrate that it is indeed illegal.

>>34027315
>because the majority of cops don't know shit about the law.
I'm sure you think that's the reason. The reality is a little different however.

>it doesn't matter how many cops saw it because its not illegal
It is.

>i am the one who posted it, i live in Tennessee and i am telling you that you are wrong.
Then your reading comprehension is clearly very poor and you should work on it before you commit a felony/crime.

>>34027372
I don't want you here either.

>>34027391
no one wants you here

>>34027407
I'm here to stay, better get used to it.

You sound upset.

File: 1466292531913.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>34027391
Okay, retard, you're obviously very slow, so I'm going to have to break out the analogies. It's illegal to blow up a building for no reason. However, if I own the building and want to demolish it it's perfectly legal for me to do so. The justification for the destruction of property is the owner's desire to destroy it. Understand, retard? Now apply that same logic to a dog.

>>34026777
It's not safe to point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy because by doing so, you have given up control of the muzzle.

You faggot.

>>34027433
Hush, you.

>>34027445
Your analogy is moronic. Anti-cruelty laws do not apply to buildings. Stop embarassing yourself.

>>34027453
So can I point it right next to you? You ok with that, faggot?

>>34027456
Make me.

>>34027391
Simply killing a dog isn't cruelty. Killing it in an intentionally drawn out or cruel way is. A gunshot to the head is quick and painless.

>>34025972
This.

>>34027490
Killing it without a justifiable purpose is considered illegal as well.

No court is going to consider "for shits and giggles" a "justifiable purpose".

File: 1462740608557.jpg (54KB, 1016x568px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1016x568px

>>34027485
You still don't understand, do you, retard? The mere act of killing a dog isn't cruelty because killing a dog isn't inherently cruel. Dogs are property, their owner's reserve the right to destroy them at their pleasure.

>>34027507
You're the one claiming people are killing dogs "for shirts and giggles". If an owner doesn't want to own a dog anymore he's more than entitled to kill it. That's all the justification he needs.

>>34027391
Just thought i should hop in this thread and let you know that you may actually be retarded. that or you just read at a 5th grade level im not really sure.

Let's break this down real quick.

>A person commits aggravated cruelty (a Class E felony) to animals when, with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal.

>with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose

>aggravated cruelty and

>aggravated cruelty AND

>AND

>Aggravated cruelty means conduct which is done or carried out in a depraved and sadistic manner and which tortures or maims an animal

Jesus dude just shut up already. unless you kill the animal in a torturous way and without reason it's legal.

>>34027485
If I wanted my comeback I'd wipe it off your mother's chin you fantastical prancing fairy-man.

>>34025874
You guys never went hunting I presume?

>>34027146
No one wants you here

File: 1440099172760.jpg (97KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 500x338px

>>34027485
>. Anti-cruelty laws do not apply to buildings.
Look at him, he's being retarded on purpose! Look at him and laugh!

>>34027510
>Dogs are property, their owner's reserve the right to destroy them at their pleasure.

>killing at pleasure
>justifiable purpose
Yuo need to be either mentally retarded or sociopathic to not understand this a book example of cruelty.

I understand it's hard to admit being wrong on an anonymous zimbabwean basket weaving website but come on now.

>>34027515
>If an owner doesn't want to own a dog anymore he's more than entitled to kill it. That's all the justification he needs.
Killing an animal because you don't want to own it anymore is cruel and no court is going to consider it justifiable.

>>34027522
>unless you kill the animal in a torturous way and without reason it's legal.
I agree with that. The point is it's not legal to do so without a justifiable purpose.

>>34027527
I'll give you 3/10 for the effort.

>>34027551
>Look at him, he's being retarded on purpose!
That would be you. At least that's what I'm hoping for, for your sake.

>>34027510
I'm reading state laws and the seem to disagree.

File: 1429501303967.jpg (39KB, 722x612px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 722x612px

>>34027571
It's cute you still think you're actually smart

>>34027510
>Dogs are property, their owner's reserve the right to destroy them at their pleasure.
Not according to >>34027530

I hope you don't own a dog you piece of shit.

File: 1464578836970.jpg (184KB, 472x631px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 472x631px

>what the fuck is going on in this thread

>>34027594
It's cute you still think I care about non-arguments.

>>34027607
There's no non-arguments if you just show how much of a retard you are getting proved wrong left and right, then acting like you're winning desu
>anti-cruelty laws do not apply to buildings
I mean, who would actually try to think this is an argument anyway?

>>34025874
He's a glockfag, obviously safety isn't his thing.

Also it's a dog, not like it matters. I thought /k/ was big on hunting.

>>34027571
Handing the animal to a shelter to live in a cage until it's euthanized to make room is more cruel than ending the animal while it doesn't know what is going on.
>no kill shelter
Wherein the dog sits, knowing it was abandoned, until it dies or, on a tiny percent chance, is adopted.

To say nothing of the overburdened shelter system as a whole because of irresponsible assholes.

>what if the guy just shot it accidentally and needs to justify to the horde of police, SPCA, and lawyers that magically appeared?
"It tried to bite me, which was uncharacteristic of Fido."

>>34027571
>I agree with that. The point is it's not legal to do so without a justifiable purpose.

Oh, so you actually are retarded and don't understand the meaning of the word "and". It's ok, googling it for you wont take too much time out of my day.

And- "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."

>"tortuous way AND without reason"

You see, that means you have to do both. You can kill an animal in a tortuous way IF it's justifiable, AND(see what i did there?) you can kill an animal without justifiable reason so long as it ISN'T tortuous.

Shooting your dog in the head because you don't like the way he's looking at you or just don't want him anymore is legal(in Tn state law) so long as discharge of a firearm isn't illegal in your locality.

>>34027146
I want you here just so I can tell you to fuck off over and over again.

>>34026559
>le white people must love dogs meme cats r for redditors liberals haha

File: 1491904184055.png (629KB, 803x652px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 803x652px

>>34027530
>state law saying you can't shoot your dog whenever you want
>everyone ignores it

>>34027620
>There's no non-arguments if you just show how much of a retard you are getting proved wrong left and right, then acting like you're winning desu
This didn't happen though.

>I mean, who would actually try to think this is an argument anyway?
Obviously the guy who made that moronic analogy.

>>34027627
>Handing the animal to a shelter to live in a cage until it's euthanized to make room is more cruel than ending the animal while it doesn't know what is going on.
If you cannot takeresponsibility for a pet you should not own it in the first place.

>"It tried to bite me, which was uncharacteristic of Fido."
If that's true then fine. If not, lying doesn't make things legal.

>>34027649

>>34027530 clearly porves everything you said wrong.

>>34027675
>state law of unknown state
>umm why everyone ignore me xDDD

>>34027686
>This didn't happen though.
It did, you chose to ignore it though
>Obviously the guy who made that moronic analogy.
It's moronic if you apply a non-argument to it, how quaint
Fuck off, retard

>>34026862
anti cruelty applies to hanging a live dog on meat hooks, skinning it alive, and letting it die of blood loss and shock. Not shooting it, you moron.

>>34027687
If you google it you'll find it's georgia.

File: 1492545596417.jpg (30KB, 750x573px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x573px

>>34027584
First off >>34027530 is in relation to dogs that aren't yours.
>>34027571
Secondly, to expound on >>34027522's point killing a dog because you don't want to own it is NOT cruel. Killing a dog merely for the sake of killing or because you enjoy killing is. There needs to be some malicious or sadistic purpose for it to be considered cruelty. The mere act of killing a dog isn't inherently cruel.
>>34027584
Cite the laws
>>34027595
As I mentioned earlier >>34027530 is in relation to dogs that aren't yours. Also fuck you, you spineless faggot. I've had to kill dogs before, I don't take pleasure in it, retard.

>>34027675
Probably because it's in relation to dogs that aren't yours.

>>34027698
>is in relation to dogs that aren't yours.
It never excludes dogs that are yours...

>>34027146
>with aggravated cruelty and with no justifiable purpose
>with aggravated cruelty and

That means both must be present.

You're factually wrong. Swallow your pride.

>>34026610
>destroting your own property is illegal.
It's not.

>>34027686
I was quoting TN state law which i looked up. that post doesnt even say let alone link where it's from...

File: 1474771765065.png (65KB, 220x313px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 220x313px

>shitposter keeps getting BTFO at every turn
>still tries to argue with everyone that he's right
>but still gets BTFO
This is a glorious thread desu. I'd still never shoot my dog if I had one, even if I could

>>34027698
In the Alabama code they exclude
> Any owner of a dog or cat who euthanizes the dog or cat for humane purposes.
The Georgia code does not, so in Georgia you can't shoot your dog.

>>34027571
>Killing an animal because you don't want to own it anymore is cruel
Not according to the law. If you read >>34027522 you would realize that so long as the dog isn't being killed for sadistic or malicious purposes it doesn't fall under the definition of cruelty. Not wanting to own a dog anymore isn't sadistic or malicious.

>>34027534
How could we? 90% of the people on /k/ don't own guns.

>>34027753
In some state it has to be for "humane purposes"; "I didn't want a dog anymore" qualifies as a humane purpose.

>>34026559
If it was a cat, you'd probably find this hilarious, but because it's an emotionally insecure 4 legged slave animal, it's unspeakable doggo cruelty

>>34027751
So all vets in Georgia are criminals? I think you're not looking hard enough.

>dog is acting strange
>shoot it because I don't want it anymore due to it acting strange
>grand jury indicts me on animal cruelty because "I don't want it" isn't an excuse
>get a million felonies and become bubba's onahole
feels bad man

>>34027763
Fine. I'd don't want a dog anymore AND I'm not willing to feed it anymore. Euthanisia is humane, starvation isn't.

>>34026822
>with aggravated cruelty

You can't read, can you?

You can cleanly kill a dog you own at any time for any reason, you just can't torture it first.

>>34027690
>It did, you chose to ignore it though
Nope, all that happened was a severe lack of reading comprehension. It just keeps happening.

>It's moronic if you apply a non-argument to it, how quaint
It was moronic to begin with.

>Fuck off, retard
Make me, upset Anon.

>>34027692
>killing with no justifiable purpose
>not cruelty
k

>First off >>34027530 is in relation to dogs that aren't yours.
Proof?

>There needs to be some malicious or sadistic purpose for it to be considered cruelty.
Not wanting to deal with the responsibility of owning a pet (that you willingly took) is pretty malicious.

>The mere act of killing a dog isn't inherently cruel.
That's true enough.

>Also fuck you, you spineless faggot. I've had to kill dogs before, I don't take pleasure in it, retard.
If you killed them because they were sick/old/aggressive then fine.

If you killed them because you didn't want to deal with them while moving, because you didn't like its fur or something equally retarded then fuck you.

>>34027732
>That means both must be present.
Killing an animal at any time for shits and giggles is both not justifiable and cruel.

>>34027733
There are different laws depending on the specific type of property. You're not making a point.


>>34027750
There wasn't a single argument that proved you are allowed to legally kill a pet at any time. Just severe lacks of reading comprehension and denial.

>I'd still never shoot my dog if I had one, even if I could
Well at least you are not edgy, I guess I can't ask for more.

>>34027753
"I don't want it anymore" is both not justifiable and cruel.

>>34027808
See above.

>>34027828
This is starting to become embarrassing that he's still going

>>34027247
>intentionally or knowingly

please read the whole thing...

>>34027792
>I don't want it anymore due to it acting strange
If it's acting dangerous or like it's in agony then it's justifable and without cruelty.

If you just don't like how it walks then you got what you deserved because you are one cruel piece of shit.

>>34027828
>"I don't want it anymore" is both not justifiable and cruel.
Except it literally is. You refuse to read the parts of the law that don't support your argument.

>>34027850
Killing a dog via gunshot isn't cruel.

>>34027247
>with aggravated cruelty

to be fair, you're not too bright yourself.

>>34027850
>doggo has injured leg
>don't like how it walks
>im cruel now
just

File: Smug+ception+look+at+all+these+pepes+if+you+know+where+the_a38024_5726429.jpg (47KB, 780x636px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 780x636px

>>34027828
You seem mad.

File: lol95.jpg (71KB, 465x584px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 465x584px

>>34027828

...The fuck are you even doing right now, dude?
Why are you still trying to defend this bullshit?
If you're so right, find a case in the state being discussed, that proves you right.
A real world example.
Because your autistic posting is just embarrassing you.

>>34027884
watch out nigger, he'll start stuttering about autism now that you've said that

>>34027832
What's embarrassing is that people serioulsy believe killing a pet because you don't like it is legal. Hope they don't own pets.

>>34027848
Killing it on accident is not illegal, never said it was.

>>34027852
It's not. " I don't want it anymore" is obviously cruel.

>>34027862
Killing it because you don't want it is.

>>34027863
See above.

>>34027872
>killing a pet because it has an injured leg
>not taking it to a vet or letting the leg heal if the injury is not serious enough
You are either cruel or belong in an institution.

>>34027874
Nah, I'm good. I don't think you are though.

>>34027884
>a-autism
k

>>34027895
Yeah, pointing out retarded non-arguments is something I tend to to.

>>34027916
>>a-autism
>k
he fucking did it, the absolute madman

File: this-is-not-your-regular-darkness-this-isnt-your-average-everyday-autism-this-is-advanced-autism-1.jpg (89KB, 462x330px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 462x330px

>>34027916
Stop.

>>34027956
>a-autism
Make me.

>>34027916
Do you own a pitbull by any chance?

>>34027916
Killing a dog because you don't want it anymore isn't sadistic or cruel, as such it's legal. Read the law >>34027522

>>34027965
>he's still stutterposting
You're only embarrassing yourself, retard.

>>34027980
He only stutterposts on autism accusations because he actually is autistic

>>34027968
I'd bet money he does. I'd also bet he pulls the "no bad dogs just bad owners" line whenever one of his nigger dog's cousins rips off a baby's face.

>>34027968
>Do you own a pitbull by any chance?
Nope.

>>>34027972
>Killing a dog because you don't want it anymore isn't sadistic or cruel
It is cruel. If you fial to understand why it's cruel you are either mentally retarded or suffering from a severe lack of empathy.

>>34027980
>>34027986
It's a mockery of retarded non-arguments. You need to be pretty slow not to get that.

>>34028000
>thinking killng a dog because "you don't want is anymore" is cruel means you must be be a shitty owner
The level of projection in your post is off the charts.

>>34028001
Explain to me how not wanting a dog anymore is sadistic. According to the law it can only be cruelty if there is a sadistic or malicious reasoning behind the killing.

>>34028020
I didn't claim you were a bad dog owner, I claimed you were an autistic retard, a claim which you're rapidly proving to be true.

>>34028001
>It's a mockery of retarded non-arguments
If it's a mockery of retarded non-arguments, why don't you stutterpost on all the other "retarded non-arguments" you're given? Or is it because you know they aren't non-arguments, and that the autism non-argument hits you close to home?

>>34028023
>Explain to me how not wanting a dog anymore is sadistic
Because you willingly took the responsibility of it to begin with. Pets are not fucking toys, just how fucking broken do you need to be to not understand that? Don't ever think about owning a pet or becoming a parent.

>>34028032
>I didn't claim you were a bad dog owner
You implied that with your "bet".

>a-autism
That's getting really old by now, think of something new at least.

>>34028046
>If it's a mockery of retarded non-arguments, why don't you stutterpost on all the other "retarded non-arguments" you're given?
A personal preference.

>Or is it because you know they aren't non-arguments, and that the autism non-argument hits you close to home?
If that was the case I probably wouldn't last that long, would I?

>>34028057
>A personal preference.
Because autism really does hit you close to home, of course
>If that was the case I probably wouldn't last that long, would I?
Considering your brand of autism has kept you for this long, I'd say it's a good assumption

>>34025874

>not being able to see the dog move into the line of fire in time to stop

>having only a toddler-like muzzle awareness to the point of having to have everything be behind you in order to be "safe"

Sad.

>>34028076
>Because autism really does hit you close to home, of course
Nah, it's just a very overused insult. How new?

>Considering your brand of autism has kept you for this long, I'd say it's a good assumption
That assumption doesn't make any sense. How can it hit too close home if it has no effect whatsoever? Make up your mind.

Who cares. I love dogs, I love my dog, but if she goes down range and I'm too lazy to go pull her back (deaf so I can't call her) I just shoot around her and make sure my shots aren't putting her in danger.

As long as she is far enough to the left or right, or below my line of fire, she's fine. She can't be near the target or behind it though because she could get hit with shrapnel or a bullet that hit the dirt and kept tumbling on.

Before anyone says something about her deafness, she's 13 and my last dog was deaf by then too, and I didn't take that dog shooting, ever.

>>34028110
>Nah, it's just a very overused insult. How new?
The only people who whinge over how much autism is overused are those who are actually autistic. Don't pull the "how new" bullshit on me, fagtron
>That assumption doesn't make any sense. How can it hit too close home if it has no effect whatsoever? Make up your mind.
If it has no effect on you whatsoever, why do you keep responding to it with stutterposting? Surely someone without autism wouldn't pay the insults any mind, right? Make up your mind, senpai

>>34028057
>sa·dis·tic
>səˈdistik/
>adjective
>deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.

You still haven't explained to me how not wanting a dog anymore fits the above definition. Tone down the 'tism and stop trying to deflect away from the point. No one claimed that pets are toys, or that they're not a large responsibility.

>>34028057
Stop acting autistic.

File: 120_-_benis.jpg (38KB, 600x510px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x510px

>>34028057
Listen, nigger, you seem to be knee deep in a shitty argument. If you're so convinced that you're right how about you take >>34027884's advice and try to find one real world example of someone being convicted for euthanizing their own dog.

>>34027530
how does what appears to be Georgia law apply to Tennessee, where hikock lives?

>>34028129
>The only people who whinge over how much autism is overused are those who are actually autistic.
I don't really care about stuff you pull out of your ass so spare me.

>Don't pull the "how new" bullshit on me, fagtron
Make me faggot. First month?

>If it has no effect on you whatsoever, why do you keep responding to it with stutterposting?
I already explained that, read the previous post.

> Surely someone without autism wouldn't pay the insults any mind, right? Make up your mind, senpai
Ignoring insults is not someting a non-autisitc person would do. I would argue it's the autists who ignore things in favour of staying in their own world.

>>34028179
http://wnep.com/2016/11/18/man-who-killed-dogs-sentenced-to-jail/
>>34028151
>a-autism
Stop being boring.

File: 1413016534043.jpg (36KB, 300x303px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x303px

>>34028209
Well, I can't convince you otherwise so I guess you'll just have to wallow in your own autistic drivel.

>>34027828
>is both not justifiable and cruel

no, the cruelty is in the method of dispatch, not your feelings.

>>34028136
It's not sadistic but it sure as hell is sociopathic/utterly lacking in empathy. You shouldn't acquire a pet if you don't accept that you're in it for the long haul. I think people often elevate animals too high, but just throwing your pet away because you can't deal with the responsibility is just reprehensible.

>>34028228
>motivation cannot be cruel
k

>>34028209
>Anderson killed two pit bulls last year.
>"It's done. I snapped their necks."
So he kills two nigger dogs in an inhumane way (snapping their necks) and gets jail time.
:thinking:

>>34028209
>http://wnep.com/2016/11/18/man-who-killed-dogs-sentenced-to-jail/

There's confounding variables at play here. First they weren't actually his dogs, secondly he killed them by snapping their necks, not painlessly by gunshot.

>>34027751
good thing Hikock 45 lives in Tennessee then, huh.

>>34028231
I agree with you but that wasn't tell argument.

>>34028260
I'm not him, just saying

>>34028238
Acording to the law the motivation is only cruel if it's sadistic. Explain how not wanting a dog anymore is sadistic.

>>34028209
>http://wnep.com/2016/11/18/man-who-killed-dogs-sentenced-to-jail/
>PA law
>applicable to TN
ok

>>34027916
>It's not. " I don't want it anymore" is obviously cruel.

That depends on how you kill it.
A single shot to the back of the head is not cruel, tying it down and bludgeoning it is

>>34028277
Because you willingly take the responsibility. Pets are not toys.

>>34028291
Shit nigger what does it matter? We are not discussing TN only.

>>34026692
>He has no direct control over the dog's behaviour and can't expect it to stand away from the line of fire.

Yeah, what if the dog teleports in front of the bullets, or ninja drops down from a tree right in front of the bullet? What if the dog is secretly the Flash and has been concealing his super speed from Hickok for the past 12 years?!?

CHECKMATE

(your presumptions about how fast dogs move are fucking retarded. if you're going to be a hysterical pussy about something, make a fuss about possible ricochet or something marginally less retarded)

>>34028057
>Because you willingly took the responsibility of it to begin with. Pets are not fucking toys, just how fucking broken do you need to be to not understand that? Don't ever think about owning a pet or becoming a parent.

This idiot doesn't know that peoples circumstances can change!

>>34027507
https://youtu.be/qdUHp_TIB8E

>>34028344
This is something you should take into account when taking the responsiblity.

>oh shit dog food got too expensive
>better kill it
Yeah, that's not cruel, at all.

File: 1447082094534.jpg (53KB, 547x484px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 547x484px

>>34028355
If I owned a horse I probably couldn't live through shooting it, I love them as much as dogs

>>34028318
This is all in relation to Hikock, who lives in TN.

>>34028355
Horses are not considered pets.

That said, that's a pretty shit thing to do.

>>34028366
I'm not saying what hickok did was illegal. Even if he did shot the dog on accident, it's not illegal to injure/kill a pet on accident.

The whole point is that it's not legal to kill a pet at any time for shits and giggles.

>>34028318
No one's arguing that. You have failed to explain to why not wanting a dog anymore is SADISTIC. Once again:
>sa·dis·tic
>səˈdistik/
>adjective
>deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.

How is not wanting it anymore dervish pleasure from its pain?

>>34028361
I don't like horses, only the massive dick and buckets of cum are appealing.

>>34028375
P R O P E R T Y

File: 1429043521854.png (1MB, 919x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 919x720px

>>34028386
>only the massive dick and buckets of cum are appealing.
I mean that and horse pussy, but still

>>34028386
The guy who shot that horse is a slaughterhouse worker.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1003310/WARNING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT-Man-shoots-horse-goad-animal-activists.html

These laws don't apply to livestock.

>>34028356
So you have complete and utter control over all aspects of your life? Oh wait, you're autistic, you probably do micromanage everything.

>>34028356

think harder, homer.

>>34028406
>being able to afford a pet means you are an autist who micromanage everything
It sounds more like you are just a retard a who barely earns enough money to survive.

Don't get a pet.

>>34028392
Nah. Am homofag

>>34028403
Never said they did ro

>>34028451
Then what's your point? We are not discussing livestock. Livestock is supposed to be killed in the first place.

File: 1473748207707.png (200KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 547x402px

ITT: People claiming I can't do what I please with my chattel.

Snibbity snabbity you violated the NAPity.

>>34027777
>>34027530
>except leo, dog or rabies control officer, humane soceity, or vet
retard

File: Auschwitz.jpg (199KB, 1429x901px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1429x901px

>>34025874
You don't even see the dog until after he stops shooting. There's nothing unsafe about that.

>>34025972
>That's why kill shelters have to use gas
No they don't. They use needles, but animal shelters aren't the only institutions that are falsely accused of using gas chambers.

>>34028443
Can you read? I claiming sometimes things happen outside of people's control.

>>34026506
/thread

It's a dog.

File: 1449982640011.jpg (15KB, 480x341px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x341px

>still hasn't addressed that his real world example showed that the dogs weren't the property of the killer, and that he also had killed them inhumanely

>>34028465
Read the rest of the code. That's only in relation to dogs that aren't yours.

>>34028382
>shits and giggles
shits and giggles not a reason, it's "i like to kill things because i'm a psychopath" that is sadistic intent. This argument started with "he can legally kill it at any time" and he can. "i don't want the dog because [reasons]" is a perfectly acceptable reason.

>>34028384
in addition to this, sadistic killing of your own dog, precludes humane dispatch.

>>34028540
I did, show me where it says that.

Another non issue thread, I'd rather have five more F-35s are lemons or turkeys or whatever shit than this. I mean what is this? Fucking nothing is what it is.

>>34028462
My point is tbat I'm getting (You)s.