• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Friends cat got runover, I had to shoot it with a .22 :(

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Too bad that no one who actually matters gives a shit. I guess you will just have to get over it.
Guess talking about criminal activity is ok and we know you love getting off on any gun stories you badass marine you.

The problem you have is you obviously post out of emotion only. I am stating the facts...if I don't get pissed off at every idiot out there...it would be constant. I simply stated the reasons what he did was wrong.

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you.
You have not struck a nerve with me, it is just that you are too much of a douchebag to realize that what he did was right - not wrong as you claim.

Besides, I love gun stores involving cats - especially feral cats. I try to shoot every healthy one I can find. Maybe one will show itself on the property tonight, I will load up the .410 just for you. ;)
:thumbsup: LMFAO:laugh:

 

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst

Outdoor cats tend to have lifespans in the mid single digit range.

.
:confused:



We have 10 acress of land. Our cat will be 9yrs old in December. He has been an outdoor cat for the past 8 years. We wanted him to be an indoor cat. But he seemed happier outside. So, we just let him stay outside. One thing I dont understand is we keep him well fed. He is always hunting something down (which it could be him following his "predator" nature). And he always brings his "trophies" (or parts of it:laugh:) to our back door (which is the one we use the most). Anyways, he is happy outside. We would be really upset if he gets killed by another animal, person, lighting strike, meteor landing on his head, etc. But, at least we know that he had a good happy life before that.

 

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
Originally posted by: sundevb


Gonna take a shot in the dark and say Alkemyst isn't doing too well in Zoology.
I think so too. He is just to busy arguing with people in online forums over stupid sh1t. Instead he should be studying, doing homework or working on projects.

 

dealmaster00

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,621
0
0
Haha - alkemyst reminds me of Javert from Les Mis. Always has to follow the law 100%. Perhaps you should consider that sometimes following the law to a tee isn't the most morally correct thing to do.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
So, it's humane to put down a cow with a bullet to the head, but it's not humane to put down a cat with a bullet to the head? Care to explain that please?? What isn't humane about instantaneous?

Humane Euthanasia Procedures for sick, injured, and/or debilitated livestock
(yes, alkemyst, I see the word livestock. It's agreed that a .22 is a humane way of dispatching a cow, horse, pig,... The term "livestock" rather than "pet" does NOT change their anatomy to affect the efficiency of such a method. The only reason it's not considered "humane" and that the only "humane" way of putting down a pet is due to emotional issues of those who wanted their legislators to make such laws in the first place. People equate a gunshot with a violent death. That doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to use a method other than a gunshot when available, particularly in a vets office or at a shelter.)

As far as simply because it's against the law, do you ever travel 56 in a 55mph zone?
(I just had to say that, since you kept referring to that as a valid reason.)

For what it's worth, Alkemyst, I spend more money in a year on pets than the average person spends in a lifetime. When given the choice, I'll take a pet to the vet to have it put down. Emotionally, it's a lot easier, especially if I'm really attached to the pet. But, if a pet is run over by a car and is clearly suffering, then I'm going to make the tough choice and end its suffering as quickly as possible.

Oh, another thing you said that hasn't been addressed: "It's a crime in most places as well to avoid treatment of a pet due to it costing money. " No. Neglect is a crime. However, a person may legally choose to have a pet euthanized, rather than pay for an expensive treatment (unless you're considering euthanasia to be "treatment.") If you think a pet owner is obligated to pay $2000 for a life-saving surgery, you're sorely mistaken.

Oh, and lastly, even the Humane Society disagrees with you. They make the exception: "The methods that The HSUS considers inhumane, disapproves of, and campaigns against include... gunshot (excluding properly performed field euthanasia in an emergency situation where safe, humane transport of the animal is not possible)" That is, unless you're going to argue that it's humane to keep a suffering animal alive for as long as a day while arrangements are made to have a vet euthanize it.
Animal sheltering.org
Animal Control Association of Tennessee
Feline Conservation Federation
All agree. (There are many many more, I assure you.) Furthermore, the ASPCA "supports the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia " Ditto the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (and many other zoological associations.)
American Veterinary Medical Association Report on Euthanasia
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.
Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.
an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.
Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot

That would be completely in line with my decision to take a pet to the vet if it was an illness that gradually left the animal debilitated, however, I'd dispatch the animal quickly and humanely in an emergency situation such as being run over by a car. They're not referring to vets in the field as the ones to actually shoot the animals. About 80% of our contact with our veterinarians is through housecalls. Vets carry everything they'd need to put an animal down without needing a gun. Heck, they've performed minor surguries on our farm and in one instance, even did a partial autopsy. A gunshot to the head is a reasonable option in emergency situations when a veterinarian isn't immediately available to euthanize the animal in another fashion.

Face it Alkemyst, everyone in this thread disagrees with you. The Humane Society disgrees with you. The American Veterinary Medial Association disagrees with you. The ASPCA disagrees with you. And, as much as I hate the group in general, even PETA seems to use the AVMA report as their Bible when demanding changes to euthanasia procedures. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that chapter yet while you're studying zoology.


 

adairusmc

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2006
7,070
66
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza
So, it's humane to put down a cow with a bullet to the head, but it's not humane to put down a cat with a bullet to the head? Care to explain that please?? What isn't humane about instantaneous?

Humane Euthanasia Procedures for sick, injured, and/or debilitated livestock
(yes, alkemyst, I see the word livestock. It's agreed that a .22 is a humane way of dispatching a cow, horse, pig,... The term "livestock" rather than "pet" does NOT change their anatomy to affect the efficiency of such a method. The only reason it's not considered "humane" and that the only "humane" way of putting down a pet is due to emotional issues of those who wanted their legislators to make such laws in the first place. People equate a gunshot with a violent death. That doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to use a method other than a gunshot when available, particularly in a vets office or at a shelter.)

As far as simply because it's against the law, do you ever travel 56 in a 55mph zone?
(I just had to say that, since you kept referring to that as a valid reason.)

For what it's worth, Alkemyst, I spend more money in a year on pets than the average person spends in a lifetime. When given the choice, I'll take a pet to the vet to have it put down. Emotionally, it's a lot easier, especially if I'm really attached to the pet. But, if a pet is run over by a car and is clearly suffering, then I'm going to make the tough choice and end its suffering as quickly as possible.

Oh, another thing you said that hasn't been addressed: "It's a crime in most places as well to avoid treatment of a pet due to it costing money. " No. Neglect is a crime. However, a person may legally choose to have a pet euthanized, rather than pay for an expensive treatment (unless you're considering euthanasia to be "treatment.") If you think a pet owner is obligated to pay $2000 for a life-saving surgery, you're sorely mistaken.

Oh, and lastly, even the Humane Society disagrees with you. They make the exception: "The methods that The HSUS considers inhumane, disapproves of, and campaigns against include... gunshot (excluding properly performed field euthanasia in an emergency situation where safe, humane transport of the animal is not possible)" That is, unless you're going to argue that it's humane to keep a suffering animal alive for as long as a day while arrangements are made to have a vet euthanize it.
Animal sheltering.org
Animal Control Association of Tennessee
Feline Conservation Federation
All agree. (There are many many more, I assure you.) Furthermore, the ASPCA "supports the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia " Ditto the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (and many other zoological associations.)
American Veterinary Medical Association Report on Euthanasia
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.
Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.
an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.
Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot

That would be completely in line with my decision to take a pet to the vet if it was an illness that gradually left the animal debilitated, however, I'd dispatch the animal quickly and humanely in an emergency situation such as being run over by a car. They're not referring to vets in the field as the ones to actually shoot the animals. About 80% of our contact with our veterinarians is through housecalls. Vets carry everything they'd need to put an animal down without needing a gun. Heck, they've performed minor surguries on our farm and in one instance, even did a partial autopsy. A gunshot to the head is a reasonable option in emergency situations when a veterinarian isn't immediately available to euthanize the animal in another fashion.

Face it Alkemyst, everyone in this thread disagrees with you. The Humane Society disgrees with you. The American Veterinary Medial Association disagrees with you. And, as much as I hate the group in general, even PETA seems to use the AVMA report as their Bible when demanding changes to euthanasia procedures. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that chapter yet while you're studying zoology.


p.s. can I get a pwned? ;) :D
Here you go.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: DrPizza
So, it's humane to put down a cow with a bullet to the head, but it's not humane to put down a cat with a bullet to the head? Care to explain that please?? What isn't humane about instantaneous?

Humane Euthanasia Procedures for sick, injured, and/or debilitated livestock
(yes, alkemyst, I see the word livestock. It's agreed that a .22 is a humane way of dispatching a cow, horse, pig,... The term "livestock" rather than "pet" does NOT change their anatomy to affect the efficiency of such a method. The only reason it's not considered "humane" and that the only "humane" way of putting down a pet is due to emotional issues of those who wanted their legislators to make such laws in the first place. People equate a gunshot with a violent death. That doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to use a method other than a gunshot when available, particularly in a vets office or at a shelter.)

As far as simply because it's against the law, do you ever travel 56 in a 55mph zone?
(I just had to say that, since you kept referring to that as a valid reason.)

For what it's worth, Alkemyst, I spend more money in a year on pets than the average person spends in a lifetime. When given the choice, I'll take a pet to the vet to have it put down. Emotionally, it's a lot easier, especially if I'm really attached to the pet. But, if a pet is run over by a car and is clearly suffering, then I'm going to make the tough choice and end its suffering as quickly as possible.

Oh, another thing you said that hasn't been addressed: "It's a crime in most places as well to avoid treatment of a pet due to it costing money. " No. Neglect is a crime. However, a person may legally choose to have a pet euthanized, rather than pay for an expensive treatment (unless you're considering euthanasia to be "treatment.") If you think a pet owner is obligated to pay $2000 for a life-saving surgery, you're sorely mistaken.

Oh, and lastly, even the Humane Society disagrees with you. They make the exception: "The methods that The HSUS considers inhumane, disapproves of, and campaigns against include... gunshot (excluding properly performed field euthanasia in an emergency situation where safe, humane transport of the animal is not possible)" That is, unless you're going to argue that it's humane to keep a suffering animal alive for as long as a day while arrangements are made to have a vet euthanize it.
Animal sheltering.org
Animal Control Association of Tennessee
Feline Conservation Federation
All agree. (There are many many more, I assure you.) Furthermore, the ASPCA "supports the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia " Ditto the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (and many other zoological associations.)
American Veterinary Medical Association Report on Euthanasia
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.
Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.
an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.
Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot

That would be completely in line with my decision to take a pet to the vet if it was an illness that gradually left the animal debilitated, however, I'd dispatch the animal quickly and humanely in an emergency situation such as being run over by a car. They're not referring to vets in the field as the ones to actually shoot the animals. About 80% of our contact with our veterinarians is through housecalls. Vets carry everything they'd need to put an animal down without needing a gun. Heck, they've performed minor surguries on our farm and in one instance, even did a partial autopsy. A gunshot to the head is a reasonable option in emergency situations when a veterinarian isn't immediately available to euthanize the animal in another fashion.

Face it Alkemyst, everyone in this thread disagrees with you. The Humane Society disgrees with you. The American Veterinary Medial Association disagrees with you. And, as much as I hate the group in general, even PETA seems to use the AVMA report as their Bible when demanding changes to euthanasia procedures. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that chapter yet while you're studying zoology.


p.s. can I get a pwned? ;) :D
Here you go.
Haha.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,247
206
106
Originally posted by: MrLee
How about taking it to the vet?
At that point, the cat's obviously paralyzed, and there's no way it would be worth the $1000+ just to keep the thing. At best they'd be able to strap its butt to a little wheelchair, which would make a really funny picture, but it wouldn't be worth it.

If you're talking about taking it to the vet to be killed there, I'd opt for the .22 because, again, that's potentially expensive. Not to mention, I'd rather be shot in the head than "put down" with some drugs that may or may not take 15 minutes to finish me off; I still don't get why we have such a complicated procedure for lethal injection in the prison system when there's such an obviously painless solution.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
The drugs do not take 15 minutes to kill the animal. Unconsciousness is nearly immediate and death occurs shortly afterward. The reasons for lethal injection vs. gunshot to a human are aesthetic and a concern for what is more "civilized." The old firing squads were not humane. A humane shot is one which leads immediately to unconsciousness. Being shot in the chest does not qualify.
 

Mermaidman

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2003
7,900
24
81
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: adairusmc


p.s. can I get a pwned? ;) :D

Here you go.
LMAO:laugh:
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The drugs do not take 15 minutes to kill the animal. Unconsciousness is nearly immediate and death occurs shortly afterward. The reasons for lethal injection vs. gunshot to a human are aesthetic and a concern for what is more "civilized." The old firing squads were not humane. A humane shot is one which leads immediately to unconsciousness. Being shot in the chest does not qualify.
Your post reminded me of this:
hot link
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,247
206
106
Originally posted by: DrPizza
The drugs do not take 15 minutes to kill the animal. Unconsciousness is nearly immediate and death occurs shortly afterward. The reasons for lethal injection vs. gunshot to a human are aesthetic and a concern for what is more "civilized." The old firing squads were not humane. A humane shot is one which leads immediately to unconsciousness. Being shot in the chest does not qualify.
That's what I get for skimming the Wiki for my information :( Apparantly you're correct, plan A is finished within thirty seconds, plan B can take fifteen minutes.

I agree on the bolded part, and I realize there may be objections about the obvious difficulty in having an open casket funeral with a headshot execution, but is that the only reason they didn't adjust the firing squad standard to a headshot?
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I can't state with any certainty what the actual objections are, but I think it's because we humans tend to be a bit squeemish about things like that. Lethal injection is "cleaner." After all, hanging was allowed, but no one ever seemed to want someone to drop so far that their head snapped off. "ewwwww!"

For what it's worth, in the little bit of research that I did, I found references to a study that actually did PET scans on brains while the animals were being euthanized by various means. (specifically, sheep, IIRC) - and they used the brain scans when the sheep was shot with a .22 to determine if it was humane. (maybe it was penetrating captive bolt though)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS