Page 1 of 2
theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:23 pm
by CrimsonSoul
Say you go to the zoo one day and some kid/adult some how falls or gets into the area of a dangerous animal tiger/bear/naked mole rat/etc, would it be legal to kill the animal to save the person or would PETA and their lawyers attempt to sue you to death or some such?
Personally I'd kill the animal to save the human but since some of those are endangered or protected?
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:26 pm
by The Annoyed Man
I was under the impression that most zoos forbid firearms, either by posting 30.06 signs, or by other means. Was I wrong about that?
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:28 pm
by CrimsonSoul
I don't go to Zoo's but maybe once a year or less so I don't know about that :) but was just a question
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:37 pm
by boomerang
If they intentionally climbed the fence or barrier, I think I'd let them experience nature in all her glory.
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:44 pm
by dicion
Provided I was legally carrying in the zoo, eg they did not have a 30.06 sign posted...
And the animal was clearly capable of, and in the act of, or preparing to seriously injuring the child... (Think Lion, with Baby Lions, protecting their young from a perceived threat)
... It's a tough call, and would have to be dealt with at the time. However, I can say that If I knew that I did nothing, that there was a medium to good chance the child would be killed..
Yes, I would probably shoot the animal, under the circumstances that I could do so without possibly harming anyone else or the aforementioned child.
However, if there was any chance I could jump down in there and get the animal to go after me, in order to buy some time until the handlers got in to restrain it properly, I would do that first.
Legal or not, That's what I'd probably do.
Now, if it was some adult that fell in there of their own stupidity... probably not. They should know better. A child doesn't.
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:52 pm
by USA1
dicion wrote:
However, if there was any chance I could jump down in there and get the animal to go after me, in order to buy some time until the handlers got in to restrain it properly, I would do that first.
super dicion to the rescue !!!

Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:57 pm
by dicion
LOL
Wow.. thanks.... Seriously though.. I think that as adults, we would be able to at least possibly restrain an animal, or at least prevent it from vital blows a little easier than a child would.
Plus.. I never said I'd jump in there Without my gun! :P A shot to the ground at their feet might be enough to send them cowering back into their cave in some cases.
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 pm
by USA1
dicion wrote:LOL
Wow.. thanks.... Seriously though.. I think that as adults, we would be able to at least possibly restrain an animal, or at least prevent it from vital blows a little easier than a child would.
Plus.. I never said I'd jump in there Without my gun! :P A shot to the ground at their feet might be enough to send them cowering back into their cave in some cases.
next time i go to the zoo , im takin you for protection .
...sometimes the people are scarier than the animals

Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:04 pm
by dicion
USA1 wrote:dicion wrote:LOL
Wow.. thanks.... Seriously though.. I think that as adults, we would be able to at least possibly restrain an animal, or at least prevent it from vital blows a little easier than a child would.
Plus.. I never said I'd jump in there Without my gun! :P A shot to the ground at their feet might be enough to send them cowering back into their cave in some cases.
next time i go to the zoo , im takin you for protection .
...sometimes the people are scarier than the animals

I was at the Moody Gardens Aquarium the other week...
Some of those fishes in the big tank in there are bigger than me! They could definitely chew on an infant.... Maybe I should take a wetsuit, diving knife, and spear gun next time I go there as well... just in case.
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:43 pm
by Kevinf2349
Would you need to kill the animal?....wouldn't a shot into the air scare it away? It would me!

Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:59 pm
by surprise_i'm_armed
dicion:
I'm very impressed in the above picture that with those Spandex
tights on, I can't see your 1911 printing anywhere!! :-)
Concealed means concealed!
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:00 pm
by ScottDLS
For a tiger, I'm thinking my .38 special +P silvertip might just annoy it. Remember Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom? The local game wardens from all those African countries weren't carrying .38 Webley's...More like .378 or .460 Wetherby.
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:45 pm
by WEC
USA1 wrote:next time i go to the zoo , im takin you for protection .
...sometimes the people are scarier than the animals

I carry a gun because carrying dicion is a little too heavy.

Re: theoretical question
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:55 pm
by USA1
Re: theoretical question
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:23 am
by CrimsonSoul
Heavier than a Taurus pistol, faster than a speeding turtle, he is Dicion man!
We will never know the true identity of this wonderfull hero, if only that guy with the glasses didn't disappear every time dicion man was around!