A Matter of Contention

There appears to be two kinds of people in this world. There are those who would never use a gun to kill a cat that mauled someone, and those who damn right would. I have also come to discover that the first groups appears to be very intolerant of the second group. It seems to me that they would consider this cruel and inhumane and would seek other methods to deal with the cat short of shooting it. When others from the latter group band together in unison to call for the death of the face mauler, those from the first group are quick to get appalled.

What is the difference between using a bullet to shoot a house cat (and not just any ordinary housecat, but one with a record of violence towards people) and using a bullet to shoot a deer or some other game animal? This is perfectly legal, though i'm not sure if cats are ever in season and if they are even legal to shoot in some jurisdictions.

So the cat hasn't been seen. This can be both good and bad news, good that the said kitty may be far away and if I never see him again, I'm perfectly content with that. Bad in that if it was rabies (highly unlikely, btw) what is the chances of something else coming across the kitty's rotting carcass and injesting the rabies virus itself? Then before you know it, full out rabies outbreak, minus myself of course, I'm vaccinated.

Anyway, back to the original topic of conversation, the question of the type of people who think that others who call for violence towards aggressive cats are apparently intolerable. I state things about politics from time to time, that doesn't seem to bother these people, but a call to death by .22 toward the face mauling psycho cat seems to cause all sorts of reactions, so much that one of my friends (a quite liberal friend in fact, who I've had debates with in the past on matters of political discourse in a friendly matter) defriended me over it. You can get a lot of people's hearts pounding over this topic. But what got my gile was the fact that people seem to want to understand the motives for dangerous animals. When a cat lunges at a person's face and leaves them permanantly scarred (yep, that's going to leave a mark), what do you propose you do with such an animal?

If it stays gone, good. I don't have to deal with it. But if it comes back here, seeing as the cat trap worked so fabulously well, I think I'll grab the 10-22, sit outside and observe the kitty's behavior. Any sign of that former aggresion it showed to me before, kitty is going to be a bullet catcher. If he turns and darts off, well, no harm there, if he doesn't let people get close to him, then I've got no problem with him. If he comes to me and shows signs of the former sane kitty, I might actually let him live.

But apparently, according to one 'friend' on the internets, (term used loosely, I barely know this person) I should have caught him in a cat trap, and because I have decided not to keep my other two sane cats locked in the tack room until the cat shows up again, (which, btw, may be never) that I shouldn't have any cats. Brilliant. My cats do have a job, they aren't just there for my amusement. Furthermore, believe it or not, I'm more of a cat person and actually am quite fond of my sane cats. I can differentiate sane from insane, unfortunately, my fondness is not unconditional.

That being said, i have discovered that along with politics and religion, animal rights can cause tempers to flare, and so if you are all for gunning a cat down that attacked you, to save some friendships you might want to keep that info to yourself.

Or do tell, and see the tempers flare. It can cause some interesting debates!