> I'm suggesting that shooting snakes probably isn't the
> best way to deal with them...
... and that's based on your many years as a snake wrangler?
> particularly because if you have time to stop jogging,
> pull your gun out, aim your laser and shoot a fairly
> still snake then the snake's not much of a threat in any event...
I'm confused: either it's not a threat (in which case it doesn't matter how it takes you to do nothing; apparently the Gov has been living in this "no threat" world for a while, since this is the first we've heard of him shooting anything on his jog); or it's a threat, and shooting it before it bites you (or your dog) is an important calculation. Which is it? Is there an amount of time where a threat is something that can be countered, or is it the case that it's not a threat until it's an unstoppable threat, in which case it's not worth trying?
As per usual, education/training is the answer: your mileage may vary.
> if you don't have time, and its actually a poisonous snake
> (are there lots of poisonous snakes in Austin? I really have
> no idea), then its probably bitten you already and shooting it
> off you or thinking that you're going to be collected enough
> after being bitten by a venomous snake to shoot it - particularly
> if you know you're already afraid of them - is just stupid.
You're still losing me. If the snake is too fast, you (or your dog) deserve to get bitten and die? That's just like the Law Of The Jungle or something? And if you don't have a weapon, the snake can take his time biting you? Maybe even twice? Or getting bitten the first time is the best time to stop worrying about a threat, because there's no chance you'd be able to do anything that's not stupid?
There are apparently snakes in Texas. And coyotes.
So far you don't seem very convincing that it's "stupid" and "idiocy" ... but hey, I'm here to learn.
/jordan