Here's a story that is sure to put dog lovers, dog haters and even those in between at each other's throats: An 8-pound Chihuahua wanders near a neighbor's property, and it is killed by a man firing a shotgun through an open window of his Anchorage home. Read the story

What pains me about stories like this, other than the revulsion of an innocent animal being killed, is that people line up on two distinct sides when debating the issue:

Side A: Killing a dog that is not threatening bodily harm is wrong. Firing a weapon in the city is illegal and reckless endangerment.

Side B: Not having the dog on a leash or under voice control is illegal. If it had been leashed, it would still be alive.

Both arguments, by themselves, are valid. Loose dogs in the city are a significant problem. Illegality aside, it is dangerous for the dogs and a terrible nuisance to the public. It can also be dangerous to the public, whether it be a vicious dog biting someone or a friendly dog running out in the street and causing an accident.

When discussing each point by itself, I'm in total agreement with those who make them.

It's when the two arguments are treated as equal infractions that I disagree, especially in this case where no lives were threatened by the loose dog.

A loose Chihuahua is a nuisance. Killing or mistreating a nonthreatening dog is animal cruelty.

I have a deep sympathy for Lowell Mueller's story up until the time he went cowboy from the window. If it's true that this particular dog had been roaming the neighborhood regularly for years, I would be irate too.

But the shotgun blast changed everything. It was cruel to the dog. The dog did nothing wrong. It was just being a dog who had been given too much freedom.

Mueller's beef was with the dog's owners, and he took it out on an innocent dog.

And that is cruelty.