No. That would be childish and disgusting,

Dave Hall wrote:
But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did
anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No.

An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner. This is in order to prevent further damage to his
property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could
easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers.

The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,
except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it
doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a
single fact in this world.

DSK