Rethinking some carry decisions

[Laddy Smith]

When

When Pit Bulls are outlawed....only outlaws will have Pit Bulls....

Lad

 

[Plain Old Dave]

Simple solution - K frame .32-20. Plenty of power, more accurate and less muzzle flip than a .38, and it's actually a RIFLE shell. Find a later one with the heat treated cylinder, and roll up some warm handloads with the Speer (?) Jacketed bullet.

 

[686-380]

Except, perhaps, when it isn't

As the owner of a Pit Bull mix, I'd have to say that any Pit Bull attack is more the fault of the owner rather than the dog. Raised with love and affection, a Pit Bull will return it with all his heart. There is no more loyal and affectionate breed extant. They were originally bred to protect children, and served in that capacity very well.

Left to be street dogs, or trained for fighting, they can be formidable.

Here in Phoenix, we have a leash law - dogs that run free will get their owners a heavy fine.

This is a picture of our dog Joe, who could not be any sweeter to us, family and friends. If you are introduced to him by us, he will be your friend for life, as he does not forget. By the same token, he's an excellent alarm dog, and I'm certain if we were threatened by a human, he'd go to bat for us.

The secret to a well-behaved Pit Bull is how the owner treats him. Just because a dog is a "pitty" doesn't make him bad. There are bad humans, too - and THAT's why I carry.

John

Spirited Logan girl inspires others after tragic pit bull attack | Logan Hj | news.hjnews.com

Granted, we don't know all of the story - Just what the article portrays.

I also know that it's not just pitbulls but any canine can turn. My dog is as lovable as they come but I'm always cognizant that a random factor could make him snap.

 

[dwever]

As with anything else in the world, a person can find articles, studies and statistics to support whatever view they wish to hold.

I would think that in a group dedicated to firearms, which are demonized for the actions of their owners, there'd be less breed-bias.

1. Problem is, in this case, the studies tend to speak with one voice pointing their statistical finger at one breed. Interestingly, the resulting articles defending pit bulls have not as much disputed the numbers so much as they have tried to attribute the numbers to the actions of their owners. In other words, pit bull advocates have pushed back with a nature nurture argument - it's not in the dog's nature, it is rather, how they have been nurtured (see numerous examples of this argument on this thread). Others have argued back that the numbers are just too overwhelming not to have nature as part of the problem. The other way pit bull advocates have tried to push back is breed misidentification or generalization - too much is being lumped together as pit bulls. Again, others have written taking that in to scientific consideration, it is arguable that the numbers are just too overwhelming to change outcomes in any meaningful way.

2. The meaning of "bias" is broad including one, that bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another; and, two, that the bias held is in some way unfair, to the group who is experiencing the prejudice and is being treated unfairly in some way(s). I would submit what's being discussed here is exactly the latter part of the definition. Is the breed a victim of unfair intolerance or does the breed deserve the unique concerns for safety some people want to apply to it?

3. In a study spanning 32 years, pit bulls are number 1 in attacks doing bodily harm at 3,397, and deaths at 295. The astounding thing about that compilation study is that not only did pit bulls account for the majority of deaths and injuries over all other breeds by a wide margin, the margin is so shockingly wide that pit bulls accounted for more deaths and injuries over the next nine breeds in the top-ten list COMBINED, and even then by a great margin. If those records and their compilation are accurate, it's hard to see how it is breed bashing. For additional detail on the study see post #19.

Yeah, I know, I was supposed to be done.

 

[Ballistic147]

I've been around animals all my life. Dogs, cats, chickens, goats, horses, cows, a little bit of everything. I've learned to read them and usually have a good idea of their demeanor within a few seconds. The one exception is a bull which can go from completely docile to mowing you down and pounding you in the ground without warning.

As far as dogs go, I can quickly tell the difference between a biter and a BS'er. Most are just scared of you and bark, growl, and show teeth hoping you'll simply leave them alone. In a way they're saying "I'm scared and don't want a confrontation. Some are truly aggressive no matter the breed and will attack for no reason however a lot of dog attacks are brought on by the actions of the person that got attacked. Contrary to popular belief dogs simply do not see things the same way humans do. They don't think or act the same as people. When two strangers pass each other walking down the street they make eye contact and exchange a simple "Hey, how are you". Perfectly normal, at least where I'm from here in the south. Dogs see eye contact in a different way with a stranger and in most cases to them it is a sign of aggression or a challenge. Add that to the fact they can sense your state of emotion it can turn ugly real fast.

I've got 3 dogs, two of which were rescues. One of them had been abused with a really bad attitude and labeled aggressive. He would growl, bark and bite at most anyone but it wasn't aggression, it was a fear of people due to the abuse. Took about a 6 months to gain his trust and about a year to overcome his fear of people but now he is one of the most docile dogs I've ever seen. Dogs are really a product of their environment and most depends on the owners.

The biggest problem I have ever had with any dog is the dog's owner. This is where the real problem lies. Just like guns, there are a lot of irresponsible dog owners out there.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Spirited Logan girl inspires others after tragic pit bull attack | Logan Hj | news.hjnews.com

Granted, we don't know all of the story - Just what the article portrays.

I also know that it's not just pitbulls but any canine can turn. My dog is as lovable as they come but I'm always cognizant that a random factor could make him snap.

My little Boston Bull (on a leash) and I were walking in an El Paso neighborhood over 20 years ago, when a Saint Bernard attacked us. My little dog pulled out of his collar and ran off at a zillion miles per hour. The Saint Bernard backed off when I yelled some harsh words at him, and the thought of my poor little dog running in traffic really got to me. I raced home, and found him on our front porch, completely out of breath. He had run full tilt for a quarter of a mile. I think he knew he was no match for that giant dog, and I thanked God he knew the way back home.

Any breed on the loose is cause for extreme caution, but the tendency of some to "shoot on sight" when the dog is pitty strikes me as unwarranted unless the gun owner or another human is actually in danger. Dogs can be usually be cowed and neutralized by other means than shooting them to death.

By actual count, I've had 12 dogs in my life over the years, and each was raised to be gentle. That included one German Shepherd that I took the trouble to take to obedience school. Although I'm certain he would have given his life to protect me, he was raised to behave himself and respond to commands. Not one of my dogs was a whit of trouble or was aggressive with no provocation. Dogs raised to love and respect their masters and who are treated well generally turn out darn nice and trustworthy. I'm sure there are exceptions - same as with humans, who have the poorer track record by comparison. I've often said that I like most dogs more than most people!

John

 

[cmort666]

Any breed on the loose is cause for extreme caution, but the tendency of some to "shoot on sight" when the dog is pitty strikes me as unwarranted unless the gun owner or another human is actually in danger. Dogs can be usually be cowed and neutralized by other means than shooting them to death.

Unfortunately, none of us has any control whatsoever over how a total stranger does or does not control his dogs.

Neither do any of us have any duty to know "dog pyschology". We just have a duty not to abuse animals, either our own or someone else's.

If somebody allows his dogs to run loose uncontrolled, either on public thoroughfares or on the private property of others without permission, that doesn't impose on innocent third parties a duty to be bitten, or indeed to RISK being bitten.

It doesn't really matter whether it's a pit bull or a presa canario. I'm the one who's going to end up as a burden on society if I let somebody's large, aggressive dog destroy an arm or a leg rather than defend myself.

 

[AlHunt]

1. Problem is, in this case, the studies tend to speak with one voice pointing their statistical finger at one breed. Interestingly, the resulting articles defending pit bulls have not as much disputed the numbers so much as they have tried to attribute the numbers to the actions of their owners. In other words, pit bull advocates have pushed back with a nature nurture argument - it's not in the dog's nature, it is rather, how they have been nurtured (see numerous examples of this argument on this thread). Others have argued back that the numbers are just too overwhelming not to have nature as part of the problem. The other way pit bull advocates have tried to push back is breed misidentification or generalization - too much is being lumped together as pit bulls. Again, others have written taking that in to scientific consideration, it is arguable that the numbers are just too overwhelming to change outcomes in any meaningful way.

2. The meaning of "bias" is broad including one, that bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another; and, two, that the bias held is in some way unfair, to the group who is experiencing the prejudice and is being treated unfairly in some way(s). I would submit what's being discussed here is exactly the latter part of the definition. Is the breed a victim of unfair intolerance or does the breed deserve the unique concerns for safety some people want to apply to it?

3. In a study spanning 32 years, pit bulls are number 1 in attacks doing bodily harm at 3,397, and deaths at 295. The astounding thing about that compilation study is that not only did pit bulls account for the majority of deaths and injuries over all other breeds by a wide margin, the margin is so shockingly wide that pit bulls accounted for more deaths and injuries over the next nine breeds in the top-ten list COMBINED, and even then by a great margin. If those records and their compilation are accurate, it's hard to see how it is breed bashing. For additional detail on the study see post #19.

Yeah, I know, I was supposed to be done.

"Studies" are meaningless because ALL dog attacks are not reported and of those that are, they are not reported consistently and uniformly. Most of it is just regurgitated media reports.

I've conducted a life long study of dogs of all kinds, been bitten by a few and understand that there are an extremely few unsalvagable dogs. I am not suggesting that anybody has an obligation to suffer an actual savage dog attack. I am suggesting that my American Staffordshire Terrier is in more jeopardy from some uneducated, hysterical citizen overreacting to his exuberant personality than anything else.

Once again - go get some real world experience with these dogs before you decide the entire breed is some kind of menace to society.

Full Disclosure: About 20 years ago I hated all those "bully breeds". Now I can't get enough of them. I understand where you're coming from.

 

[cmort666]

I've conducted a life long study of dogs of all kinds, been bitten by a few and understand that there are an extremely few unsalvagable dogs.

I HAVEN'T conducted a life long study of dogs of all kinds, and have no desire to.

What I DO desire to do is to be able to walk public streets and spaces without being bitten by someone's large, aggressive, unrestrained dog. At that point the breed is utterly irrelevant.

Keep your dog confined on your property, or on a leash, and it should be fine.

 

[AlHunt]

I HAVEN'T conducted a life long study of dogs of all kinds, and have no desire to.

What I DO desire to do is to be able to walk public streets and spaces without being bitten by someone's large, aggressive, unrestrained dog. At that point the breed is utterly irrelevant.

Keep your dog confined on your property, or on a leash, and it should be fine.

Why you feel some need to personalize this is beyond me.

In my neck of the woods, dogs are only required to be under voice command and anyone needlessly attacking such a dog is guilty of a crime.

In effect, a person has the same burden to show they were in fear for their life or great bodily harm whether drawing on a person or a dog.

 

[Old cop]

Our youngest daughter has a young pit, along with her three kids ages eight, eleven & fifteen. That dog is a sweetheart and just loves everyone, including the grandparents (us) when we come to visit. I've had more trouble with people than dogs.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Why you feel some need to personalize this is beyond me.

In my neck of the woods, dogs are only required to be under voice command and anyone needlessly attacking such a dog is guilty of a crime.

In effect, a person has the same burden to show they were in fear for their life or great bodily harm whether drawing on a person or a dog.

I have always discounted voice command. I have seen experienced, well trained police dogs fail to respond to commands while under duress. My standard response to someone failing to restrain their dog while proclaiming that it doesn't bite is "He's got teeth, doesn't he?"

In before the lock

 

[cmort666]

Why you feel some need to personalize this is beyond me.

Because if your large, aggressive, uncontrolled dog maims me, ***I*** am the one who's going to suffer the consequences... especially given the fact that if you're that irresponsible, you're probably judgment proof in the bargain. Of course $20,000,000 won't buy me another arm... or set of gonads.

In my neck of the woods, dogs are only required to be under voice command and anyone needlessly attacking such a dog is guilty of a crime.

In Ohio, we treat dogs and people differently.

I only need a REASONABLE fear of being BITTEN to defend myself from an uncontrolled animal.

If you allow your animal to put strangers in reasonable fear of being bitten, that says to me that you don't really like it all that much in the first place.

Again, nobody has an excuse to shoot your dog if it's leashed or confined or they're unlawfully trespassing on your property (INCLUDING cops without warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances).

In effect, a person has the same burden to show they were in fear for their life or great bodily harm whether drawing on a person or a dog.

I just need to have a REASONABLE fear of being BITTEN, through no malicious action of my own.

 

[jimmyj]

That's the scary thought: What if the sound of gunfire doesn't deter them? The rounds were obviously not IMMEDIATE threat stoppers. A lot of damage could be done (to me) before they could be put down by rounds of fire.

Post Mortem exam of the dogs found that the bullets entered the chest area penetrated though the bodies and exited in the hip areas. When found the dogs were still alive. One I shot though the head and the dog slowly lowered its head as if falling asleep. The other two were dispatched with shotguns by backup officers.

 

[Protected One]

Again, this thread was really not intended to be about whether pit bulls are dangerous only if trained to be, or if the owners are the problem, or if leashed or unleashed justifies shooting, etc, etc. But rather, seeking thoughts about an observation: Pit Bull attacks, based upon news reports, usually involve more than 1 dog. And if it takes 6 rounds to put ONE dog down (as it did in the first story in my OP)....and attacks involve 3 or more dogs then I certainly am not carrying enough rounds for a dog encounter. And I doubt many of us are.

Human predators are different. First, they avoid people who are observant of their surroundings and not an easy mark. Dogs don't make that distinction. Second, the sight of a gun most often causes a human threat to flee. Doesn't seem to be so with dogs. Third, a few well placed shots ends most human on human conflicts, wheras pit bulls seem able to absorb considerably more rounds (regardless of caliber) without it ending their attack. Of course, I think the likelihood of being attacked by pit bulls is more remote than that of being mugged or carjacked. But living close to a city with such a high population of them is causing me to shift my focus a bit more toward being better prepared for it.

Post Mortem exam of the dogs found that the bullets entered the chest area penetrated though the bodies and exited in the hip areas. When found the dogs were still alive. One I shot though the head and the dog slowly lowered its head as if falling asleep. The other two were dispatched with shotguns by backup officers.

Were you using ball ammo?

 

[AlHunt]

Again, this thread was really not intended to be about whether pit bulls are dangerous

Then, let's put this to rest. No, you should not be concerned about being accosted by some kind of rampaging, bullet-proof dog. Dogs are no different than any other living creature - if you put shots on target,they're going to die.

 

[walkin' trails]

I talked to a fellow LEO in CA who had to attend a dog autopsy after shooting a pit. He said that the frontal portion of the skull was about an inch and a half thick. He used a Sig P220, with 230 grain Hydra Shoks or Golden Sabre, and said that the first round he'd fired struck the dog in the head but didn't have much effect. Subsequent body shot(s) stopped the dog attack, but the hits were not immediately incapacitating. A .380 or smaller wouldn't be much of a comfort to me if trying to stop a dog attack, but even larger and more powerful calibers might not necessarily do the trick either. I also like the idea of carrying a stun gun to warn off a vicious dog before it gets too close. While it may not always work, it may buy you some time and maneuver distance.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I know a fella' that was attacked by a pit mix in a confined area (small apartment living room. Dog latched onto his biceps. Six .40 S&W rounds, three surgeries and a year later, he's back to doing dumbbell curls . . .

 

[CoMF]

A walking stick and/or pepper spray would be a more effective dog deterrent than a firearm, unless you're Jerry Miculek.

 

[Protected One]

A walking stick and/or pepper spray would be a more effective dog deterrent than a firearm, unless you're Jerry Miculek.

I don't see a walking stick doing much good against multiple dogs - one, perhaps...but I would still prefer a firearm.

As to the pepper spray? I've personally experienced its failure during a dog attack, so no thanks!