Dog attack

We had a pit bull attack in my neighborhood just 3 weeks ago

The pit bull owner had the dog off leash in the front yard. The dog charged out of the yard to attack a Lab being walked on a leash. The Lab owner attempted to pull his dog to out of harms way, was knocked to the ground and sustained an injury that resulted in loss of conciousness. The Lab required surgery.

I always tell people who ask why I carry a CCW that it is as much for defense from dog attack as anything else. I have been charged by large dogs enough times while walking my dog over the years to be convinced a use of deadly force situation is too probable to ignore being prepared for.

When I was with Special Forces I attended a class on Attack/Sentry/Tracking Dogs. All students were given protective clothing and subjected to attack by Malinous (Sp?). It became very clear that if the dog is not stopped before contact is made, serious injury is a certainty and unless the dog is incapacitated in less than 5 seconds, you will be incapacitated and possibly mortally injured. I don't think most people realize just how overwelmingly painful and destructive the bite of a dog can be.

Regarding the scenario of this thread, here is what I would do.

1. Move to contact range because shooting at a distance is too risky and I have only seconds to stop the attack before the risk of fatal injury to the boy is very high.
2. Because long ago I have accepted the fact that in this scenario I am certainly going to be seriously injured, I am at least somewhat psychologically armored and will have more focus.
3. Attempt to jam and keep my weaponless arm into the mouth of the dog in order to prevent multiple bites to my body and especially my weapon arm.
4. Fire my weapon at contact range into the CNS of the dog at an angle away from the boy and continue firing in multiple locations of the dogs CNS, CPS and shoulders.
5. Assuage the regret of my probable maiming with the relief of saving a boy's life.

Dogs with a genetic history of being bred to attack other animals are extremely difficult to socialize to the point they will not eventually deliver a devastating bite to someone. In the last 4 years we have had 4 attacks in our neighborhood from breeds with this genetic history. The result - one 90 year old woman received a broken hip, one 70 year old woman received a lacerated arm, one 8 year old girl received a disfiguring face wound, and what I mentioned in my first paragraph. The dog that bit the little girl surprised everyone in the neighborhood because it was thought to be friendly and affectionate, and it was except for one intolerable moment.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Anytime that a fellow human being is being attacked with such force that it becomes a life and death situation, any actions on your part to either disengage the violence or to stop the violence, is warrented.

If a fellow human being is being mauled then getting the attention of the attacker, and then following up with ensuring that the threat is removed, is warrented.

I would have put myself into gaining the attention of the attacker, allow it to come after me, and then dealt with the situation as best I could.

Wayne
 
Trip20,

Stephen426 said:
My point is that too many people out there don't invest a sufficient amount of time training and socializing these powerful breeds to make them "safe" around people. I feel owners of these powerful and traditionally agressive breeds should have special licensing for their dogs which can only be attained through special training and socializing classes. A specialist should then evaluate whether the dog should ever be allowed off leash or contained in an inspected and safe cage. This may seem draconian and like those anti-gun people but dogs can bite on their own while guns cannot shoot on their own. At the same time, guns cannot escape on their own and wander freely.

Okay... I we agree that some dogs are more agressive but my point is that MANY OWNERS DO NOT SPEND THE TIME TO PROPERLY TRAIN THEIR DOGS. That is not the same as some guns being more deadly than others. I just think it is sad that so many children get mauled because people don't properly restrain their dogs. Many of these victims are scarred for life (physically and sometimes psychologically). The dog bite law website stated that most bites occur to the face when children are attacked.

People who own dangerous dogs should have to demonstrate that they are competent to control and train the dog.
 
German Shepherds, by the way, were developed in Germany as sheep dogs, just as the name implies. They would manage and guard the flock.
 
German Shepherds, by the way, were developed in Germany as sheep dogs, just as the name implies. They would manage and guard the flock.
But for years and years German Shepards been used as evil "assault dogs" and must be banned. I've just coined a new term: "assault dog". Maybe we can join forces with the anti-gun crowd and have an "assault weapons/dog ban" on the same piece of legislation. I mean people cannot be trusted with such dangerous things you know. :rolleyes:

stephen, I think it's disgusting, you feel the government (whether state/federal) should regulate what kind of dog I can or cannot own.

It goes against the same principals you fight for, against your adversary, the anti-gun crowd.

I see, only when it's convenient for you, should the government step out of your way.

EDIT: I suggest you check this thread to learn how the government is in no way responsible for your safety. To suggest they protect you, by limiting what I can/cannot do with firearms, or dogs, is plain wrong IMO.
 
Trip,

I read the thread that you linked to about the government not gauranteeing our safety. Some of the people posting seem to prefer out right anarchy. They want to do whatever they want to do and they don't want anyone to tell them what they can and can't do. People seem to have this whole idea that the government is the "Big Brother" who is looking to take away our freedom. Last time I checked, we live in a democratic society governed for the people and by the people. It is our responsibility to use our right to vote to change things we don't like. For some who feel the calling, they should run for government and make sure that our voices are heard.

That said...
No one's individual rights are any greater than anyone elses. YOU may be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't affect ME and MY freedoms. I also feel that no ONE person's should be greater than that of the collective whole (or sheep people) as the other thread called them.

Why are you not allowed to drink and drive? Because you can harm OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can government place speed limits on roadways? Because excessive speed has been shown to kill and not just the driver. He can kill OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can the government prevent you from doing things that are harmful to the environment? Because it harm OTHER PEOPLE.

Why can government ban smoking in public places? Because second hand smoke harms OTHER PEOPLE.

Why should the government regulate dangerous animals? Because they can harm or kill OTHER PEOPLE.

Trust me when I say I am not an anti-gun person. My concern is not with those who are of sound mental health and know when and how to use a firearm. My concern is also not with those people who train their dogs and know how to control them. My concern is that if no one enforces and ensures that these criteria are met, it can, will, and DOES affect other people! How many incidences have unsecured guns been taken by children and used in these tragic shootings? How many unsecured guns have been stolen and used in crimes? How many people have been bitten or killed because someone was not responsible and let the dog loose? WE NEED TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS BY DEMONSTRATING THAT OUR ACTIONS WILL NOT HARM OTHER PEOPLE NOR INFRINGE UPON THEIR PERSONAL FREEDOMS!!! For me, this means that the people we have elected should create some kind of licensing or inspection process to protect the public.

Should I be allowed to have a pit bull running around off leash especially when there are children playing nearby? Should anyone be allowed to own whatever the hell kind of weapon they want without any restrictions? Think about what a field day criminals, nut cases, and terrorists could have if they could walk into their local Walmart, pick up a M-60 machine gun without any paper work or waiting period. For the GREATER GOOD OF THE WHOLE, certain restrictions have been put into place.

You guys can bash away now.

One other note, I have heard the arguement that we gun owners need to be extremists to counter the extremist anti-gun people. If everyone is reasonable, there will be less BS going back and forth. Hi-Lo negotiation style is a waster of time.
 
On a side note, for those of you who think that I am an anti-gunner based on my previous post, let me clarify my position. I believe that in responsible gun ownership as it allows me to protect myself against those who are out to harm me and my family.
 
Bs

I have worked out in the public and see dogs everyday for the last 25 years. You can not say that just because a dog looks friendly and is waving his tail he is not going to bite you. I have seen dogs do a 360 degree turn in personality in less than a second. The dogs I hate to see on my route is Pitt Bulls, german shepards and Chows Period. Now it is not the dogs faught but the owners. But I have met hardly any of those breeds that was not highly agressive and just downright mean. German Shepards I think are the worse. You can flame all you want, but by my experience most dogs owners need more regulations on them. Over 3000 mail carriers are bit every year at a cost of over $10 million in emergeny room bills alone. That is not counting the rest of the people that are bitten everyday. No dog should be loose without a lease when out and no dog should ever be put on a chain. Almost every dog I have ever seen on a chain becomes agressive. All I am stressing is responsible dog ownership is needed. All it takes is one bad owner to give certain breed of dogs a bad name. I see a lot of people that get certain dogs because they think it makes them super cool to have that breed. Those are the dog owners I have problems with.


steve :(
 
Excellent posting Stephen426

Even the sheepeople must have the right to make the wrong decision. The difference between the shepherdpeople and wolfpeople is honoring and defending that right.

For those thread readers who may be confused about the above, check out the Legal and Politics forum.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Webley, he's suggesting the "sheepeople" do not have the right to make the wrong decisions. Yet you feel he made an excellent post? Speak-a-da english dude.

Stephen, applying your philosophy: we should regulate child-birth for low income people, because we as tax payers end up footing the bill. They're now infringing upon MY freedoms. Because someone feels THEIR right to a certain life-style is more important than MY right to keep more of my hard-earned money.

Where do we draw the line?

I don't feel it's right for politicians to tell me what type of dog I can own, what type of firearms I can purchase, whether or not I can exercise my 2nd Amendment Right......etc. Of course it's happening - as in they do this very thing to me and all of us every day -, and I do listen, because I do not want to have to deal with the consequences... but it's not right.

Why are you not allowed to drink and drive?

Why can government place speed limits on roadways?

Why can the government prevent you from doing things that are harmful to the environment?

Your trying to advocate your stance using the most inane examples that anyone would have to agree with. Equating regulation of speed limits, and owning a German Shepard is the most ridiculous thing I think I've heard in awhile. For one, the state or federal government OWN the highways, and just like when your in my house, you have to follow my rules... so forth goes the speed limit in their house.

But, my dog is mine and on my property - he will do as he/I pleases. Yet when I go onto property such as a park with my dog, I have to have him on a leash - not my land, not my rules. That's fine. But don't tell me I can't own the damn dog to begin with. That's BS.

The same applies for guns with me. When I'm home I can strap myself up like Rambo - but when I leave my home, I cannot carry a weapon. There's no CC in my state and I feel that is wrong. Lets say it was legal, and I had a permit. I'd have to remove my firearm when I go into a court house, that's fine, but don't tell me I can't carry, or I can't own the damn gun to begin with. That's BS.

You can put rules in place to protect other's freedom, but do not infringe upon mine to protect theirs. The same thing you said, but in reverse.

There's a difference between setting up a speed limit, and passing legislation stating everyone must use public transportation. Both are "in the best interest of public safety" - but one infringes upon my right to be happy and be free.
 
Carbine caleb your photo is a splitting image of a dog I used to have called Jasmine. She was very much a one owner dog- I could do anything with her including taking a bone off her and she was highly protective of me and got to level 4 in obedience training. She died six years ago and I have never come across another like her.

I share your loss.
 
Trip20

I must disagree. If the sheepeople in your state democratically vote or support representives that make the wrong decision, for example to support a ban on CC, you must respect it. You can always move or get active within the system to change things. To do anything else makes you a wolf like Eric Rudolph and Ted Kazinzki (Sp?).

I am fluent in english btw.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Thanks Daggit - she was the greatest, I really loved that dog, probably sounds silly, but I did. She was very clever, someone who worked with her said the smartest dog they had ever seen, and terribly athletic, and what a great spirit. There may be a Shepherd in my future I might guess though... I know what you mean about the one-owner dog, Shepherds are pretty emotional, and bond very tightly to their owner. That bond can go both ways.
 
My opinion is that pushing for legislation restricting dog owners is wrong. If you believe that the state should babysit you by restricting everybody's elses behavior so you don't have to look out for yourself than you're just a sheeple. If somebody has little kids that outside playing and they get mauled by a dog, I have to ask where the $%^# were they and why weren't they supervising thier children properly?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legislation that holds owners accountable for the actions of thier dogs, however. I personally believe the owner should be charged as if they committed the crime thier dog did.
 
Webley said:
I must disagree. If the sheepeople in your state democratically vote or support representives that make the wrong decision, for example to support a ban on CC, you must respect it.
Just curious if you actually read my entire post, because I said:

Trip20 said:
I don't feel it's right for politicians to tell me what type of dog I can own, what type of firearms I can purchase, whether or not I can exercise my 2nd Amendment Right......etc. Of course it's happening - as in they do this very thing to me and all of us every day -, and I do listen, because I do not want to have to deal with the consequences... but it's not right.
 
I would be real happy if pit bulls didn't exist - they're a powerful, aggressive breed to begin with, and too often, don't seem to have responsible owners to properly train and restrain them.

I am a doglover, btw, but if you have a breed that dangerous engaged in a serious attack on a person - he is toast.

______________________

Thats like saying a certain color of people commit more crimes than others. I have a pit bull/german shepherd and she is a very loving dog. I also have a cute alaskan eskimo dog that that looks about the size of Kelly and wants to rip everyone apart if they get close enough. Especially kids since they tend to call her over then let her have it with rocks for no reason. I would do the same if treated like that. I would pick up a bigger rock and jump over the fence and let them have it. See how they like it. Now, the second part of the first sentence is the problem--> the owners who train the dog. A dog has no concept of such silly things as human laws. It can't read. It doesn't go to school. It only learns from the master. If the master is just an apprentice then why are you blaming the dog for the inferior instruction it recieved? That thing about pit bulls is just that pit bull. Mine jumps on people to get affection and lick faces.

______________


Should I be allowed to have a pit bull running around off leash especially when there are children playing nearby? Should anyone be allowed to own whatever the hell kind of weapon they want without any restrictions? For the GREATER GOOD OF THE WHOLE, certain restrictions have been put into place.
______________
I would love to walk into walmart right now and get me an m-60 or a tommy gun or an mg-42 or a 50 cal browning or an AK 47 or a mac 10 or a BAR or an m-14 or ...... if they sold it at a reasonable price. Hell I would settle for a good old smith and wesson .357 magnum in 6".
Who is in charge of allowing me to own whatever thing I want? What makes that person so just and noble that they can do no harm and is granted the legal or moral power to decide such things? Nobody. There is no such person. I think I should be able to own whatever I please but what I do with it is what should be judged by a judge if it is not the correct thing to do with it.
____________

Think about what a field day criminals, nut cases, and terrorists could have if they could walk into their local Walmart, pick up a M-60 machine gun without any paper work or waiting period.
_____________

They do this already. What happened to tim mcvay? No one even checked his driver's licence for lack of insurance I bet. The terrorists of 9-11 got planes from somewhere here in America did they not? No background check or useless make the general public feel safe and sound waiting period. Waiting for what? Cooling off period. I never set myself on fire (well maybe when I am welding and my pants catch fire from the upturned bottom hem.) at least not intentionally.
 
USP45usp what caused you to doubt the U.S.A. is a republic?

Did someone in this thread say it is a Democracy?

It is my understanding that the United States is considered to be a country where adult citizens vote to enact laws by referendum and to elect representatives to excersise the power of administration and to enact laws. In other words the U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic as opposed to an Aristocratic Republic. Am I wrong?


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
Reply to Trip20

Yes and I don't think it productive to spend anymore time on the topic direction this thread has taken. As someone who was recently accused of highjacking a thread, causing more noise than signal, etc.; I am going to do what I think my accursers should have done, either no longer participate, or ignore what they believe to be irrelavant, or start a new thread that specifies that only a specific type of posting be made.

I've only been posting to TFL for a short time and I can already see I need never worry about being the most brash, dogmatic, irrelevant, and irrational contributor. Not that I think you are Trip20, you don't even come close. I am not the slightest bit upset with the tenor of some postings or their disagreement with mine, if anything they are amusing, often witty, and sometimes invaluably educational. I am glad TFL exists to allow us to bluntly speak our minds in a harmless manner. I see nothing wrong with "rants" and "flame wars", both of which are self-extingushing or easy to manuever around. I hope TFL administrators will avoid censorship of anything but obcenity and illegality.

"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."
 
It's quite disturbing to read some of the posts here. For instance, Webleywielder, who believes "that the United States is considered to be a country where adult citizens vote to enact laws by referendum and to elect representatives to excersise the power of administration and to enact laws." Mr. Webleywielder would do well to read this particular document: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
A democratic republic DOES NOT enact laws by referendum; a democratic republic DOES NOT "elect representatives to excersise the power of administration and to enact laws." Mr. Webleywielder, the elected representatives create the laws and the Executive or "administration" carries out those laws. It's appalling and frightening there is such gross ignorance of the principles of our government.
 
Back
Top