Another Reason To Be Armed

[mtn. man]

I would shoot any dog anywhere anytime to protect a childs life. The only thing that would affect this is getting a shot without the child or someone else being in the line of fire.
If the dog wont retreat thats ok he'll make an easier shot with the muzzle in his fur and safer for the kid too.
They can throw me in jail later if they want.

 

[blackmind]

Human aggressive dogs were not bred it's that simple. And those that showed human aggression tendencies were put down.

What difference does that make? Apparently there are those pit bulls that are mistaking small children for animals, and killing them by viciously biting their faces, throats and other parts. Keep defending these dogs despite the obvious dangers they pose to human beings -- you'll do wonders for your popularity.

For my part, I think that anyone who can be shown to know their dog is dangerous, whose dog actually harms a human seriously, should be imprisoned for 15 years. And possibly should be subjected to a dog attack themselves.


-blackmind

 

[joab]

For my part, I think that anyone who can be shown to know their dog is dangerous, whose dog actually harms a human seriously, should be imprisoned for 15 years. And possibly should be subjected to a dog attack themselves.

And that makes so much more sense than this

The answer is to establish and even codify exactly what the definition of proper precautions is. And then punish those that violate those codes not wait until after it happens and then show them how wrong they were

 

[Dwight55]

Part of the justification for my 12 ga Beretta staying loaded in the safe and ready, . . . you just read it.

A dog is a wonderful companion, friend, pet, and a lot of other good stuff: until he/she decides to be otherwise.

Shoot the thing, there, then, without hesitation, and shoot their friends with them. Period. End of story. Shoot em twice if they are attacking someone.

I have never had one of my own dogs turn on me, . . . but I have been attacked, chased, and bitten, . . . and it is not fun. A dog that attacks a human being unprovoked, needs to be put down: then, there, and no rebuttals.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[blackmind]

Forgive me, Dwight, but a gun in a safe is useless. Things improve if you take it out of the safe, of course, but until then, it simply is out of action.

Do you have handguns? Why rely on the 12 ga. when you could be around the house with a compact but powerful and reliable handgun? Avail yourself of a GLOCK 27 or 23 or something and you can deal with dogs without having to first hear the commotion, next realize what is going on, next run to your safe, remember the combination (or how much worse find the key) and then return to the scene with the shotgun.

If you carry a handgun on your person, you could be running to the scene instead of running from it, and saving precious seconds or minutes as someone is being torn apart by dogs.

I am a firm believer that if guns are kept in a safe, there should always be at least one of them not in the safe.


-blackmind

 

[blackmind]

For my part, I think that anyone who can be shown to know their dog is dangerous, whose dog actually harms a human seriously, should be imprisoned for 15 years. And possibly should be subjected to a dog attack themselves.

And that makes so much more sense than this:
Quote:
The answer is to establish and even codify exactly what the definition of proper precautions is. And then punish those that violate those codes not wait until after it happens and then show them how wrong they were.

Joab, what problem are you having? How are those mutually exclusive? You specified establishing proper precautions. MY post had to do with what you do when those established proper precautions were not followed, and the dog owner needs to be punished.

We have codified that it is wrong to murder. That does not PREVENT murder. It "waits until after it happens and then shows them how wrong they were."

So if we established these proper dog precautions, you think they would just be universally followed and no one would ever NOT follow them, and no one would ever be mauled by someone's dog? That's ridiculously naive to the point of being a stupid suggestion.

How would ANY precautions prevent a kid from being mauled in a living room by a dog that up until that point had never indicated that it would attack a human? That happens. Now, proper precautions or not, how would anyone prove later on that the dog had been conditioned and trained to fight by his owner? He might have had all the right fencing, and signs in his yard, but in casual contact, the dog goes berserk. Is he held harmless, or is he punished?


-blackmind

 

[joab]

That's ridiculously naive to the point of being a stupid suggestion.

That statement along with the popularity warning show me that you are still too immature to engage in any discussion that does not follow blindly along with your logic.

When you learn to behave as an adult then we can talk more

As I have stated before I will not participate in a repeat of your THR antics that apparently got you banned there

 

[blackmind]

Whatever, dude. If anyone can't seem to recognize anyone else's logic, I would say you fit that bill.

What I said, which you quoted, is not a personal attack. It's a judgment of the SUGGESTION. Read closer. I said that the suggestion is so naive that it's a stupid one. If you want to take offense at that, fine. If you want to give me the silent treatment, fine. But I reserve the right to publicly state that a ludicrous notion is a ludicrous notion.

Why don't you explain why it makes sense to think that just because something is codified, everyone will adhere to the code.

Every single law that's on the books is there not to prevent the behavior, but to stipulate what behaviors are or are not tolerated, and to proscribe punishment in the event that the law is broken.

NO law KEEPS people from breaking it. They're ALL REactive, not PROactive. That's something you don't seem to have come to grips with.


-blackmind

 

[Dwight55]

Blackmind, . . . you are correct, . . . that is why the safe door is open when I am home, . . . the shotgun is the first weapon just inside the door, . . . and I am virtually never out of sight of at least 1 hand gun.

No, . . . I don't have any teflon, or tupperware, my wife keeps enough of that stuff in the kitchen, . . . my handguns are Colt, Springfield, and Ruger.

If possible, . . . I also won't attend any shooting scenarios with a handgun whose caliber starts with anything less than .44.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[blackmind]

That's good to read.


-blackmind

 

[joab]

Every single law that's on the books is there not to prevent the behavior, but to stipulate what behaviors are or are not tolerated, and to proscribe punishment in the event that the law is broken.

OK I'll explain once

Your suggestion is to imprison or otherwise penalize people who's dogs have already attacked because present laws are designed that way

Mine penalizes the owner for not making the codified precautions to help prevent an attack.

Therefore the laws that would be broken would be premptive laws that if broken would not necessarily result in an attack
Prosecuting those violations would also send the message of personal responsibility, that you seem to want, without waiting for some to "get their face viciously bitten

Your scenario offers nothing but reactions to an attack.

Now what part of that do you not understand?

It's a judgment of the SUGGESTION. Read closer. I said that the suggestion is so naive that it's a stupid one

That is what is known, in adult circles, as childish rationalization.
Kinda like the kid that sticks his finger an inch from his little sister's face and says
"I'm not touching you"

 

[wayneinFL]

I hope the kids survive this. I have a couple of cub scouts.

My wife doesn't like me carrying when I'm walking around our safe neighborhood with the kids. I'll show her the story. It won't change her mind, but it'll plant another seed of doubt.

If someone can't his dogs on his property, under his control, he doesn't need to have dogs. No matter what kind of dogs they are, they need to be taken away.

I'll acknowledge pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. Other dogs may attack, but pit bulls seem to have more potential to do damage. However, any animal is safe in the care of a responsible adult. I won't call for a ban on pit bulls. Pit bulls don't kill people. Irresponsible people with pit bulls kill people.

 

[Onebum]

Use a gun on the dog, a tire iron a few times a day on the owner until he learns to control what he owns. I pray those kids are alright.

Think about it like this, what if a person just started shooting a gun, hitting and injuring many including himself. COMPLETELY ON ACCIDENT, the person didn't even me to have the gun out. Think about the public outcry, because guns are legal the person would make everyone with a gun be attacked. It's horrible, and I really do pray for those injured.

 

[joab]

Think about it like this, what if a person just started shooting a gun, hitting and injuring many including himself. COMPLETELY ON ACCIDENT, the person didn't even me to have the gun out. Think about the public outcry, because guns are legal the person would make everyone with a gun be attacked. It's horrible, and I really do pray for those injured.

Think about what would happen if somebody started shooting at an attacking dog hitting and injuring many including the attack victim.

But as I said before we don't know all the details of the attack.
Like was the group even authorized to be on the property.

To get to my front door to sell me something you have to pass a No Soliciting sign and two Bad Dog signs plus go through a closed gate with one of those lease type spring loaded latches on it.
But still it's happened twice so far

 

[stratus]

Pit bulls don't kill people. Irresponsible people with pit bulls kill people.

I think as a rule of central tendency, that statement stands to reason. Though there are sometimes exceptions where dogs are concerned (since dogs are living things, and there is always some small element of unpredictability, they're not machines like guns), I think we can probably infer that it was the way the owner brought these dogs up. I can imagine one pit bull going ballistic despite a good upbringing, but THREE? It more than likely has to do with what the dogs learned, i.e. they were probably raised in manner that was consistent with their genetic potential for viciousness.

 

[joab]

I can imagine one pit bull going ballistic despite a good upbringing, but THREE

Especilly three. Pack mentality is a natural instinct.

It's one more thing I thijnk should be regulated

 

[Bravo25]

I'm pretty level headed about most things, but pitbulls take me out of character. I HATE that breed. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every single pitbull were slaughtered today. I know this'll bring a rush of people saying, "I have a pitbull and he's the most gentle dog in the world - it's not the dog, it's the owner - other breeds attack more people than pitbulls do - you are a heartless jerk and if you ever touched my pitbull I'd kill you, etc, etc" but it's my opinion. That is a murderous, bloodthirsty breed of dog and they should all be killed posthaste.

I would have to agree here. These are animals, they have instincts, and as such each breed is developed to inhance those instincts. Pit Bulls were originally bred for one reason, and one reason only. To KILL.
Some have said they do not have a tendacy to harm humans, only other animals. Why then are they being snatched up by olmost every thug, gangbanger, and wannabe criminal? Reason, because as of now they are legal, and they lend themselves to this type of aggressive behaviour.

I have told more than one neighbor who likes to keep these dogs, to keep them in their yard. I will not wait to find out if they are agressive or not. Their track record has been proven to my satisfaction already in this area.

 

[Ohio Annie]

Dogs are the main reason I carry when I am out walking. I am in a safe neighborhood and there are few dogs but the dogs I have known are less predictable than the people.

On dogs: I read a piece from the CDC a few years ago which said that approximately 10% of pet dogs in the US were the pit bull terrier type but 30% of dog bites and 60% of dog bite fatalities were from this type of dog. The article was from a link from the local NBC station online.

There are some breeds of dogs which are more likely to demonstrate "SPAR" behavior, Small Predator Attack Reflex. This is the reflex that causes a dog to preemptively attack a small animal which appears to it to be a threat. This is why we so often see pet dogs turning on small children in the family. The parents will say, "the dog was always [previously] so gentle with little Billy." But on that occasion little Billy made a wrong predator-type move and was toast.

The bottom line is, everybody act responsibly. We who play with guns need to do that and people who like to keep dogs, tigers, attack parakeets, should be responsible too.

 

[joab]

I give up
How can anybody compete with all the level headed experienced pit bull experts here.

At least I know that even the most fierce of the fierce men will piddle their pants when they encounter my dog coming up for a pat on the head, even if you are in my home at 3am and I'm not

 

[joab]

The parents will say, "the dog was always [previously] so gentle with little Billy."

Let's not rule out the possibility/probability that mom and dad are full of crap or were just to blind or stupid to the signs

Kinda reminds me of all those good hearted boys that would never do anything wrong that we always hear about after a cop has to shoot them.

Why is it that bad human behavior is blamed on bad parenting but bad animal behavior is blamed on bad lineage

humans are equipped to overcome a bad upbringing an animal isn't.

Maybe some are just transferring some non PC theories of human behavior to the animals where it is seemingly acceptable to blame the breed

Just a thought