Another Reason To Be Armed

[John28226]

Previous Case

I believe, just a year or two ago, a similar incident happened in California (except the victim was an older man). State charged the owners with homocide. Not sure what degree.

If we can learn something here and not just banter back and forth about one breed or another (your study of history will tell you that after the Irish were conquered the ownership of an Irish wolfhound was a capital crime - the breed became almost extinct. They are beautiful and gentle animals now, most of the time!) the need to act with something more than car horns is pretty obvious; in a dog attack you must move quickly,get in close and place the muzzle in actual contact with the animal in a manner so that neither the victim nor a bystander will be hit by the bullet(s). If that is not possible, a shot fired into the ground will frequently get a dogs attention and often frighten them enough to stop the attack.

I love dogs, but a child is special.

John

 

[springmom]

Headline Prime update on this

There was a piece on Headline News' evening show, Headline Prime, regarding this. You have parent after parent talking about the horror that the dogs wrought. Apparently, by what this piece said, the owner of the dogs threw himself on top of the little boy that was mauled, trying to shield the boy with his own body. The dogs mauled him, crushing his arm, almost severing his thumb, then dragging him off into a ditch so they could return to mauling the child. Multiple adults who tried to intervene were injured as well.

The little boy is in critical, but stable, condition. Pray God he will live.

I have to say, as an owner of terriers for many years, that I have never, EVER heard of any dog or set of dogs doing anything so profoundly CALCULATED as this seemed. Their behavior is almost more like jackals than dogs, and it will never be understood, I think. I have certainly heard of packs of dogs savaging livestock, and attacking humans, but this really is the worst I have ever heard of.

And God have mercy, not one adult interviewed said, "I wish I'd had a gun to kill them myself."

Following that story, there's a story of a woman (IN CHICAGO!) grabbed out of her car and stuck in her trunk in a carjacking.

Haven't heard the interview with her yet, but I'm betting I will NOT hear "I wish I'd had a gun".

It really seems that the RIGHT to carry becomes more and more an urgent NEED, even a DUTY, to carry. Here's hoping that the people of Illinois will wake up and smell the coffee

Springmom, who is utterly astonished

 

[Ohio Annie]

"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."

And human beings are also equipped to overcome a bad lineage.

 

[joab]

And human beings are also equipped to overcome a bad lineage

I guess I didn't make it clear that "lineage" was my PC euphemism for race, applied to dogs. Maybe I should have said "breed"
.
Or are you actually saying that humans are capable of rising above their race

 

[Bravo25]

Or are you actually saying that humans are capable of rising above their race

Well yes it sounds like a fair statement to me. Are you saying that dogs are capable of reasoning?

 

[Ohio Annie]

lineage = genetics

 

[Hunter Rose]

hmmm... I've played around with several of the "dangerous" breeds: pit bulls, ridgebacks, basenjis, chows, rotties... never had any trouble. Sorry guys, it's NOT the animals, it's the owners...

As for "shoot/don't shoot"... it wouldn't even be a consideration, the dogs would be dead...

 

[joab]

Well yes it sounds like a fair statement to me.

Sounds like a perfectly racist statement to me, unless you're going to pretend like you didn't know that race referred to color

Are you saying that dogs are capable of reasoning?

Uh NO. I think I pretty much said that they don't

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

lineage = genetics

So then it was an acceptable use of the word

 

[Clanky]

FYI. There was another pit bull attack today. It occurred in Maryland. A 74 year old man was taking a walk in his neighborhood when two pit bulls attacked him. He had several bites on his head and arm. The bite in the arm almost severed an artery. He's lucky he's alive.

I'm no pit bull expert but here goes...

It seems to me that some owners do encourage the dog to be aggressive. Perhaps they get some machismo surge from having a mean dog. That is cruel to the dog and certainly can be dangerous to innocent bystanders.

On the other hand, some dogs just go nuts. It seems that pit bulls do it more than others as far as I can tell. I know may be more likely to make the news when it's a pit bull, but I have heard of other breeds snapping too, Chows, Rotts, Shepards.

I suspect many owners of dogs that attack people are truly surprised when it happens because Poochy never tried to do it before.

To always say it's not the dogs but always the owners is as mistaken as always blaming the dog that may have been, through no fault of it's own been trained by an abusive owner. I would think every situation requires scrutiny to determine the history leading up to an incident.

That said, personally, I don't like pit bulls. I don't think they are particularly nice looking dogs and would not be interested if a pit bull owner said to come on up and pet Fido because he's harmless. Fido may be, but I don't want anything to do with him.

Perhaps it's a visceral response to maulings, but so be it.

 

[blackmind]

Especilly three. Pack mentality is a natural instinct.

It's one more thing I thijnk should be regulated

Yeah, tell those dogs that they're not allowed to form up into packs. Make that a law: "Dogs are not allowed to form up into packs."







Really, joab, what is it you're calling for -- a law against having more than one of any given breed of dog? Or would you be generous and allow people two? (Of course, if those two had puppies, they'd have to get rid of them...)



What, exactly, do you think one more thing you think should be regulated?


-blackmind

 

[joab]

On the other hand, some dogs just go nuts. It seems that pit bulls do it more than others as far as I can tell.

No the media and officials ID bad dogs as Pits more often than not. Do some research most of the dogs are not even Pits they are Pit mixes which means basically that they look like they could be Pits.

Don't rely on the experts either a few years ago my dog got out of her fence and was picked up by the pound.
Initially they couldn't finds a record of having picked her because they listed her as a Shepard mix.
She was a pure bred Malinois

Just as a comparison
In the state of Florida there are more Brown Recluse bites treated every year than the number of BRs ever found in the state.
They are considered on of the most common venomous spider bites in Florida, despite the known fact that Fla does not have them.
There have only been two incidences of BRs in central Florida one in Miami and one in a semi abandoned warehouse in Orlando.
In 23 years of actively looking for BRs I have never found one
So where do all these Brown Recluses that the experts are always treating.
Media hype
A doctor at a prison I was treating for "Brown Recluse" even diagnosed an infected pimple as a BR bite once
Turns out the infestation was, as I suggested after the first inspection, an antibiotic resistant staph infection that had been quite common in the prisons on the east coast for some years.
But that would have been boring

As far as a dog just snapping I don't believe it happens any more I believe that good boys just snap and rape the neighbors or rob the local liquor store

 

[Bravo25]

No the media and officials ID bad dogs as Pits more often than not. Do some research most of the dogs are not even Pits they are Pit mixes which means basically that they look like they could be Pits.

You can Hem-Haw around it, try to justify it, try to sidetrack it (with comments about race), but there are 2 simple facts that you choose to ignore.

1. Pits were originally bred to be mean, aggressive, and for killing.
You can subdue this gene, you can bury it, you can hide it, in the DNA, but you can never completely remove it.

2. Even if it just becasue they "look" like pits, they must have pit mixture in them, and Pit Bulls are accountable for more maulings, killings, and attacks than any other breed.

If you want a killing animal, fine, but you should pay the price of what it does. If for no other reason than it is incapable of "reasoning". You are, and you choose to keep it knowing full well the potential of the animal.

If a gun under my care, control, and custody kills someone, I should be held accountable. And if your killing animal gets loose it needs to be stopped before the trigger gets pulled.

 

[joab]

And if your killing animal gets loose it needs to be stopped before the trigger gets pulled

Look back through my posts.
Where have I even implied that a "killing animal" should be allowed to roam free or that the owner of such an animal should be held blameless

Pits were originally bred to be mean, aggressive, and for killing.
You can subdue this gene, you can bury it, you can hide it, in the DNA, but you can never completely remove it.

Actually Pits were originally bred as hunting dogs.
German Shepard on the other hand were bred to be aggressive towards humans as were Dobermans and Mastiffs.
I believe it was in the late 70's that there was a similar call to ban DPs in many cities.
Pit Bulls were never bred to be aggressive towards humans That is pretty much common knowledge to anyone that does not get there education from the news outlets

Even if it just because they "look" like pits, they must have pit mixture in them, and Pit Bulls are accountable for more maulings, killings, and attacks than any other breed.

Not true any large heavily muscled large headed dog can be ID as a Pit.
Ever seen a male Lab.
How about a Lab/Boxer mix. My neighbor had one, when the pound cited it for excessive barking they ID'd it as an APBT
A customer had a Lab/St Bernard/Weimaraner mix that looked extremely similar to an Am Staff

If you want a killing animal, fine, but you should pay the price of what it does. If for no other reason than it is incapable of "reasoning". You are, and you choose to keep it knowing full well the potential of the animal.

I don't want a killing animal.
That's why I have my well trained well bred Pit in a secured fence and not a Doberman or Shepard
If you act aggressively toward him he will defend himself, but short of a boot to the head he will probably leave you alone

It's obvious to me, with all due respect, that you are engaging in the typical emotion driven, undereducated, media hyped argument typical to antis.

Do some research on the breed and maybe some in depth research on exactly what the media is calling Pit bulls. You will find overwhelmingly that they are in fact pt mixes usually Pit/Lab mixes, usually between 18 months and 2 years old (a time which Lab are typically high strung and stubborn from what I've seen), usually in a group of 3 but sometimes 2, and typically either predominately chained or confined to a small place. And almost always poorly fenced
The same holds true for any dog attack.

Instead of attacking and or banning breeds and calling for penalties on owners after their dogs have killed or maimed.

Why not a call for legislated reponsibilties of dog ownership that addresses the known real contributing factors of dog attacks.

If you are driving your car and blow through an intersection on a red light narrowly missing several cars and two pedestrians in full view of a cop do you get a pass because you didn't kill or maim someone?

You just committed an act known to cause death or disfiguring accidents, that's why their are laws in place to penalize you for that action.
You are not penalized only if your actions caused an actually injury, you are penalized for committing an act that has the known potential to cause actual injury.
And no one with any sense calls for banning your Hummer or pick up because it can do more damage in that accident than a poodle car like a Civic would.

Why should we not expect the same from dog owners

 

[Hunter Rose]

actually, I think I can bring joab's point home a little more: nobody on this board think that any firearm should be regulated because it's more dangerous (ie:full auto, .50BMG, etc). Instead, we think dangerous action with them (like waving a gun around in public, shooting in an unsafe manner, etc) should be penalized. So... how is it different with dogs?

The other thing quite often ignored in "dog attacks" is the question of "what (if anything) did the attacked do to provoke?". We used to have a German Shepard living behind us that had a reputation as a killer, because it had SERIOUSLY bit a kid. Turns out the kid had tried riding it as a pony, and kicked him in the privates when he wouldn'd giddieup. SHould the dog have been put down in that case?

I'm not saying the kids in the original post did anything to provoke the attack. Just pointing out that it's something left out usually in such reports.

As a side note: with all of the Pits I've seen, your ONLY risk with 'em was drowning in slobber while they lick you...

 

[blackmind]

Not an apt analogy, in my view.

NO guns just up and decide on their own, despite their owner's lack of input, to kill people.

A dog certainly can decide, even despite being friendly and well-raised in a good family where it is not taught to be agressive, to chomp a little kid's neck -- especially if it gets out into the neighborhood and hooks up with a pack of other dogs.

So the reason your analogy fails is because we CAN know exactly what to expect of the gun.
We CAN'T know exactly what to expect of the dog, even the best trained dog.

A better analogy would be that we do put limits on what some people are allowed to do -- i.e. if they are a known felon, they can't own guns. That's more closely related to the idea of banning a breed.


For what it's worth, I have never been for banning a breed of dog -- only for STRICT and HARSH punishment of anyone who allows their dog to harm someone through their negligence. (And even if not actually negligent, they should still be civilly liable, but perhaps not criminally.) I fully realize that if pit bulls are what "homey" is training to kill and be mean, and he is denied the ability to get them, he will just train German Shepherds to kill; and if not them, Dobermans; and if not them, something else. Banning is not the answer. (We knew that, though.)


-blackmind

 

[joab]

I'm not saying the kids in the original post did anything to provoke the attack.

I will. In at least 90% of the dog bites or attacks that I have seen the human was the initiator. Whether they knowingly did anything to actually provoke the animal or not.

A dog certainly can decide, even despite being friendly and well-raised in a good family where it is not taught to be aggressive, to chomp a little kid's neck -- especially if it gets out into the neighborhood and hooks up with a pack of other dogs.

As I said before I believe that the story of the always friendly family dog snapping and going on a rampage is a myth.
One of the dogs that bit me had "never done anything like that before". But every tech one the job refused to go to the home because they were afraid of the dog due to his passive aggressive nature and the owners refusal to lock the dog up when asked to, because "He won't bite nobody". I have a stitched up right butt cheek that says he will. He was a Boxer they are not generally known as biters.

A pack is a family or a gang A dog can't just get out of your yard and run down to the neighborhood pack and join up any more than we can go down to the corner and join the neighbor hood street gang.
Keep your dogs locked up and they won't get into the gang

But a dog can want to do whatever he wants to.
It wouldn't make any difference if he is properly secured

So the reason your analogy fails is because we CAN know exactly what to expect of the gun.
We CAN'T know exactly what to expect of the dog, even the best trained dog.

I know exactly what I can expect from a properly secured dog just as I know exactly what to expect from a properly secured firearm.

A better analogy would be that we do put limits on what some people are allowed to do -- i.e. if they are a known felon, they can't own guns. That's more closely related to the idea of banning a breed.

.But we don't ban all people from owning guns just because some are felons.
A closer example of your analogy would be to ban felons from owning Pit Bulls, probably not a bad idea cause it ties in to my theories

For what it's worth, I have never been for banning a breed of dog -- only for STRICT and HARSH punishment of anyone who allows their dog to harm someone through their negligence. (And even if not actually negligent, they should still be civilly liable, but perhaps not criminally.)

this is the reactive thinking I was talking about
If dog ownership was regulated and dog owners were held to STRICT standards of care attacks would be reduced.
If they knowingly failed to take the standardized measures to secure their animals almost any attack would be due to criminal negligence.

I fully realize that if pit bulls are what "homey" is training to kill and be mean, and he is denied the ability to get them, he will just train German Shepherds to kill; and if not them, Dobermans; and if not them, something else. Banning is not the answer. (We knew that, though.)

Then why pick on Pits at all, why not legislate standards for all large dogs.