Pit Bull encounter? Shoot, don't shoot, draw, don't draw

[wrightme]

to #4, no.

The raw statistics do not support any such contention. The ONLY contention supported by the statistics is that more deaths are attributed to "pit bull breeds" than to other breeds. Nothing else. This only might indicate a "death risk due to breed strength."

to #6, yes, but..... It isn't only pit bull breeds that suffer from that reality. ALL DOGS can exhibit such behavior. Singling out one breed is not valid, without statistical data that supports such.

You use "pit bulls" multiple times, where the accurate term should be "dogs." By "insert a little logic" you should insert a little less "pit bulls are bad" into it.

I hate to insert a little logic into this emotion-fest, however...

1. You cannot prove a thing with a single example. Examples must collectively exhaustive to constitute proof. Considering the number of examples one could find of so-called aggressive dogs attacking people and pets, I'd say the above example is useless.

2. Statistics are pretty good (when used properly) at illustrating trends and propensities. Grapeshot has posted the relevant statistics.

3. That statistics show that pit bulls are involved in the overwhelming majority of dog-attack deaths does not necessarily mean that pit bulls are more aggressive or more dangerous than other breeds. Other factors could be at play, such as owners training their pits to be dangerous.

4. But when we consider Occam's Razor, isn't the simplest and most likely explanation that pit bulls are naturally more aggressive than most (not all) other breeds and that pit bulls are naturally more deadly than most (not all) other breeds?

5. Pit bulls, like firearms, are choices that owners get to make. Pit bulls, like firearms, can cause others to get dead or seriously hurt. The owners should be held responsible for any unjust deadness and injury at the "hands" of their pit bulls and firearms.

6. Pit bulls, unlike firearms, can, and do, "go off" on their own, even with proper training and restraining, meaning that even the best trained and restrained pit bull can present an unexpected hazard to an innocent bystander who will reasonably fear for life or limb.

Should that unexpected bystander be me, I am shooting the beast.

 

[zack991]

I hate to insert a little logic into this emotion-fest, however...

1. You cannot prove a thing with a single example. Examples must collectively exhaustive to constitute proof. Considering the number of examples one could find of so-called aggressive dogs attacking people and pets, I'd say the above example is useless.

2. Statistics are pretty good (when used properly) at illustrating trends and propensities. Grapeshot has posted the relevant statistics.
Again see my original post CDC statics are not reverent what so ever because of the way the gather their "facts" and you would never except those number from Brady since they gather their research the same way.

3. That statistics show that pit bulls are involved in the overwhelming majority of dog-attack deaths does not necessarily mean that pit bulls are more aggressive or more dangerous than other breeds. Other factors could be at play, such as owners training their pits to be dangerous. see 2 again

4. But when we consider Occam's Razor, isn't the simplest and most likely explanation that pit bulls are naturally more aggressive than most (not all) other breeds and that pit bulls are naturally more deadly than most (not all) other breeds? American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. Tests that have been done comparing the bite pressure of several breeds showed pressure PSI (per square inch) to be considerably lower than some wild estimates that have been made. Testing has shown that the domestic dog averages about 320 lbs of pressure per square inch.
Recently Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic conducted a comparative test between a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, and a German Shepherd. The Pit Bull had the LOWEST PSI OF THE THREE. The highest pressure recorded from the Pit Bull was 235 lbs PSI. The highest from the GSD was 238, and the highest from the Rott was 328. Dr. Barr states that as far as he knows, the PSI tested in the Rott is the highest on record for any domestic canine. What happened to the supposed 10,000 pounds PSI pressure that the breed supposedly has??? It's a MYTH, pure and simple. VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDxe24ud90

5. Pit bulls, like firearms, are choices that owners get to make. Pit bulls, like firearms, can cause others to get dead or seriously hurt. The owners should be held responsible for any unjust deadness and injury at the "hands" of their pit bulls and firearms. Agreed no matter the breed the owner should be charged as if they did the act.

6. Pit bulls, unlike firearms, can, and do, "go off" on their own, even with proper training and restraining, meaning that even the best trained and restrained pit bull can present an unexpected hazard to an innocent bystander who will reasonably fear for life or limb.

Aggressiveness has many definitions and its stimulus of the environment that causes behavior. Dogs defend territory, they exhibit dominance and if allowed can become protective of their family. All this behavior can be controlled by the owner and aggression is mainly an act of behavior. To make claim that the American Pit Bull Terrier can cause more severe injury than other breeds is ludicrous. Over 30 breeds of dogs are responsible for over 500 fatal attacks in the last 30 years, every victim was severely injured. The American Pit Bull Terrier is clearly a useful member of society, the breed was World War One Hero, its rated as having one of the best overall temperaments in the United States (A.T.T.S.). The breed is used for dog show competitions, therapy, service work, search and rescue, police work and companionship. Man has domesticated dogs to the point they serve as companions, workers, and even objects of beauty.Dogs, as a species, do not perform behaviors “just because”. There are always reasons for behavior, and when aggression becomes a problem the reasons can be such things as improper handling, lack of socialization or training, a misreading of dog behavior by the owner, or, rarely, disease. Aggression, when it presents in pet dogs, follows specific patterns. First occur warning signs, then more warning signs, and finally, when those signs are continually ignored or misinterpreted, the dog resorts to using its teeth. When an owner is startled by a sudden, aggressive outburst, it is because they have been unaware of problems that were brewing. This is true of all dogs, not just Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls, indeed no dogs, “turn” or " suddenly snap""
http://mabbr.org/legislation2.html

Should that unexpected bystander be me, I am shooting the beast.

.....

 

[wrightme]

Understand the fine line distinction, please.

I will not shoot to kill even the most serious threat from man or beast. I will do what is necessary to stop the threat to life or limb.

Wouldn't you know, there is another thread about that specific....

 

[Grapeshot]

Understand the fine line distinction, please.

I will not shoot to kill even the most serious threat from man or beast. I will do what is necessary to stop the threat to life or limb.

Wouldn't you know, there is another thread about that specific....

Really? Are you sure?

Five years from now people will still be reminding others of the difference/preference and why. Likely just after the thread on "Treat Every Gun As Loaded."

 

[Campo6245]

I had a pit bull charge my dog once and attack it. I had a beagle at the time so that fight was definitely not fair. The lady who owned the pitbull could not pull him off my dog. I pulled my weapon identified myself as a detective and pointed my gun at the pitbull. The fact of lawsuits and all those other things went through my mind quickly. I decided to fire a warning shot, which caused the pitbull to stop and retreat from my beagle. Unfortunately the pitbull attacked me, and you guessed it, I shot him dead! I would say to know your laws in your state very well, and fire a warning shot first if it is your dog being attacked. Unfortunately my dog did not make it.

 

[eye95]

I understand the distinction between stop and kill. I should have used stop instead of kill. In that regard I tend to agree with you, but killing the animal in the process of stopping it is the likely outcome.

I don't mind the flowery prose of shooting to stop. But don't kid yourself death is the likely outcome.

I can assure you that he is not kidding himself. Grapeshot is firmly grounded in reality and ration.

In regards to the relative dangers of various breeds, regardless of "training." If a poodle charges at me, growling and snapping, I will ready myself to slap it aside. If a pit bull so charges, I will ready my weapon--and then use it. Any other reaction would be foolishness.

 

[eye95]

to #4, no.

The raw statistics do not support any such contention. The ONLY contention supported by the statistics is that more deaths are attributed to "pit bull breeds" than to other breeds. Nothing else. This only might indicate a "death risk due to breed strength."

to #6, yes, but..... It isn't only pit bull breeds that suffer from that reality. ALL DOGS can exhibit such behavior. Singling out one breed is not valid, without statistical data that supports such.

You use "pit bulls" multiple times, where the accurate term should be "dogs." By "insert a little logic" you should insert a little less "pit bulls are bad" into it.

#4: The simplest explanation for those wildly disproportionate numbers of attacks and fatalities is that pits are much more likely to attack than dogs in general and that their attacks are more dangerous than those of dogs in general. Logically, absent a convincing argument to the contrary--which has not been put forth--accepting the simplest explanation is the most reasonable course.

#6: I mention pit bulls specifically simply because folks are equating owning pit bull with owning guns, and then using this comparison to mock arguments against the breed by pointing out the foolishness of disallowing guns because they are "dangerous." That argument fails to consider that pit bulls can "go off" on their own, while guns do not and is, therefore, an inapt analogy.

If someone equates owning an attack poodle with owning a gun, I will point out that same significant difference that makes the analogy silly.

 

[eye95]

.....

Not worthy of a reply. You blow off the statistics that don't agree with your predisposed beliefs. Please refrain from the use of any statistics in any future arguments as you have so little faith in them.

Moving on. I will continue to discuss this with folks who won't simply dismiss data that they don't like.

 

[eye95]

Really? Are you sure?

Five years from now people will still be reminding others of the difference/preference and why. Likely just after the thread on "Treat Every Gun As Loaded."

Some wisdom bears repeating often.

 

[eye95]

I had a pit bull charge my dog once and attack it. I had a beagle at the time so that fight was definitely not fair. The lady who owned the pitbull could not pull him off my dog. I pulled my weapon identified myself as a detective and pointed my gun at the pitbull. The fact of lawsuits and all those other things went through my mind quickly. I decided to fire a warning shot, which caused the pitbull to stop and retreat from my beagle. Unfortunately the pitbull attacked me, and you guessed it, I shot him dead! I would say to know your laws in your state very well, and fire a warning shot first if it is your dog being attacked. Unfortunately my dog did not make it.

IANAL, but IMO never, ever, ever, ever fire a warning shot. Warning shots carry all the downsides of shots fired to stop a threat but are far less effective at stopping the threat. Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat is a pit bull, shoot at its center mass.

If a pit bull is charging and I have a dog with me, I will reasonably assume that, whether or not my dog is being targeted, I am being targeted--and will shoot to protect my life and limb from a very dangerous animal.

The words "I feared for my life" will be one of the very few things I say during the 911 call. I will certainly NOT say that I fired and shots (let alone warning shots) because I feared for the life of my dog.

 

[zack991]

Not worthy of a reply. You blow off the statistics that don't agree with your predisposed beliefs. Please refrain from the use of any statistics in any future arguments as you have so little faith in them.

Moving on. I will continue to discuss this with folks who won't simply dismiss data that they don't like.

So given that, how do you think that the CDC feels about the dog bite statistics and reports that are floating around, when they feel that most of them are semi-based on their own, which they clearly state are flawed?

Well, for the most part, you'll find that they find their conclusions are inaccurate in regards to dog behaviors, in regards to using newspaper articles as "evidence" or "predictors" for the nature and behavior of all other dogs in the U.S. They'll even tell you that the statistics that are currently available for the public in regards to breeds that are prone to biting and attacking humans and other animals is highly flawed and variable. When you only test a small portion of dogs from a particular breed, you just can't estimate the approximate bites caused by that breed in a given year.


The most critical flaw in the CDC's study of dog attacks was the attempt to isolate one factor in all attacks- the dog breed- but it was impossible to verify. Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect to base their study on- the dog's breed. They could have easily studied the sex of the dog, reproductive status of the dog, location, relationship of the dog to victim, age of the dog, etc.

Without having any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of the dog population in the U.S., the CDC still opted to search for and attempt to acquire any breed information in dog attacks.

Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events that surround dog bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for any breed identification in cases of fatal dog attacks.

In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population because the source either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident by failed to "identify" the breed.

However, like other studies, the CDC recognized the flaws in the study and clearly states that there is NO CONCLUSION on breed behaviors in relation to the data that was drawn. The scanned newspaper articles just weren't, and still aren't accurate enough to provide substantial evidence that a dog's breed is the root cause to a bite or attack.

The CDC No longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed and has posted the following statement on their website:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.

So according to the CDC of the 4.7 million Americans who are bitten by dogs- bites ranging from mere scratches to fatal attacks- there are only about 16 fatalities, which is about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people who are bitten. In reality, the CDC feels that because the number of people killed by dog bites is relatively miniscule, there's just no way that anyone can accurately identify the number of dogs of any particular breed that is more likely to bite and kill.

The CDC is more concerned with dog bite prevention via education versus eliminating a particular breed. Anyone who develops their statics on any subject from dog bites to guns violence from news articles are not only fools but are idiots to boot. Eye you state that "my predisposed beliefs make it unworthy of an reply" because I refuse to trust any statics that come from news articles and not from confirmed evidence.

Do you trust the same sorry excuse for evidence of actually facts for gun violence, considering this is the same exact way the Brady nut jobs gets their "facts" I would hope not. How many times do we have articles posted on here where the media cant even get the guns caliber right, that any simple minded fool who can read the correct caliber stamped on the side of the weapon. Yet you want to trust your statistical facts that the CDC has put forth that all they did was collect their "data" from the same misinformed news media. If you do than WOW, you put trust in the most unreliable source in hopes of getting any facts much less statical data. ANY DATA THAT IS USED THAT COMES FROM UNCONFIRMED SOURCES THAT IS USED TO MAKE STATISTICAL DATA IS NOT ONLY STUPID BUT IS DOWN RIGHT DANGEROUS.

 

[Claytron]

IANAL, but IMO never, ever, ever, ever fire a warning shot. Warning shots carry all the downsides of shots fired to stop a threat but are far less effective at stopping the threat. Shoot to stop the threat. If the threat is a pit bull, shoot at its center mass.

If a pit bull is charging and I have a dog with me, I will reasonably assume that, whether or not my dog is being targeted, I am being targeted--and will shoot to protect my life and limb from a very dangerous animal.

The words "I feared for my life" will be one of the very few things I say during the 911 call. I will certainly NOT say that I fired and shots (let alone warning shots) because I feared for the life of my dog.

You cant reasonably assume you are being targeted just because something is "charging" at you, well i suppose you could but you know what they say when you assume... Whats your definition of charging and how is it different from running? And seeing as how you mentioned the pit bull breed specifically, are you implying that you wouldnt shoot other breeds if they "charged" at you? Does a pit bull happen to charge differently than another breed or do you just like to single it out?

 

[Grapeshot]

The information extracted (post #67) from the CDC and other sources was presented in response to a request of another poster for a cite. There was no claim as to the integrity of the methods or documentation - simply offering what was available.

That someone questions the validity of these shouldn't require voluminous repudiating. These were for better or worse the only reports found.

Place yourself in a situation where personal retreat is not immediately an alternative. You have 3 choices of tools: bare hands/shod feet, cell phone and a 1911. Introduce a dog that is either a small, light weight terrier or a sturdy, pit bull type or rottweiler type. Now selectively see how your response might vary as this dog runs with perceived mayhem at your toddler sitting in the grass of your yard. You are 5 ft away behind your child. The dog is closing fast but still 25+ ft. distance.

Think that maybe your response, might be different due to the variables?
Whoops - you waited too long, the dog has already made contact.

***************************************

You might learn something with this identification test.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

 

[irish52084]

Place yourself in a situation where personal retreat is not immediately an alternative. You have 3 choices of tools: bare hands/shod feet, cell phone and a 1911. Introduce a dog that is either a small, light weight terrier or a sturdy, pit bull type or rottweiler type. Now selectively see how your response might vary as this dog runs with perceived mayhem at your toddler sitting in the grass of your yard. You are 5 ft away behind your child. The dog is closing fast but still 25+ ft. distance.

Think that maybe your response, might be different due to the variables?
Whoops - you waited too long, the dog has already made contact.

***************************************

You might learn something with this identification test.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

That scenario is a great reason to engage the threat with your body as a weapon instead of a firearm. If your child is 5 feet in front of you and a dog is closing from 25, you probably will not clear your holster and be able to fire in time. You might have a chance to step in front of or grab your child, but you certainly will not pull it off safely from 25 feet. This doesn't even take into account the fact that a child is in the foreground of your target and likely directly in front of your target by the time you draw and attempt to fire.

The above stated, I do think that lethal force would be applicable in your scenario if other factors like a child were not involved. I have sadi and will continue to agree that aggressive dogs should be handled with lethal force if you have distractions like a child or something occupying your other hand/hands.

And just for clarity, "pit bulls" are part terrier. I've seen several people reference terriers as opposed to a "pit bull". Also, a standard size poodle is the general size of an American Staffordshire Terrier, or as they are often described a "pit bull". http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanstaffordshire.htm

 

[tcmech]

Let me start this off with IANAL, I do not even claim to know all of the laws in the state that I live in.

This past Saturday I was in my front yard painting the trim on my house. My dog, a 6 (yes six) pound (mostly) chihuahua was tied to the back bumper of my truck. Two dogs (that I had never seen before) which appeared to be pit bulls came running around the corner of my neighbors house into my front yard.

Needless to say they went right to my dog, to say I was apprehensive is an understatement. I came down off the six foot ladder I was on and approached all three of the dogs. I bent down and picked up my dog and as I was doing so one of the other two dogs growled at me, I do not believe it was a truly aggressive growl but it did make me quite nervous. The dog was about a foot from the muzzle of the glock in my right hand. I don't even claim to know for sure the reason I didn't shoot the dogs, but I didn't want to kill someone else's pets. I am sure they are as attached to their dogs as I am to mine. I will say that it was a nerve wracking experience and if the dog would have lunged when (or if) it had growled the TV news, PETA, the police, and who knows who else would have been getting phone calls.

My story turns out pretty good, no news cameras, nothing got shot, I and my dog both avoided being bitten. I did draw my gun, and I would have shot the dogs, but I was fortunate enough not to need too.

 

[eddallen1958]

I will put it this way. I don't care what kind of dog it is. It it's big enough or if I believe it is vicious enough to hurt me and it is going to attack me, I'm going to protect myself. If it's my butt or his, I'm going to shoot it. A snarling, charging pittbull I would not think twice about. Kiss his butt goodbye.

 

[KYGlockster]

I know here in KY, if I had a pitbull charging me, or acting vicious like he is about to bite me, he is getting shot so long as I have a safe backstop. And with our laws, most leo wont even bother with even trying to charge me with anything. I will never allow myself to get seriously injured by anything, man or beast.

 

[stainless1911]

Its legal to defend yourself in michigan, but you need to be reasonable. You can shoot a pit thats charging you, but a chihuahua, that's a football.

 

[eye95]

Its legal to defend yourself in michigan, but you need to be reasonable. You can shoot a pit thats charging you, but a chihuahua, that's a football.

But...but...but...It's not the breed; it's how it was trained. You should fear a poorly trained chihuahua as much as a poorly trained pit bull! Shoot the charging chihuahua!

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Its legal to defend yourself in michigan, but you need to be reasonable. You can shoot a pit thats charging you, but a chihuahua, that's a football.

:lol::lol::lol: