Humans Aren't The Only Predators

Actually I wouldn't use that argument for concealed handguns. most handguns aren't strong enough to stop a large dog, and they're too slow to even shoot at more than one before they close whatever the attacking distance was.

Granted one shot may be enough to scare the dog, but I wouldn't stake my life on a trio of dogs being scared by a gunshot.

I'd prefer pepper-spray, since a dog would have to be trained well to be able to attack through that. And range isn't a problem, because if the dogs are within the 30 meters you could hit it with a hand gun, and its attacking, it'll be on top of you before you can get two shots off at different targets.

(and you can drop the "especially a woman" bit, a couple hundred pounds of muscle attached to a jaw could overpower pretty much anyone male or female, especially if the dog has a friend, or the person has to deal with even minor pain-shock. Police dogs spend a lot of time being trained not to maim the people they bring down.)

Carrying a handgun won't do much to protect you from any predators but human ones.

B.S. Michael! Mr. Williams is absolutely correct. I know he is because I have real world experience with this. Any handgun cartridge that is suitable for use on a human predator, from the .357 on up, will work. As for any individual's ability to deal with 2-3 animals, well that all comes back to training and motivation. Most people that use firearms are motivated and engage in training and practice. This is always left out of the calculations of the naysayers.

Hear, hear. Michael Non-Williams's response is only marginally less silly than arguing that the dog might use the gun on you.

Here is further proof that the less people have to think about their own survival, the greater the disconnect.

I don't know of any dogs that weigh a couple hundred pounds. I have friends with two large pit bulls, and neither one is over 100 lbs. I sure as heck wouldn't want to fight one, but they aren't bears.

And come on, women are far weaker than men. I carry a knife, and if I had to I could probably kill any single dog with my knife before it could kill me. It might shred my arm up, but if I could keep it away from my neck I could gut it and kill it eventually. I doubt most women would have the mass and physical strength to do that.

Likewise, I'm strong enough to jump onto the roof of a house or van, which most women probably couldn't do, lacking sufficient upper-body strength. I really don't see any way to argue that unarmed men and women are both equally vulnerable to animal attacks.

Pit bulls rarely get to be more than 65 pounds or so. Some breeds do get in the high 100s, however. The two presa canarios who mauled Diane Whipple to death a few years back were in the 120 range IIRC.

Here is an example.

Based on my personal training and experience, a would-be knife-wielding attacker, can cover about seven unobstructed yards in the time a firearm can be brought up from the 'ready/safe position'(safety off, pointed toward the floor, finger off to the side of the trigger), to an on-target center-mass point and shoot mode. Any semi-athletic attacker can make multiple knife plunges or slashes, any of which may be fatal, before a single shot can be fired. If you are fortunate enough to get a shot off or two, it is done while under extreme of pressure. For a firearm to be effective, assuming you are prepared to and have reason to pull the trigger, it should already be pointed directly at the assailant, safety off, finger on the trigger, yet still at a safe distance. Even when suspects are shot center-mass at close range, they are not likely to fall directly and immediately to the ground like a sack of potatoes. Nor are they likely to fly backwards, leaving their feet, as often represented in the movies.

A simple method of trying this out for yourselves is to hold you arms wide apart, outsretched, with hands in a 'clapping' position. They try to clap both hands together while a friend lunges at your chest with a 'pretend' knife. Increase the distance and speed of the 'attack'. If you are unable to clap, you may well have received a fatal stab wound.

A dog can probably cover about one and a half times the distance in the same time - obviously dependant upon the breed and ferocity. Again, a handgun would need to at least be in an exposed and 'ready' position, to be effective. I know of few people who carry guns in this manner, all the time, while in the public domain - permitted or otherwise. So to say, armed citizens would be saved from vicious dog attacks, is pure conjecture. The size and breed of the dog(s), ferocity of attack, location, the victim's ability to act under extreme pressure, are all factors.

If the weapon is concealed, under the same circumstances, and has to be withdrawn, it is unlikely to be of any benefit whatsoever. Certainly not to prevent the attack in the first place and only if the victim has the ability, time, and presence of mind to withdraw the weapon. Bear in mind you have to be unwavering, relatively steadfast, determined, and facing your attacker as he rushes toward you, while you fire at least one shot with a perfect 'score'. Even then, that would not stop the momentum of the attack. The concealed firearm would be advantageous if the assailant leaves the victim, following the initial attack - assuming the victim is still conscious - and returns or is a short distance away, likely to return.

Xlrq:
With regard to Lott's examples...for the purpose of permitting the publically carrying of concealed weapons, all defensive incidents at home, work or business, should be removed. All of these incidents would be 'protected' for the purpose of gun ownership and use, and are not likely to require a permit (California). Though the article may make for interesting reading, compare the incidents to the ratio between population and liklihood of being a victim. Furthermore, most 'unlawful exposure' by irresponsible firearm carriers are also likely to go unreported. The 'victim' may well have done something, perhaps criminally, but the threat of a firearm is inappropriate action.

And, just for kicks, next time you see a police canine officer, ask him how far his dog will travel, before an assailaint can draw a concealed weapon to prevent the dog's attack.

Michael is correct in his assertion that pepper spray may be more effective, not only against dogs, but in a variety of attacks. Though, nothing is absolute, there are just too many factors and the user may be accidentally affected by their own spray.

Plug: I semi-agree as to the aggregate statistics. I say "semi" because I think that reduced restrictions on carrying will have SOME impact on home defense, if only because it creates a general atmosphere in which the good guys understand that the law is generally on their side. Also, some buy guns to carry, but then happen to have them around at home when an emergency arises there. In any event, my reason for linking to this particular story was not to argue aggregate statistics, but to provide a specific example of a CCW holder using a gun defensively against a dog. That kind of emergency is much more likely to occur on the street than in the privacy of one's home.

Plug: And pepper spray is easier and faster to draw, aim, and shoot than a gun if a dog is charging you? C'mon! I don't know if you've ever been attacked or chased by dogs, but I have, and they don't just appear out of nowhere and jump at your throat. Generally they walk around you in a circle for a bit, growl, feint, nip, and build up courage while they try to determine how dangerous you are. In my experience (not that I'm chased by dogs a whole lot) there would be plenty of time to draw a gun and use it.

Granted, the situation would be more difficult if a dog you couldn't see immediately charged at you from close by, but that's not how dogs work.

And anyway, just because guns won't protect you 100% doesn't mean they aren't a heck of a lot better than your bare hands. Although, at close range, a knife is certainly more effective if you know how to use it. Of course, you have to draw a knife, too.

The point of carrying a gun is to give you another option. It may not always be the best option, but it expands your range.

Xrlq: That's a great article. Lott always writes compelling pieces.

Mr. Williams:

Yes, pepper spray is easier to use against a charging dog and can be more effective. I have personally witnessed a charging full grown pit-bull, shot three times with a 9.mm from 10-12 feet, and it still kept a'comin' AND managed to bite into an officer's upper thigh, leaving a vary nasty wound. Incidentally it took eight rounds to get three on target. Would pepper spray been more effective? Well, based on how I have seen other dogs react, under similar circumstances, I believe it would have been. For one thing you don't have to be that accurate, just continuously spraying at the dog's face is a lot easier than getting off a well aimed shot or two (or eight). It can also be held in the hand 'at the ready', without having to 'draw' it. But, given the nature of this kind of attack, I agree it would be difficult to put faith into anything other than a handgun, even though the handgun's use and result may be questionable.

Though, I have also seen pepper spray to be innefective on both animals and humans, at times. Which also applies to firearms and tazers.

Yes I have been attacked - several times, mostly by pit-bulls and a rottwieller (I'm sure that's not the correct spelling!). The attacks, in fact, all came suddenly and out of nowhere. Dog attack is a frequent hazard to officers searching for suspects, trying to gain access into yards etc.

My dog - while on a leash held by me - was attacked twice (pit-bulls again!). Also out of nowhere. On one occasion I saw the dog across the street and there was no evidence of it being in the 'attack mode' until it just growled/snarled and charged. The second time I was walking past a five foot chain-link fence and the dog scrambled over it in about one second flat. Neither circumstance would I have had the opportunity to draw a concealed firearm, prior to the attack or during. At some point, I probably could have, but the attack was over by that time.

Having said all that, I'm still a big believer on 'odds' and I believe they are in my favor, to go about my business and private life, usually unarmed, without fear of being victimized. And I certainly would not carry a handgun, just out of fear of being dog-attacked...A big stick? that's a different story.

Sometimes dogs give warning, other times they do not. Dog attacks during a policeman's jaunt through the yard is simply not the common case. Civilians are generally not going through fenced yards. If you're traveling on the edge of a territory a dog is much more likely to warn than when you encounter him in the middle of it. A dog that warns gives you plenty of time to prepare.

The need for a gun to fend off animal attack will vary. If 3 or 4 pets have recently gone missing and mountain lions have been sighted in the area, there's a significant argument for going armed and not with a simple pea shooter.

The animal attack issue is real but secondary to the value of firearms against two legged predators.

Plug, Note that in your pitbull on officer story the officer got a nasty bite, but not to the neck/face area. Even thought the 9mm didn't stop the dog it appears to have slowed it enought that it couldn't knock the officer down. There was a similar incident where I live a while back, but this time several 00 buck rounds from a 12g didn't totally stop the dog, it was still staggering towards the officers who sensibly backed up, got in their cruiser and finished the dog by running it over several times. Just because a shot doesn't totally stop a dog doesn't mean its wasted, or that having a gun in that situation was useless.

If the dog is warning you to stay away, you are probably better off accepting the warning than continuing to approach, unless you have a good reason to be doing so and are in an aweful hurry (ie can't just wait for animal control to get there with tranqs). There are situations where that would not be appropriate, and where you might have enough warning to draw a concealed weapon, but I wouldn't think most dog attacks fall into that situation.

And yes, something that fires a constant visable stream would be much easier to aim in a panic than any firearm, and it would be at least no slower to draw. A gun would be marginally better than nothing, especially against multiple dogs, but not much. Looking at a handgun isn't going to scare the dogs off.

MW: yes, a man might be more capable of holding off one large dog, but I would put much more of that on training. In a panic I wouldn't give either a man or a woman much of a chance, since a large dog will be stronger and more stable. (of course we could easily have different interpretations of "large dog" and that would affect the argument.)

Michael: Men are vastly stronger than women, and quite a bit heavier, and those are advantages in any fight, panicked or not. Plus, men are faster and stronger, which makes it easier for them to escape. Women are certainly more vulnerable to animals than men are, by quite a large margin I expect.

I also think a gun would be vastly better than nothing, otherwise humans would just hunt with their bare hands. C'mon.

Puff...

Re. your post. The officer was knocked to the ground. Myself AND another officer, wrestled the dog away. The dog appeared to be attacking the groin area and not the face/neck. Fortunately it was wearing a collar and had something to take hold off. At that time, we had been issued CN spray, which was used, but totally ineffective. We were able to tie the dog up with a garden hose...it was still straining to attack for a full three or four minutes. Eventually in lay down and was euthanized.

I'm not advocating not using a firearm, but pointing out that bullets may not stop a dog attack, and that pepper spray may be more appropriate, both in application and effect. Nothing is absolute.

I'd hate to agree that Pepper Spray is an excellent alternative to a firearm, when dealing with an animal attack. My main reasoning for this is that animals who are in "attack mode" won't distinguish between those who are legally able to carry a weapon and those that are not. They just attack.

Since a child cannot legally carry a pistol, I say a little pepper spray would be a nice way to protect the child, and a humane way to make that dog run away... very fast.

Toxey: I don't think children can carry pepper spray, but I could be wrong.

Further, dogs that attack people shouldn't be scared away humanely, they should be put down as soon as possible.

It's a federal crime to carry firearms in public areas, certainly a suburb.

TeamRocket: You're quite misinformed. There's no federal law relating to carrying firearms in public.

in SWEDEN where i live, you can`t even so much as whisper GUN and the will take you into custody
ASAP. here the agenda is almost totaly forfilled
the population has systematicaly been reduced to
totaly pacified obidient non thinking slaves,,
opening their mouths to be feeded whatever the system wants to feed them. and if you utter the word self defence here,, they look at you with zombie like eyes like you come from another planet. you can not undwer any circumstances or situations Harm an intruder/violator/ etc. not even if you find your doughter being brutaly raped with an chainsaw by a stranger/burglerer in your own house,, DO NOT EVEN DARE ! to "bend" a tiny tiny hair on his head.or you will suffer DIRE consequenses. its basicaly a One party system in the country and has been for 50 years,,nothing will change,, the inhabitants will is totaly broken, the goverment ( soon to be EU) can legislate whatever law they wants, objections is unheard of, as i said,,,, everything is going smoothly acording to the agenda,, its only the microchips in our heads missing.

sometimes,, it feels the Americans are the last free people left on this planet =O .