Wow man...I have a small yorki, and I probably would have kicked that pitbull so far it is not even funny. I do not understand why people do not keep those dogs on a leashe...especially ones that the owners do not keep good care of. I would do the same thing....take the vet bills over to your neighbor and try to settle is civilly first, if not, bring her to court, the court with most likely tell the owner she has got to pay. So you could tell her that she could do it the easy way.....or the hard way.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
3 Dogs attacked by Pitbull-what would you have done
- Thread starter jmcclory
- Start date
- Status
Depends on each given person's abilities. A hard blow with a stick or a bat can knock a dog out, or even kill it, very quickly. Putting yourself in risk of being bit by a powerful dog also may put your already injured dog in danger: it is a chance that you won't be able to provide her a first aid and drive to a vet if you have an injury, too.
Anyway, it is always good for everyone to know ther abilities and their limits...
J
Jose
+1
Do not underestimate the power of a blow delivered by a man armed with a blunt object and jacked up on adrenalin.
Skulls are not that hard to crack. Not even a pit's.
if that was my dog being attacked I would have gone for the pitbulls eyes
To the OP, you should sue the offending dog's owner for damages to you, your dogs, & your family, & report him to the proper authorities. If this dog is as awful as you say he is, he should be put down before he does this again. If it came onto my property & attacked my tied up dogs, he would've met with my sidearm.
Sound familiar?
I have 2 APBT type dogs, & my (always leashed) dogs are "assaulted" by off leash dogs owned by ignorant inconsiderate asshats all the time. I will not hesitate to protect my 2 pit bulls from the stupid labrador retreiver that comes running over to them (no owner in sight) & starts humping my female, & proceeds to somehown manage to bite me in the ensuing scuffle. This very thing happened to me last month.
The owners are the problem. My 2 dogs (much like my guns) will NEVER attack someone on their own, because I'm responsible for them, & I prevent situations where they may get into trouble. Same as with my protection trained German Shepherd a few years ago.
Dogs are dogs. Pitbulls are the "Strongman" of the dog world. They're strong as an ox, & have endless energy. They are also extremely intelligent. They get the bad rep because of bad owners, not because they're bad as a whole. Statistically, they don't bite nearly as much as other "acceptable" breeds of dogs. I'm not a drug dealer or in another nefarious occupation, although my female pit does go to work with me & meets lots of people during the course of our work day.
Also, no, I'm not negative repping you just b/c you're ignorant in this matter...you have the right to your opinion. You just happen to be wrong on this one, & I say this with the utmost respect.
Sound familiar?
I have 2 APBT type dogs, & my (always leashed) dogs are "assaulted" by off leash dogs owned by ignorant inconsiderate asshats all the time. I will not hesitate to protect my 2 pit bulls from the stupid labrador retreiver that comes running over to them (no owner in sight) & starts humping my female, & proceeds to somehown manage to bite me in the ensuing scuffle. This very thing happened to me last month.
The owners are the problem. My 2 dogs (much like my guns) will NEVER attack someone on their own, because I'm responsible for them, & I prevent situations where they may get into trouble. Same as with my protection trained German Shepherd a few years ago.
Dogs are dogs. Pitbulls are the "Strongman" of the dog world. They're strong as an ox, & have endless energy. They are also extremely intelligent. They get the bad rep because of bad owners, not because they're bad as a whole. Statistically, they don't bite nearly as much as other "acceptable" breeds of dogs. I'm not a drug dealer or in another nefarious occupation, although my female pit does go to work with me & meets lots of people during the course of our work day.
Also, no, I'm not negative repping you just b/c you're ignorant in this matter...you have the right to your opinion. You just happen to be wrong on this one, & I say this with the utmost respect.
Last edited:
The "compare dogs to guns" tactic has been used several times in this thread already. It doesn't become any less stupid the more it's used.
How is it stupid? You're uncomfortable with something I have, & because some irresponsible bastard causes someone harm with their dog/gun, all of a sudden, my dog/gun is bad & should be banned.
It's EXACTLY the same thing:
Punishing responsible people for the actions of the great unwashed.
It's not even close to being the same thing. You can irresponsibly leave your pistol on the coffee table, locked and loaded, with a room full of 3 year olds. Unless they pick it up, not a thing will happen.
A dog is a living, breathing creature with a mind and a will of it's own. It isn't dependent on human action to cause it to be dangerous. If you leave your dog in a room full of 3 year olds, it has the potential to cause harm if it wants to, even with no human intervention.
I never said they should be banned. I said comparing them to firearms is idiotic.
A responsible owner would leave neither a gun nor any dog unattended in a room full of 3 year olds. Why punish us for the iresponsibility of others who are too stupid to do so?
I don't think my argument is idiotic, & I think making your points without resorting to downplaying mine by calling them "stupid & idiotic" would be more conducive to a good conversation.
A dog is property, same as the gun. If you leave a gun in a room full of 3 year olds, you're a jackass, same as if you leave a dog in a room full of 3 year olds. It's asking for trouble. Just like with your gun, my dog is my responsibility. If mine bites a 3 year old, I'm screwed, and rightly so. If a 3 year old picks up your gun & shoots another 3 year old, you're screwed, and rightly so.
Don't give the dogs more credit than they deserve. They don't have the capacity to be evil, or to think evil thoughts. Though they are intelligent & highly trainable, they're just dogs.
Finish reading my post.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not insulting you. I'm saying comparing firearms to pit bulls is dumb, and it is. I then presented an example to establish it.
Who's responsible isn't the issue. It's whether the object is animate or inanimate. If my back gate gets left open, there is zero chance my firearm will run out into the street and shoot the neighbors dog. Not so with a pet. It isn't a matter of thinking, or being, evil. It's just as you said. They're just dogs. They do what is instinctual.
I read your entire post and your example does not work to distinguish a dog from a gun because a responsible owner would leave neither in a room full of 3 year olds.
I know you don't want them banned but you haven't made an example that shows how a pit bull attacking someone (other than its owner) is the fault of anyone but the individual owner and not pit bulls as a breed. The same as a gun owner being the one held accountable if his negligence causes an injury or death and not guns in general.
If we must we can respectfully disagree on this one because I'm not in the mood for an internet battle of wits this morning and it seems we both hold our beliefs strongly.
If your dog bites a 3-year old the dog will be put down and you might be faced with a civil lawsuit for damages.
If a 3-year old picks up your gun and shoots another 3-year old chances are you will be faced with a civil lawsuit. On top of that you will be arrested and criminally charged. Why do you suppose the law looks at it that way? Perhaps sometimes even good dogs do bad things, that the owner has no control of.
To say ALL dogs can be trained and trusted is insane. I have been around dogs my entire life. Much like people, some are smarter that others. Some are more aggressive than others. Each and every dog has their own personality. I have seen dogs that even with the best training still not obey their owners. It happens. As much as you THINK you can train a dog it still has the power of free will. Sometimes they attack and no one knows what caused it to do so.
I don't know about you, but my guns may all shoot a bit different, not one of them has a personality or the power of free will.
Last edited:
You're confusing accountability with causation.
Very true.
Which is why a responsible owner keeps his/her dogs leashed or enclosed. Physical control not just yelling "no fido" as your dogs shred the neighbor's Pomeranian.
I never said that all dogs can be trusted. NEVER. Quite to the contrary, I wouldn't trust a toy poodle around my infant unsupervised. I've been around dogs enough to know that any dog has the potential to bite. They're dogs. They don't have free will. That's something exclusive to us human types.
Ok. Can we both agree that responsibility and proper handling of both guns and dogs will prevent injuries and death? Regardless of type of gun or breed of dog?
I can tell by your avatar that your love your dog and I have even met her at one of the NES shoots where she seemed to be a very smart and well trained dog. But at the shoot you were responsible enough to keep her leashed and under control which prevented the possibility of her or anyone else gettin injured should she become scared or confused.
Your responsibilty was most likely not the cause that she didn't bite anyone (as she was well trained and well mannered and wouldn't have anyway). But your proper handling of her, most likely your proper handling of her since she was a little pup, was what definitely caused all of us to never have to find out if she might bite.
The same can be said for us who responsibly own/have owned pit bulls. Our responsible handling of them takes their free will as the cause of the attack out of the equation. The exception being if they attack one of us which is a personal risk that we have taken.
I can understand why you do not like the comparison of guns and dogs, but I think we can agree that responsible handling of both takes the dog's free will out of the equation on most occasions.
I will agree that the gun is an inanimate object and obviously could not harm anyone without someone physically pulling the trigger.
ETA: Please correct me if I'm confusing you with someone else who brought their dog to the 4th shoot this past summer.
dixidawg
NES Member
???? Not sure what you mean by this. The whole issue here is that they DO have the free will to whatever they want, whenever they want. It is up us to control that and prevent them from exercising that free will in destructive ways.
Comparing living creatures (dogs) and inanimated objects (guns) is dumb only if one is trying to prove that it is OK to keep living creatures under same conditions as inanimated objects, such as locked in a safe without food and water. But it is a righteous comparance when we are talking about responsble vs irresponsible ownership. Every responsible dog owner, just as every responsible gun owner, must understand all potential risks associated with their property. For a gun owner it is leaving a gun unattended in a room full of kids, for a dog owner having their dog unleashed in a place from where she can get to a kid. In both cases, the solution is to punish irresponsible owners, not to preventively ban guns or dogs.
BTW, my doberman was once severely bitten by a black lab, just like yours. I still don't think that Labs should be banned. However, I made that particular lab owner to pay my vet bill, and let hm know that if one more incidint will happen the AC will pay a close attenton to his dog.
Last edited:
Okay, so you agree that dogs can not be trusted that they won't go off on their own. Can you also agree that a gun CAN be trusted to not go off on it's own?
Being a bit anal about the term "free will" aren't you? I'm pretty sure you understood my point that a dog can act on it's own without any outside influence.
Comparing guns to dogs is like comparing a banana to a dishwasher.
I absolutely agree. That does nothing to address my statement that comparing firearms to dogs with regard to their actions just doesn't fit.
Dogs need different "storage conditions" than guns, that's it.
What I found completely incorrect in News Shooter's post is an idea that pit bulls should not be owned because they are "unneeded", "dangerous", and even "tool of devil". Pretty much the same arguments anties use against gun ownership. Although in both cases problems are caused by owners who don't understand responsibility of ownership. Accident preventing is more difficult for an animal owner than for a gun owner, however, it can't be used as a reason for banning ownership of any domesticated animal.
A dog can act independently of outside influence. A gun can't. A dog can sneak out an open gate. A gun can't. A dog can slip it's collar or pull free from it's leash. A gun can't. A dog can break out of it's fenced yard. A gun can't. A dog won't always stop a behavior when ordered by it's handler. A gun will.
Completely, undeniably, not comparable in this context. A dog has free will. A gun does not.
Dog's owner can minimize outside influence, always keep the gate closed, use strict collar or a harness, make a fence tall enough so the dog couldn't jump over it, muzzle the dog, and prevent situations where the dog's behavior may be dangerous. A dog has a degree of free will, but does not have enough intellectual ablities to plan escape.
Responsible dog ownership is harder than responsible gun ownership... But the problems are still caused by owners who don't understand that.
Aniway, my point is that trouble-makers should be punished, and not good owners.
- Status
Similar threads
