78 year old man defends himself against 2 pit bulls

[TPaine7]

A 78 year old man is confronted on his walkway by two aggressive pit bulls. Should he:

1. Run like the wind?
   
2. Use his advanced martial arts training?
   
3. Call the police on his cell phone?
   
4. Hope for the best?
   
5. Relax in the moral superiority of righteous helplessness?
   

Thank goodness he had another option:

VANCOUVER, Wash. - A 78-year-old man with a licensed concealed pistol said he was trapped by two pit bulls he had never seen before, and the only way to survive was to shoot and kill one of dogs.

Albert Gosiak (pronounced like go-shack) said he walked out of his East Vancouver house just for a minute Saturday morning. That's when he met two pit bulls in his walkway.
Gosiak said the dogs were aggressive and he was trapped. He said he acted in self defense when he shot one of the pit bulls.

Source: http://www.katu.com/news/local/56234442.html

People who believe that he had a civic duty to be unarmed with the most effective weapon for the situation—and therefore a duty to be subject to whatever the dogs (or any felons he might encounter) wanted to dish out—are free to remain in Canada or Europe. Those with such beliefs who have the “misfortune” of living in America are free to move.

I, for one, am glad that this man’s right to self-defense—and to the most effective means for exercising that right—is recognized.

[valerief]

1. Pit bulls should be outlawed. nt

[meegbear]

2. If pit bulls are outlawed, only outlaws will have pit bulls ...

and try to pry THAT from someone's cold dead hand.

[TPaine7]

10. LOL! Clever.

[SteveM]

66. "Back... back... it's a homerun!" (nt)

[TPaine7]

3. Debatable.

But that wouldn't solve this issue. A feral German shepherd would be just as dangerous to a 78 year old man, and even golden retrievers get rabies.

[valerief]

28. Pit bulls are bred to kill and they kill more often and cause much more damage more often. nt

[Chulanowa]

34. And here I thought you were being sarcastic

You realize there's some irony in putting this argument up in the guns forum, right?

[Euromutt]

63. Speaking of irony...

What's with the combination of having Gandhi as your avatar, but having a sig line image of an armed and armored Sun Wukong? It's not like Sun Wukong is a character known to shun the use of violence, is he?

[Chulanowa]

70. Finally, someone who can spell Gandhi's name correctly

Usually when some uneducated mook makes a point about the avatar, it's "ghandi." Thank you for rising above the rest of the herd.

At any rate. Take a peek into Gandhi's philosophy. Then brush up on your Sun Wukong. Then get back to me and try again to claim that they conflict greatly.

Of course, most of Sun Wukong's asskicking was against flesh-eating demons and monstrous undersea dragons. I kind of doubt the mahatma had such worries.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. The hell they are.

Look, I breed labs, and even labrador retrievers can bite the hell out of you if provoked. Rottweilers kill more humans than pitbulls. You are mixing dog homicides and dog bites.

The Rottweiler kills more humans. Rottweilers are not more popular than pit bulls.

Most pit bulls are not bred to kill. If they were, they would not account for fewer human deaths than the rottweiler breed. They have a good temperment, and display many of the 'protective' characteristics that most of the herding dogs have.

The human interaction the dog has, generally impacts the dog's behavior. What I would strongly recommend, since this breed is commonly used for fighting, is not to adopt out any 'unknown' dog of this breed. You might find one that passes temperment tests like food aggression, and may show no scars or other indication of fighting, but the dog may have been raised for fighting, and severely mistreated. You won't know until it's too late. There's no carfax report on a dog, and dogs can't tell you what they have experienced. If you find a stray pit, probably better to pass it by, unfortunately. Because you'll never know for sure, and humans tend to anthropomorphize dog behavior, and assume they employ reason and rationality like we do. They don't.

If you get it from a reputable breeder, you're probably good to go. It's a great breed, good animals. If the dog's history is in any way in question, human behavior makes it much more likely that a dog of this breed might be dangerous. It's not the dogs, it's the humans who mistreat them.


Edit: Son of a bitch, I fell for some stupid urban legend about the bite force of the pit bull, it's actually not higher than other breeds of it's size.

[valerief]

56. Pit bulls kill twice as many people as rottweilers.

http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-fatality-citations.htm
http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-fatalities-2008.htm

2008 statistics

* 23 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2008. Pit bull type dogs were responsible for 65% (15). Pit bulls make up approximately 2-9% of the U.S. dog population.2
* In 2008, only one U.S. citizen over the age of 3 was killed by a breed other than a pit bull. 74-year old Lorraine May was fatally mauled by her two dogs: an Australian shepherd-mix and a golden retriever-mix.
* 70% of the attacks occurred to children (11 years and under) and 30% occurred to adults (21 years and older). Of the children, half (8) occurred to ages 1 and younger.
* 39% of fatal attacks in 2008 involved multiple dogs; 9% involved chained dogs.
* 78% of the attacks occurred on owner property and 22% off owner property. All off property attacks (5) that resulted in death were attributed to pit bulls.
* 61% of the victims were male; 39% of the victims were female. Of the male victims, over half (8) were 3 years and younger.
* In at least three fatal attacks, a grandmother was watching a child aged 2 and younger. Two of these attacks occurred in Las Vegas; both involved pet pit bulls.

[Euromutt]

62. I'm no dog lover, but I don't think a dog's breed is the problem

At least, not directly. The reason a disproportionate number of attacks (particularly fatal attacks) are committed by specific breeds is that those breeds are disproportionately popular with idiot owners.

Okay, let me qualify that: certain breeds have traits that make them a potential menace, but it takes an idiot owner to turn that potential into reality. The site you linked to has a page on "dangerous dogs," on which it lists wolf hybrids as one of the most dangerous breeds.

I happen to volunteer as a tour guide at a wolf sanctuary, so I've learned a thing or two about hybrids, and I'll acknowledge that they have traits that make them potentially dangerous, though none more than that a large number of the people who buy them are utterly clueless. What most people who buy hybrids really want is an actual wolf, because they think it's macho, or they buy into some Newage-y "spirit animal" crap, or they've just watched too much Due South. But even they realize that a pure wolf might be too much to handle, so they settle for a critter that looks like a wolf, but--supposedly--thinks like a dog.

Which is fine in theory, but in practice, hybrids more often manage to combine some or all of the wolf traits that make wolves unsuitable as pets* and combine it with a socialization to (including lack of fear of) humans. Some 80% of hybrids are euthanized before or by their third birthday, and almost always that's because the owner did not what he was getting into, and had no clue how to treat the animal.

Best story ever concerning clueless hybrid owners:
There was a gang of drug dealers in Providence, RI who acquired two hybrids as guard dogs, figuring that anything part wolf had to be vicious. But when the local SWAT team came to execute a search warrant, the two hybrids smelled them coming and hid. Smart move, since SWAT teams typically shoot dogs out of hand. The animals are now in the US's only dedicated hybrid sanctuary, in New Hampshire.

That said, however, the other 20% of hybrids can, and do, have fulfilling lives with owners who know what they're doing; who understand the animal's needs and have the means to provide for them. Not unlike guns, it's usually whose hands the dog is in that form the problem, rather than the dog itself.

And banning "dangerous breeds" really doesn't do much good, because the idiots will just move on to the next-best thing. The clueless hybrid owners will just get malamutes or huskies, and the pit bull breeders will just concoct some new breed that's legally not a pit bull, but for practical purposes might as well be, and the morons who wanted a fighting dog will buy those instead.

* - These traits include:
- Retention of hunting instinct, causing them to chase small stuff that runs, like the neighbors' cat. Or the neighbors' kid.
- Resistance to toilet training; wolves scent-mark their territory through various means, including urination, and they will not give it up.
- Dominance issues; when wolves reach sexual maturity (age 2-3), they think about challenging for leadership of the pack, which may mean you have a fight with an adult wolf on your hands. Good luck. And "hybrid vigor" often results in hybrids growing larger than their parents.

[valerief]

65. Wolves, pit bulls, hybrids of them, they're all dangerous. I wonder how the civilized world

manages to ban them. Pit bulls are banned in those countries that have universal health care. Even in some pockets of the U.S.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. My apologies.

The numbers swing back and forth over time. From 1979 to 1992, pits led in human fatalities, from 92-96 Rottweilers led, etc. So it depends on what date range you select your data from. All total, for the last 20 years, Pit Bull Terriers do indeed lead Rottweilers in human fatalites. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

The peer-reviewed Journal of American Medicine study I selected happened to fall across years the Rottweiler was 'top dog' so to speak.

In any case, there is nothing terribly unusual about these two breeds, which clearly kill the most humans, other than how humans treat them. Both breeds are preferred for dog fighting. Many are raised with this fighting training, and escape or are released into the public, and are adopted by families that do not know the dog's history. Some owners will also try to 'train' the dog to be mean/protective of property.

It's not specifically the dogs, it's the humans. If you ban these two breeds, people who fight dogs will move on to probably German Shepards, Huskies, Malamutes, and Chows.

[valerief]

73. I wonder if the countries who've had pit bulls banned for years now show that German Shepherds

(or another breed) have killed humans at the same rate that pit bulls have.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. A question worth researching

However, we would also need to establish that both the united states and that foreign country you choose to compare, share the same cultural tendencies around fighting animals against one another for sport.

[iverglas]

78. kinda like firearms with certain features ...

It's the attraction they hold for certain scummy individuals that is a large part of the problem.

Since one cannot order the sterilization or muzzling of the individuals, a society does its best to limit the harm they can cause, including by restricting their access to the things with which they cause harm.

Ontario has banned the breeding of them and any new acquisitions of them.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp

Aha, it was going through the courts - whether the definition of a pit bull was void for vagueness (although the argument may have changed) -- and I'd missed the last round.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/11/ontario-dogs.html

In his submission to the Supreme Court, Ruby argued there is no scientific or statistical basis to conclude that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs.

He asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from Ontario's Appeal Court last October that upholds the province's ban.

On Thursday, the <Supreme Court of Canada> dismissed the application to hear the appeal.

<equivalent of denying certiorari at the US Supreme Court>

The Ontario Appeal Court concluded that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning.

Good old Clay. He was once a leftie lawyer. Went the "civil libertarian" route ... if only dogs had liberties, he'd be all set.


edited to clarify

[SteveM]

67. Yep, it ain't the dog, it's the owner (nt)

[Auggie]

That's going a little far, IMO

[TPaine7]

9. Were you actually addressing post 1?

If not, I don't understand your reply to the OP.

[Auggie]

20. Yes

[madmax]

5. Here we go

:popcorn:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

7. Pitbulls are gentle, loving, intelligent animals. They're innocent.

The people who raise them badly and train them to be aggressive attack dogs and fighters should be slowly beaten to death with ball bats.

[old mark]

21. Our neighbor has a 2 year old male pit bull. He is a sweetheart -

he sniffs noses with our dog through the fence - they run back and forth and have a great time with each other - they are real pals.

It is humans who make bad dogs bad.

You are right about the baseball bats.

mark

[DBoon]

25. I own 2 pitbulls and they are very gentle with people

they tend to be a bit agressive with other dogs, but they are very human-friendly. I once was forced to buy girl scout cookies because of of them jumped up and licked the girl scout's face.

I've seen some of the dogs used as bait for fighting and it is really sad to see these terrified injured dogs, who cower at their own shadow.

Treated with kindness and respect and properly trained they are a pure joy of a dog. They are loyal, friendly, affectionate and very playful.

[spin]

39. It totally depends on the owner and the breeder...

Pit Bulls are very intelligent family dogs if properly bred and raised by responsible people who are not looking for a vicious attack dog.

Many people would argue that they are "inherently dangerous" and should be outlawed. The same people often oppose firearm ownership for the same reason.

I would state that most dogs are not inherently dangerous at all, but all too often their owners are.

[Euromutt]

60. Absolutely correct, though I'd add a caveat

From what I've been able to glean, there's no inherent issue with any particular breed, but it is safe to say that "attack breeds" (at term analogous to "assault weapons") tend to be popular with the kind of people who want a dog for the purpose of harming others. Media hype actually plays a part, both with selection of dogs and selection of guns by the kind of people we'd rather didn't have either; these people keep getting told by the TV news about how this breed is "inherently dangerous" and that kind of rifle is so amazingly lethal, and they think (for want of a better word) "then that's what I want!"

And then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because these are the kind of people who are disproportionately likely to cause havoc with any type of dog or gun, but because they exhibit this preference for pit bulls and cheap 7.62x39mm semi-autos, the breed of dog and model of rifle get a large chunk of the blame.

[spin]

76. I remember when my Norwegian Elkhound died of old age...

I asked the vet what breed would be a good dog. He recommended a Doberman Pincher.

I was surprised and said, "I often heard they were very aggressive dogs."

He answered, "Several years ago that was true and people bred and bought them for guard dogs. Recently, people have discovered Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. The breeders are now looking for intelligence and good behavior in the Dobermans they breed. All the Dobies I've seen recently are very smart and gentle dogs."

[iverglas]

79. my sister semi-adopted a Doberman years ago

Summer job at a gas bar, a young female Doberman was kept penned, for "protection", and was starved for affection. My sister would take her home on weekends ... hmm, I guess the owner wasn't around much!

There's no way for the public to know the blood lines of a dog someone acquires - whether it was bred for aggression, etc.


This is the kind of thing we were seeing in Ontario -- and no, not from other breeds in anything like proportional numbers:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/03/02/pit-bull-050302.html

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

A 17-year-old girl has been charged with criminal negligence after three pit bulls attacked a toddler and his father in Ottawa last week.

The teenager, who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was charged with three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm on Tuesday – the same day Ontario approved a ban on pit bulls and similar dogs.

... Their owner, 21-year-old Schridev Cafe, faces six charges of violating city bylaws, with potential fines of $30,000.

He was also fined $2,100 in January, after the same animals attacked two young boys.

html fixed

[spin]

82. My experience with Pit Bulls and Rotweilers...

has mostly been positive. But...

Some people are not responsible enough to own an aggressive dog, just as some are not responsible enough to own a firearm.

My daughter through the years has owned two Rottweilers and a Pit Bull. My son in law is excellent at training dogs and while these animals were protective, once introduced they were friendly and gentle. My two grandchildren grew up with these dogs and they were great playmates. Unfortunately, a dog's life span is shorter than ours and they are long gone.

The three Boston Terriers we have now are great house pets and good alarm dogs. Unlike many smaller dogs they are not constantly barking.

I did encounter several poorly trained Pit Bulls and one Rottweiler in Tampa, usually when waling one of my dogs on a leash. It's a pain in the ass to have to carefully move away from an aggressive dog and avoid a dog fight. Obviously the owners were negligent as the dogs were loose.

When I moved to north Florida, I was surprised to see Pit Bull dogs everywhere. These country boys know how to train dogs. With the owners permission you can approach these animals without fear. Several times I've visited homes and had to pass a Pit Bull to knock on the door. They merely watched. But then, these homes often housed a business such as a TV repair shop so the dogs were trained not to attack.

I usually am able to establish a positive relationship with a dog as I am not particularly afraid but merely careful. Several people have been amazed at this ability, but I feel the secret is merely using commonsense and not making direct eye contact and not making quick motions.

To me a dog is more dangerous to own than a firearm. Without proper training many breeds of dogs can attack innocent individuals. A firearm, on the other hand, will not decide to leap up and shoot someone. But then. without proper training an individual with a firearm can be hazardous to other people or himself.

Training is probably the key.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Unfortunately, Dobies don't live too long.

Serious health problems, Pinschers don't live much more than 10 years, gladiator dobermans don't live much past 7. The smaller variants tend to live longer, for some reason.

[spin]

83. That's sad but true...

I've lost a lot of my closest friends over the years. I still miss all those animals.

[the other one]

4. Was it REALLY Pit Bulls?

At least Twenty (20) breeds of dog are similiar in appearance to the dreaded pit bull.

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm

Pit Bulls speak - we are good dogs!

Most people, who are unfamiliar with the American Pit Bull Terrier, falsely believe that they are dangerous dogs. Unfortunately, Pit Bulls have a bad reputation because of some mean people who have abused their dogs and trained them to be aggressive. Pit Bulls are actually very stable, intelligent, and highly trainable. They are strong athletic dogs, and they require a guardian who is responsible and will give them plenty of exercise and training. They are very loving and loyal and make excellent animal companions.

Little-known facts about Pit Bulls:

Pit Bulls serve as therapy/service dogs. The Chako Rescue Association has Pit Bull therapy dogs in Texas, Utah and California. Helen Keller even had a Pit Bull as her canine companion and helper. Cheyenne and Dakota are a team of hard-working Search-and-Rescue Pit Bulls in Sacramento, California. They play an important role in their community by locating missing people in conjunction with the local Sheriff. In their off-duty hours, they do charity work as therapy dogs.

Petey, the faithful dog on the TV show, The Little Rascals, was a Pit Bull. He spent countless hours with children day after day and never hurt anyone. He was one of the most intelligent Hollywood dogs of all time.

There are quite a few celebrities who have Pit Bulls as members of their family including: Rosie Perez, The Crocodile Hunter, Judd Nelson, Usher, Alicia Silverstone, Cassandra Creech, Sinbad, John Stuart, Amy Jo Johnson, Linda Blair, Vin Diesel, and Bernadette Peters.

Pit Bulls are heroes! America's first war dog was a Pit Bull named Stubby. He earned several medals during World War I and was honored at the White House. The Ken-L-Ration dog hero of 1993 was a Pit Bull named Weela. She saved 30 people, 29 dogs, 13 horses and a cat during a flood in Southern California. A Pit Bull named Bogart saved a four-year-old child from drowning in a swimming pool in Florida. Dixie, the Pit Bull, was inducted into the Georgia Animal Hall of Fame after she saved some children from a Cottonmouth snake.

Pit Bulls are one of the most stable people-friendly dogs in existence. The National Canine Temperament Testing Association tested 122 breeds, and Pit Bulls placed the 4th highest with a 95% passing rate!

Top of Page

Dispelling some myths about Pit Bulls:

-Is it true that Pit Bulls can lock their jaw?
The infamous locking jaw is a myth. The American Pit Bull Terrier and related breeds are physiologically no different from any other breed of dog. All dogs are from the same species and none have locking jaws. Dr. I Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." Furthermore, Dr. Brisbin states, "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."

-Are Pit Bulls naturally aggressive towards humans?
While many Pit Bulls do tend to be aggressive towards other DOGS (as are most terriers), the normal, well raised Pit Bull has NO human-aggressive tendencies! In fact, human-aggression was actually bred out of the breed. The majority of Pit Bulls are affectionate, intelligent, trainable dogs. In fact, the highest obedience trial record of all time is held by an American Pit Bull Terrier named Maddy!

-Can Pit Bulls "turn" on people?
In fact, no breed of dog does. Dog aggression is nearly always preceded by some kind of warning, and there is always a reason behind the attack. However, many inexperienced owners do not recognize the dog's behavior as aggression, or refuse to acknowledge it as a warning sign. The only exception I can think of is Springer Rage, a rare and controversial neurological condition that manifests itself as a spontaneous attack, followed by confusion, and then a return to normal behavior. Pit Bulls are NOT prone to this condition. There are individual dogs of any breed that may be more aggressive to others.

Pit Bull quotes:

Pit bulls are famous, in circles of knowledgeable dog people, for the love and loyalty they bestow on anyone who shows them a smidgen of kindness.
--Linda Wilson-Fuoco, journalist

In my opinion, Pit bulls are the least likely to be human aggressive. On the whole, you have to do a lot of work to make them aggressive to people.
--Sue Frisch, Dessin Animal Shelter manager

Pit bulls are especially good at pleasing people since they are strong and smart, they learn quickly and they are very adaptable."
-- Rob Mullin, dog trainer, owner, "K-9 Wizard & Co." Trumbell, Connecticut

[Chulanowa]

8. On top of that...

There's a tendency to report ANY "mean dog" as having been a pit bull. Everything from golden retrievers to pomeranians have been called "pit bulls" by the media after attacking someone.

[X_Digger]

18. Kind of like..

.. any non-handgun used in a crime is often reported as an 'assault weapon'. :)

[Chulanowa]

26. Could be, sure

I'm unfamiliar with such reports, but hey - you read up on guns, I read up on pit bulls.

This news story is kind of like that "Lady kicked out of Olive Garden for breastfeeding" story we had a few days ago. It needs to be in GD so we can get the "perfect storm" affect.

Now, if that lady is related to Mr. Gosiak, or is the owner of the dogs... We've got ourselves a scoop

[X_Digger]

27. Throw in some GLBT, some Israel/Palestine, some vaxxers..

.. it'd really skid from forum to forum out of control :)

[maxsolomon]

6. ahh, vancouver wa - pits and concealed weapons

hard to tell whether he's spinning the size of the threat to his advantage. given his age, he could have overreacted. or not, as animal control wrote it off. interesting that shooting only one pit, not both, was necessary.

but seeing as he's in a well-regulated militia, it's all good.

[TPaine7]

Blame the victim and the "well regulated militia" canard. Two in one! N/T

[maxsolomon]

46. who blamed? i said he could be spinning. or not.

and jeez, i thought you would like the well-regulated militia canard - it's in the constitution, after all. and i do know "well-regulated" means any male over 18.

to me, the lesson of this story is: stay the fuck out of vancouver wa.

[TPaine7]

48. Ok, technically you didn't blame him, you said he could be guilty...

BTW, Vancouver is not a bad town. Neither is the neighboring city of Portland, which has similar CCW laws.

I know I've felt safer in downtown Portland at night than I would in an East coast city. Or in "gun free" Chicago.

[maxsolomon]

53. "guilty" is not the issue, is it?

most people will lie to make themselves look good - especially to the law. if i were an elderly gentleman who felt he needed to carry a concealed weapon at all times, then panicked and shot a scary dog, i would almost certainly assert that i'd been in fear of my life. it would be the truth, but might not be the whole truth.

vancouver wa demonstrably contains:
1. ticky-tack homes thrown up during the housing bubble (sorry, i'm an architect).
2. 78 year olds who carry concealed weapons.
3. poorly trained and secured pit bulls.

all of which are fine reasons to stay out. i'd rather spend time in vancouver BC. well, not on east hastings. unless i had a concealed weapon!

[paulsby]

57. the right belongs to "THE PEOPLE" not the militia

well regulated or otherwise. read the 2nd. again

vancouver is a great city btw. a few of my hawaii friends moved there and i've visisted. also, by living in vancouver, you get a great economic break, as WA has no income tax, and you can drive across the river and shop in orego, which has no sales tax.

vancouver WA has been among the top 5 fastest growing cities in the country several times, and is a very liveable city.

[Chulanowa]

11. So, I just want to get this straight

The guy puts on his gun, to go outside "just for a minute"?
Okay.
He encounters two dogs he has never, ever seen before.
Okay.
Despite having just walked out the door onto his walkway, he was "trapped"
Okay.
So he had no option but to shoot just one. presumably the other ran away after the gunshot.

Alternate theory? Old man gets pissed at seeing someone's dogs in his yard, grabs his gun, and goes out to blow them away.

[Common Sense Party]

12. Where does it say he "puts on his gun" just to go outside?

It's possible he always carries. Many CCW permitholders carry at almost all times.

[Chulanowa]

14. Yeah, it's possible, I suppose

I'm just stating an alternate theory that works just as well with what we have (better, IMO, given the media's propensity to call anything a "pit bull" - for all we know, he just shot a moose)

[Common Sense Party]

15. Presumably, the animal control officers that responded verified

that it was a dog and not a moose lying in a pool of blood on his front walk.

And it's a dog pictured at the link.

I don't know if that affects your alternate theory.

[Chulanowa]

17. Well, I guess it means his freezer won't be as well-stocked now

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Side point

Even if you hit one with your car, or shoot a moose in self defense, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife won't let you keep the carcass. Never. Not unless you were legally hunting and had a tag for it. Otherwise, they keep the carcass in all circumstances.

Reduces the 'HE'S COMIN RIGHT FOR US' 'hunting' out of season effect.

[Euromutt]

64. Oh, I don't know

I seem to recall a news story from fifteen years or so ago in which a guy got so annoyed at his neighbor's pit bull invading his yard that he shot the pooch, decapitated the carcass, stuck the head on a spike overlooking the property line, and barbecued and ate the rest of the dog.

Heck, the Polynesians brought pigs, chickens and dogs with them, and considered all three to be food animals. Not having eaten dog, who am I to disagree?

[Chulanowa]

72. Man, a pit bull would be stringy as hell

Have you ever felt one? They're made out of pinewood and jerky (you are what you eat, after all)

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Soak in jalapeño vinegar.

Does wonders with the toughest red meats. It's amazing.

[Turbineguy]

22. If I had

to watch Fox News I would CCW all the time. That way I can shoot the fucking TeeVee any time.

[Common Sense Party]

33. The remote control might be cheaper. n/t

[SteveM]

68. Ahh, but the pleasure is worth it. (nt)

[Chulanowa]

32. Ah. In the video.

sorry for the double-reply, but I thought I should just point it out. In the video, he says "I just happened to be carrying".

:shrug:

[TPaine7]

16. Getting it "straight"

Despite having just walked out the door onto his walkway, he was "trapped"
Okay.

Were I 20 to 30 feet from my door, I would consider myself to have just left. (Actually the distance could be greater for me to have just left, I shortened it for a 78 year old with good mobility.) And I don't think the world's fastest man can beat a healthy dog in a 10yd dash. He was "trapped" to any reasonable, thinking person.

So he had no option but to shoot just one. presumably the other ran away after the gunshot.

Logical. What's your point here, if any?

Alternate theory? Old man gets pissed at seeing someone's dogs in his yard, grabs his gun, and goes out to blow them away.

Alternate theory? He's guilty, at least until proven innocent. It's the American gun control reality distortion way.

[Common Sense Party]

19. After one watches the video, there's no way to think the guy wasn't trapped.

He closed the gate behind him. He would have had to turn his back on two snarling animals to open the gate and return to the house. It's not a good idea to turn one's back on an aggressive animal.

[Chulanowa]

24. Mr. Gosiak, is that you?

Thank you for supplying so many details omitted in the KATU report. Do you have anything else to add?

Again. He "just happened" to be carrying. I'm simply not buying the coincidence here. he just happened to be carrying, there just happened to be two dogs out there, they just happened to attack him, and he just happened to suffer no injury at all from the attack...

Gun control reality distortion? Who's talking about gun control? I'm talking about a guy shooting a dog.

Oh. OOOOOH. I get it. Since I don't think his story pans out completely, you think I believe we need to snatch his guns. Despite my never having said anything of the sort.

How interesting. I'm the one distorting reality, you say? Do tell, do tell.

[TPaine7]

35. The surface of the sun is hotter than the surface of the earth.

Thank you for supplying so many details omitted in the KATU report. Do you have anything else to add?

To my "revelation" that dogs are faster than 78yo men, even faster the world's fastest man? Yes, I have one thing to add, see the subject line. That wasn't in the KATU report either.

Again. He "just happened" to be carrying. I'm simply not buying the coincidence here. he just happened to be carrying, there just happened to be two dogs out there, they just happened to attack him, and he just happened to suffer no injury at all from the attack...

Of course you don't buy it. He's guilty. Until proven innocent.

...you think I believe we need to snatch his guns. Despite my never having said anything of the sort.

Not really. I don't recall you calling for the confiscations of all gun or of all handguns. I haven't read you calling for the confiscation of this fellow's guns. But this is not the first post of yours I've read, and I do recall consistent hostility to gun rights, at least some of them. And only by distorting reality can you miss the fact that any human being confronted by healthy dogs within a very short distance from his house could be trapped, and that goes doubly for a 78yo man.

[Chulanowa]

45. I'm afraid you're mistaken about my position on guns

I'm not hostile to gun rights any more than I'm hostile to car rights, hammer rights, or toaster rights. You have the right to own whatever goofy-assed tool you can afford. What I have hostility towards is "gun culture"; these are two different things.

And the 78 year old man who is too frail to back away, but spry enough to kick and dodge two large, muscular dogs without getting a scrape. I've done caretaking for both pit bulls and the elderly - I provided a foster home for the dogs when I was in Alaska, and I'm currently working at a retirement home. when I picture a 78 year old man vs. two adult, aggressive pit bulls, I'm just not seeing the fellow hopping around, kicking and dodging the animals without getting a scratch. if the animals had been intent on harming him, he would have been harmed. I'm not doubting his sensation of feeling threatened - i'm not a mind reader - just his assessment of their aggression.

[TPaine7]

47. "you have the right to own whatever *goofy-assed tool* you can afford...."

I'll let that neutral language speak for itself, as far as hostility is concerned.

Kicking sounds strange to my ears, too. I would generally expect aggressive action towards snarling pit bulls to precipitate an attack. But I wouldn't call the man a liar without more information. It seems to me, however, that sometimes animals have less than full commitment to an attack. In such a case, and based on the behavior, body language, and distance of the animals, perhaps I would kick at them. I'm not sure one way or the other.

(I also concede that if I knew more about pit bulls, I might share your level of skepticism about the kicking part of his story--which was, incidentally, not in the written report I cited.)

[Chulanowa]

71. Are you saying that a gun is more than a tool?

Because really. That's all it is. In specific, it's a weapon, a tool who's primary use is to injure and kill something else. I'm neutral because I see no reason to be either hostile or friendly towards an object. Attributions of "good" or "evil" to a tool are pretty senseless, in my opinion. That said, I do trend more along the "anti" crowd, simply because they tend to be fucking batshit crazy less frequently. I don't think there's any anti-gun person that can be compared to Ted Nugent, basically.

Anyway.

I'm not calling the man a liar. The dogs approached, he felt threatened. I believe that. I just don't think they were as aggressive as he thought they were - people can misread cues from animals pretty easily, especially when those people are constantly told that particular animal is the Charles Manson of the animal kingdom.

[jeepnstein]

38. Happens that way in the movies!

Get off my lawn!

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Possible.

Dunno if it's likely, but if these dogs had an owner, the truth will out.

[Trillo]

13. Never bring teeth to a gunfight.

1. Run like the wind?
No. Engages dog's prey drive, and they can run faster than humans, and if you run, you become their prey.

2. Use his advanced martial arts training?
Could work, but it's probably like playing lotto or going to Vegas. Particularly with a short broomstick, the dogs neck can be snapped, but at 78-years of human age related realities, probably not likely to work.

3. Call the police on his cell phone?
This will work when police have Star Trek Transporter technology. Until then, there isn't enough time.

4. Hope for the best?
If the dogs are truly aggressive, time to say prayers, and crawl up in a ball on the ground protecting your stomach, face, and neck.

5. Relax in the moral superiority of righteous helplessness?
Not sure what this means, or how it could help.

Dog teeth are also somewhat at a disadvantage with true swords, but those are often also illegal.

Some folks think cattle prods work, but with any dog that is insane, it probably just make them madder.

All of the above said, I would want to know more about this guy's characterization of the dogs as "aggressive". Some people think that a barking dog is aggressive, or that certain breeds are always aggressive, no matter the individual dog's particular behavior.

[Chulanowa]

29. Well, in the video, he says they came after him

and he was kicking to keep them away.

This is why I'm not buying the "they attacked me" story just like that. Now, hey, there are all levels of physical ability at his age, so maybe he was keeping them at bay with his mighty Chuck Norris roundhouses or something, I wasn't there. Maybe he's a gun-toting, ass-kicking, dinosaur-wrestling badass.

Now, having covered that possibility... Anyone who's spent time with pit bulls knows how easily a friendly bull can knock a person down. if these dogs are coming at your legs with intent to eat you for lunch, my money is on you ending up on your ass, not karate kicking at the things while drawing your weapon. At the very least, you're going to get bitten somewhere. This doesn't seem to have happened in this case.

But, like I said. Maybe he was giving the dogs some Shaolin-style foot to the face while undoing the snap on his holster. I'm not going to put a dime on that, but it's possible.

[Common Sense Party]

41. Just like a doggo...

Bringing teeth to a gun fight.

[old mark]

23. I have carried a gun legally for over 15 years. I felt I had to have it in my hand

only one time. I was just recovering from cardiac bypass surgery, was driving for the first time afterwards, and was approached by carjackers as I got out of my car to pick up my wife from a meeting in town.

I was very glad I had it, and still carry every time I leave the house.
If I make it till 78, I will still carry.

mark

[Common Sense Party]

44. I'm glad you had it on you.

Did you have to brandish it? Hopefully you didn't need to use it.

[old mark]

51. I took it out of my pocket and just held it, and the folks who were approaching

me found better things to do elsewhere.

It was an old Smith & Wesson HiWay Patrolman .357 magnum that I no longer have.

mark

[valerief]

30. The pit bull denialism on this thread is hilarious!

:rofl:

[Common Sense Party]

42. One shouldn't deny a pit bull of anything.

It might make Fluffy mad, and she'll rip out your carotid artery.

[spin]

43. Are you saying the all pit bulls are dangerous?

That's simply false.

Can they be dangerous. Yes!

Unlike firearms, if not properly contained and trained, they can go off on their own.

[rrneck]

31. Okay, I'll say it.

Who let the dogs out?

[Common Sense Party]

36. It's about time someone said it.

We were all waiting for you, actually.

You say it best.

[Common Sense Party]

37. It's a dog eat lead world.

:hide:

[jeepnstein]

40. Doggone

[JonQ]

49. I'm surprised one of the dogs didn't simply

take the gun away and use it on the owner. That is what always happens when these fools attempt to use guns in self-defense.

[TPaine7]

50. Doggone it, you're right! LOL. N/T

[proteus_lives]

58. Good One!

:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

59. CCW saved this man's life.

He was in the right to shoot the dog. I'd have done the same thing.

[Euromutt]

61. How about OC, though?

"OC" as in "oleoresin capsicum," not "open carry," that is.

The closest I've ever come to drawing my CCW piece was when I was on a stroll around the neighborhood with my 3 year-old earlier this year. It was getting dark, we were a few blocks from my house, and we encountered a loose dog that seemed to think the entire damn street was its territory. (The entire city is a "dog control zone," incidentally, i.e. no unleashed dogs in public, but this part of town was only incorporated a few years ago, and it doesn't seem to have entirely sunk in with some of the residents that being within the city limits means city ordinances now apply to them.)

So the dog's about 50 feet away, staying just out of the streetlight, and it's snarling and barking at us. I half-turn to pick up my son, only to find he's already haring off down the street as fast as his little legs can carry him, repeating "it's okay, it's okay" like an invocation. So I'm concerned he's going to trigger the dog's prey instinct, and the dog does start advancing (albeit slowly). So I make myself look as big as I can, draw my flashlight (3W LED), shine it in the dog's face and shout "Bad dog! Go home!" figuring that if it doesn't work (which it didn't) it might at least draw attention from potential witnesses who--if the worst came to the worst--could testify that I tried other methods before resorting to force. But the dog doesn't back off, though it doesn't advance either.

If the animal were to have gone for my kid, I'd have had zero compunction about shooting it (and then filing charges against the owner), but unless and until the threat becomes more acute, I don't want to draw my pistol and then have to call the cops and explain (in case someone in the surrounding houses called in "a man with a gun"). But I still wanted to have an option closer to hand in case the dog charged, and that's when I was glad that I also carry a pepper spray (a Kimber "Guardian Angel," since renamed "PepperBlaster"), so I drew that and kept it pointed at the pooch while I backed away.

It strikes me that a formulation of OC that's designed to work on humans should be significantly more effective on dogs. So I'd definitely suggest that that's a viable alternative, or complement, to a firearm in a situation like in the OP. I might note, though, that jurisdictions which are restrictive about ownership and public carry of firearms also, paradoxically, tend to be restrictive about things like pepper spray; an attitude that disgusts me no end.

[joeybee12]

75. Too bad we don't have the dogs' side of the story...just some 78 year old

winger who probably has done this before and lies about being "threatened." Nice try, nutjob.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. You went to The College Of It Stands To Reason, too?

(Thanks to Euromutt for that quote!)

A lot of your fellow alumni post here in the Gungeon.

Got anything to back this up, or are you just slandering the old dude?

[Piwi2009]

84. People don't kill pitbulls, GUNS kill pitbulls!

You don't to anything to the man. You put his guns in jail. Maybe other guns will think twice before they ever do THAT again.