Oren, apart from the fact that you appear to be well educated with respect to various breeds of dogs, I do not exactly know what any of your other fields of expertise could be. I was not trying to be even slightly condescending. But all things are relative - based on your paradigm it seemed a pretty good bet that you aren't training military and law enforcement SWAT teams, which is what I spent years doing. But I could be mistaken!aquaoren:Doc, I grew up in Israel. You may not exactly know what all my fields of expertise could be.
We've already established that we're referring to individuals who are in fact proficient. No one is advocating a "spray and pray" protocol against attacking dogs.aquaoren:While I agree with you that a skilled shooter could have a chance, I think that the majority of people carrying guns vastly overestimate their skills. A Pitt Bull isn't a big target but they move damn quickly when motivated. Are you 100% sure you could hit it with children in the background like in this case? Would you be willing to bet your freedom on it? Do you really think that most gun carriers could do as good as you? IMHO, due to some anecdotal experience , If you're not 100% sure you can and should use your gun, don't pull it out. It may make an already bad situation worse....
My point is simple:
Bad things occasionally happen. When they do, survival often corellates directly with options...the more options you have, the better your chances of survival.
Ber was suddenly presented with a situation where she was attacked by a dog named, paradoxically, "Vicious". Fortunately for Ber the owner deterred the attack via the unorthodox tactic of sitting on it (the mind boggles...)
Had the dog not been deterred, however, it is likely that Ber may have suffered some damage. It is equally likely that others in a similar situation would also suffer damage - a recent case in California comes to mind in which an adult female was killed...you may be better acquainted with the details than I am.
In situations where there is a sudden, imminent, inescapable threat to limb and potentially life, my argument is that a proficient shooter simply has more options available to them, and hence a greater chance of survival, than an unarmed individual who is left attempting to insert a wristguard into the attacking dog's mouth (while being taken to the ground, etc. etc.) An attacking pit bull is unlikely to be dissuaded by staring it down or insisting firmly that it cease and desist. At the moment a potentially fatal attack commences, abstract debate regarding whether it should have occurred or not becomes immaterial. The option of armed response beats having no option at all.
That is my only point.
From my perspective it is a sad comment that your government has seen fit to protect Canadian citizens from themselves by their immensely expensive and functionally useless social experiment. According to the latest data published by your government, it would appear that armed robberies still occur in Canada. Those who are disinclined to obey the law never troubled to heed it in the first place, ergo Canada today is a state where individuals who formerly disregarded the law continue to do so - running around armed. Those they might encounter; the law-abiding disarmed, now are left defenseless against the predators. It would seem that your defensive options have been significantly reduced. Your survival now depends upon prayer to a benevolent deity that you are not one of the unfortunates who happen to encounter one of the predators.
Humans or canines.....