I'm trying to give a larger lesson on this than just 'shooting something'.
What are your credentials that make you an authority on the subject, please?
1. When we discharge the firearm there are things that need to be 'right'. Backstop, location, witnesses, options, laws, fall-out, level of threat, capability, accuracy, efficacy of a firing solution and more.
Do the planets need to align perfectly as well? You need to face the facts that when someone needs their gun, they don't have control over other things, like backstops, location, witnesses, etc. Those things are either there or they aren't.
2. Just having a gun and having a small, possibly dangerous charging animal does not equal success. In fact, the 'success' of the situation is, imo, largely that you sleep at home that night. (IOW no PTSD, no legal consequences). Having a law that says you can shoot a dog does not equal carte blanche.
Again, nothing in life is risk free. The only decision you can make is deciding which risk is worth living with. I'd rather lose a night of sleep over shooting a dog that attacked me then risk losing an arm or my life.
3. Part of SA is being aware of options, of percentages, of having evidence to clear yourself, of understanding what happens when you step into it. So if a person who is dangerous is clearly offering a 'gravest extreme' threat, then there are no options.
And this is different from an animal attack, how? You cannot reason with an animal, you cannot just toss it your money and phone and hope it will go away.
You must deploy and fire. Your chances of hitting the target at 3-5 feet are reasonable (due to size and that the target is closing and possibly not expecting resistance. Going out for a walk in an area where there might be dogs, carrying only a firearm is an example of going to a 'stupid place'. Carry a stick or an umbrella and/or walk in an area you know to be safe. Don't come on a gun board and ask if it's ok to shoot a charging dog - imo.
Did you know that criminals and animals can move from place to place? There is no such thing as a "safe" place. Don't come on a gun board and start telling people to take your opinion as legal advice.
4. You shoot someone's pet and you will be sued in civil court. You will be prosecuted for discharging your firearm if in a city, you will have your firearm confiscated for evidence, you may even spend the night in jail and you will make a human enemy. Be prepared for that. I don't think castle doctrine laws protect against animal attacks (wrt preventing civil suits. An animal is property)
You are making definitive, absolute claims here. I have been asking for cites for several pages now, which you have repeatedly ignored. Is it because you can't provide them, or you feel that you don't need to?
5. In the case of a dangerous human attack in a SYG state, if you have evidence or a witness, you have no choice and you probably have chosen a wise firing solution. With a dog attack the odds are very low in all categories and the benefit is not worth the risk. I'd rather be bitten and have the dog run off and recover damages than risk firing my gun at a fake threat charge and getting into all sorts of doo-doo. But that's just me. So no, it's not like all other uses of deadly force.
Assuming that the dog does run off, assuming the dog does not carry some disease, assuming it only bites you in a non-vital area...gee, I'd rather not guess what is a fake threat or a real one. If I perceive a threat of any kind, I'm going to deal with it appropriately, not make assumptions. You may choose to get bitten, but you shouldn't presume to advise others to make the same choice just because you consider it the moral high ground.
You have all the cards stacked against you wrt shooting an animal. You are very unlikely to solve it, you are trading your 'freedom to act' for the possibility of neutralizing a dog bite, you are using an inappropriate tool (you need a shotgun to assure a hit on a charging animal - competitions shooters know the dragged blanket target is the hardest to hit), and you are probably overestimating the threat.
You have the cards stacked against you if you shoot a person under the age of 18, you have the cards stacked against you if you shoot someone of a different ethnicity, you have the cards stacked against you if you plain out
shoot. It's part of life. If you can't handle the risk, then maybe you shouldn't be carrying a gun; as you are so fond of telling others. And, please, you need a shotgun to
assure a hit on a charging animal??? Really? And how do you know someone is overestimating the threat? Are you there for every situation to judge whether or not someone feared for their life? What if a dog attacks someone with a previously damaged spine, and even just a fall could paralyze them? What if a dog attacks a small child? I think you're overestimating your opinion on the matter.
If you must walk in an area where you know there are dangerous dogs, (or ride your bike), then use your SA wisely, realize you need to be videoing, realize you need catastrophic umbrella insurance (say you hit an expensive pet, or someone's garage or ricochet), and you need a shotgun. To me, the 'answer' to this is not to say 'oh there's a law, I'm covered for randomly spraying lead'. It's not that simple.
Again, why do you think someone needs a
shot gun for a dog attack???
What is the real solution for using a firearm on a really threatening dog? I think handlers will tell you try to get a protective shield or let the dog bite your arm, or try to hit the dog and then with the dog in your grasp, shoot it point blank. You have teeth marks for evidence, you have a real 'threat'.
Bad advice. I'm not letting any animal bite me, and if the animal is going far enough to
try to bite me, then it is a real threat. I'm not waiting. It boggles my mind that you would advise others to react to the threat
after the fact, rather than neutralize it before.
Now, I don't know too many people who really -need- to walk where there are dangerous dogs, who want to get bitten, who can't find alternatives.
You are operating under false premises. Are all dogs dangerous all the time? Or do sometimes sweet, family pets attack for no reason? It's happened to me before. My dad and I raised all of our dogs; one happened to be part chow/part husky.
We bottle fed this dog from 5 weeks old, when the stray mother was shot for raiding chickens. When this dog was almost three years old, a 6 year old neighbor girl (who was no stranger) came over to see him, he lunged for her throat.
Entirely unprovoked. She hadn't touched him, she was a foot or two away, she wasn't making loud noises. The only reason he didn't get to her was because I had a hold of his collar, and he had to drag my weight with him. She
was in a safe place, and something bad still almost happened.
My dad was standing nearby and immediately picked the little girl up and took her home. Then he borrowed a neighbors' gun, took our dog for a walk, and came back alone. He refused to tolerate an animal that attacked without provocation, and I do too.
