Great Video on the effectiveness of the .357 magnum handgun cartridge: 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoints to be precise. Note that "grain" indicates the weight of the projectile. A grain is about 64.8 milligrams, so 125 grain projectile weighs about 8.1 grams, or about 1/3 of an ounce.
There was an article on Craven Desires
the other day involving the use of a firearm to stop a dog attack.
The attack in question could be an attack on yourself, another
person, or another animal. I concur that a “proper” use of such
a device in the scenarios indicated may stop the attack. While not a
perfect solution, certainly, it definitel gives the victim an
Lethality VS. Stopping Power.
When you attend self defense training
classes (totally recommended), they instruct you that you use your
weapon to STOP, or neutralize a threat to your safety. You are not
necessarily trying to kill your attacker. The attack ends when the
attacker STOPS attacking you (or someone or something else), not
necessarily with the attacker dying. So, while killing something
will definitely stop it from attacking you, you don't need to kill
your attacker dead in its tracks to stop the attack. Therefore,
incapacitation of the attacker stops the attack.
You want to select a weapon and
associated ammunition type with optimum “stopping power”.
“Stopping Power” being a standard euphemism indicating a
weapon/ammunition's effectiveness in incapacitating an attacker.
Firearms are not created equally.
Firearm ammunition is not created equally. Some have more stopping
power than others, some have a higher degree of lethality than
others. Again, stopping power and lethality are not necessarily the
same thing. If you shoot your attacker, they proceed to murder you,
and they die in the hospital 2 days after murdering you as a result
of the gunshot, you did not stop the attack. Yes, you killed him but
you failed in stopping the attack against yourself.
is a link to an FBI preliminary analysis of handgun effectiveness.
It notes that a human being can pursue an attack for up to 15
seconds after the heart has been destroyed. However, note that many
lethal pit bull attacks drag on for several minutes, so shooting your
canine attacker in the heart would certainly increase your chance of
survival, and reduce attendant injury. Again, not necessarily a
perfect solution, but a LOT better than nothing.
Note that an attacker can be
incapacitated immediately by a shot to the brain or central nervous
system. The pain of the gunshot wound to any part of the body may
also incapacitate them immediately.
I did some casual research on firearm
effectiveness in incapacitating canine attackers. There has not been
much (or any) formal research done on this issue. So, I perused
YouTube for dog attack related shootings caught on video. I focused
on videos because I don't necessarily trust police reports or witness
testimony: In other words, I want to SEE what happened and decide
for myself. This is by no means a statistically relevant list, but
it may give us an idea of what to expect if a similar scenario plays
out against you.
Main selection criteria:
Dog has to be in the act of
attacking, charging, or otherwise behaving dangerously towards the
shooter, another person or another animal.
The attack and subsequent shooting
incident could actually be seen on the video.
10 random incidents. 9 threats
neutralized. Again, we are contemplating “stopping
power”/incapacitation, NOT (immediate) deaths.
Averaging out the # of shots, you get
3.2 shots fired per incident. However, the 2 Russian incidents
involved shooting at a dog that was running away: Something that is
running away does not present an immediate threat to the safety of
the shooter or the victim, so if we discount those we get 1.875 shots
fired per incident.
Also noteworthy was the single shotgun
incident – it literally dropped the dog like a bag of dirt.
Essentially, 3 things indicate a
weapon's stopping power.
Weapon type / caliber.
(2) is of capital importance due to
the fact that a 125 grain magnum hollowpoint fired from a .357 magnum
will be a LOT more effective (due to a greater wound channel) than a
full metal jacket .38 special fired from the exact same gun. Now,
the .38 round might stop the attack, but is less likely to do so.
(3) is of capital importance due to the
fact that, it doesn't matter what you are shooting if you miss, or
only score a grazing hit. A head shot is ideal, but often
impractical. Center of bodymass (chest cavity) hits are usually the
best bet. A well placed round of .22 is a LOT more effective than a
poorly placed round (or 10) of .357 magnum.
There may be a gun video in my near future. Stay tuned.
Mickey has been “spared”, though he
will be de-nutted, chipped and have his teeth ground down. SO, being
mauled by Mickey will now be more a factor of crushing force as
opposed to deep, tearing wounds. Lucky us!
I am confident that the judge spared
Mickey due to social pressure, and possibly death threats from the
pit nut jobbers.
One thing I found frustrating (but oh
so predictable) about this train wreck was the narrative from BOTH
sides. Many of those who supported Mickey's euthanasia were speaking
from a point of view indicating that Mickey IS a person. This is an
intellectual trap that many fall into, and I admit that even I do it
from time to time.
BS: Mickey is NOT a person. Mickey
is NOT comparable to a human perp. Mickey has NO rights. Mickey is
property of the government and they should be able to do whatever
they want with him. Mickey's human owner surrendered him to the
county after the attack and that should have been the end of it.
There is NO countervailing benefit to
sparing Mickey or ANY animal that mauls and kills. They have no
rights, they do not contribute to society in any meaningful way, and
they present nothing but risk. They are a PURE liability. They
offer NOTHING but problems.
Consider the foul nonsense emanating
from the “Save Mickey” facebook page! Now, they are trying to
save a FIVE TIME biter named “Rambo”. Yes, lets keep the biting
going people, for THAT is the ethical thing to do! Fortunately, Rambo is
a Rottweiler and the Rott people are a bit more responsible than the
pit nutters – they know that every mauling and killing adds to a
statistic that the BSL folks will use to take their dogs away: Hey Mickey fans - preventing maulings is not just ethical, its good politics, too!
Now that the dust has settled on the
Kevin/Mickey fiasco, what of Mickey's original owner? Any charges
brought against him? Anyone calling for HIS head? Over a month into
this thing and NOTHING on this front. I guess surrendering the dog
was good enough for law enforcement. Hey, commit arson and turn in
your matches... no foul! Hey, I thought these things were all about they owner? Well, they ARE until something happens... THEN its all the victim's fault!
Pets that maul and kill should be
summarily destroyed REGARDLESS of breed or species. Owners of pets
that maul and kill belong in prison, and not some weekend BS,
either... I want HARD TIME.