Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[Harambe]

Apparently the dog owner's rights to own a dangerous dog outweighed the child's rights to not be mauled and mutilated. Makes sense, right?

That is a blatantly ignorant and one sided review of the situation, and I know you're smart enough to see that.

That is an interesting thing about the discussion around rights in cases like this, and even gun control and other topics. For one person to exercise their unfettered right it can put others' rights at risk. I guess the question is, how much are you willing to risk to maintain that right?

The quick answer; Yes. That's the cost of the "freedom" that is envisioned. Yes, I'm aware that statement, too, is blatantly ignorant and one sided.

Are we sure it's genetic and not a social problem? African American males and 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person than blacks against a than a white person.********** As such, should we ban African American males? Should their unfettered human rights put the rest of our society in danger?

**********

 

[Stoked]

That is a blatantly ignorant and one sided review of the situation, and I know you're smart enough to see that.



The quick answer; Yes. That's the cost of the "freedom" that is envisioned. Yes, I'm aware that statement, too, is blatantly ignorant and one sided.

Are we sure it's genetic and not a social problem? African American males and 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a white male.********** As such, should we ban African American males? Should their unfettered human rights put the rest of our society in danger?

**********

grabs popcorn

Also the link is filtered? haha

 

[Harambe]

grabs popcorn

Also the link is filtered? haha

Did it on purpose to make sure someone see's it.

 

[franklin]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/...-save-phoenix-pit-bull-who-mauled-4-year-old/

Interesting read.



Apparently the dog owner's rights to own a dangerous dog outweighed the child's rights to not be mauled and mutilated. Makes sense, right?

That is an interesting thing about the discussion around rights in cases like this, and even gun control and other topics. For one person to exercise their unfettered right it can put others' rights at risk. I guess the question is, how much are you willing to risk to maintain that right?

I've noticed that everyone in favor of owning terrorist dogs are young adult boys without children, the same makeup we find in Afghani al qaeda cells. Aller ackbar.

 

[Harambe]

I've noticed that everyone in favor of owning terrorist dogs are young adult boys without children, the same makeup we find in Afghani al qaeda cells. Aller ackbar.

Fetch... rollover... speak!

You gotta admit, blowing up a building in the name of allah is like the mother of all dog tricks.

 

[TroutBum]

So he is a moron for protecting people's rights? Why should some stupid *** city be able to infringe on the rights of people to own the dog they want. Just because a few people don't like it. Should not have had to make this law in the 1st place. It should have been unnecessary.

Seriously? Have you given this any serious thought past the "Trout is dumb, lol!"? Would you be ok with people owning tigers? Maybe lions? How about gorillas? No, you wouldn't, and there is a reason you can't own an animal like that (outside of insane circumstances). A city has the authority to tax, have a police force, fire, snow removal, etc., so why is it all of a sudden you are bitching about a city's authority to control an animal; one that has a serious violent history? You're happier with the big gov telling people that it doesn't matter if they're worried about the safety of their family, because "insert some idiotic constitutional quote that is completely out of context*. What about your neighbor that has six huge dogs that bark all day, **** all over - to the point that neighbors smell it, and doesn't care about it? I guess it's HIS RIGHT to own six dogs. Hooray 'Murica! Except most cities don't allow people to have six dogs, again, unless there are odd circumstances. Why aren't you bitching about that? Multiple dogs are banned for superficial reasons, and you're fine with that. Even if you don't agree that Pitbulls are dangerous, why are you against letting a city, who votes their own leaders in, decide for themselves?

Why am I bothering with an explanation when I know you have no desire to think this through?

 

[Stoked]

Lol, at all the random connecting of dots on subjects not even discussed.

 

[One Brow]

Are we sure it's genetic and not a social problem? African American males and 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person than blacks against a than a white person.********** As such, should we ban African American males? Should their unfettered human rights put the rest of our society in danger?

Comparison of the right of black people with the rights of dogs? Check.
Quote of out-of-context statistics? Check.
Link to a site known for hateful, racist rhetoric? Check.

Too much in one post. It must be a troll.

 

[Harambe]

Comparison of the right of black people with the rights of dogs? Check.
Quote of out-of-context statistics? Check.
Link to a site known for hateful, racist rhetoric? Check.

Too much in one post. It must be a troll.

No... no I think it's in context. Originally wasn't, fixed so it was. But thanks for that.
And whether or not it's hateful, racist rhetoric the numbers are a matter of fact.

But 1/3 ain't bad bro.

 

[Harambe]

But for continuities sake, I'll quote the whole thing

Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites, but the statistics are nebulous because sometimes they are classified as white, so it could be far higher.

The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.

Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times, and the reason is clear, because from 1980 to 2003 the US incarceration rate has tripled, and so proves that Justice is not only hard won, but well served.

I'm not saying it's right... I'm saying there's a published study out there recognizing it.

 

[One Brow]

No... no I think it's in context. Originally wasn't, fixed so it was. But thanks for that.
And whether or not it's hateful, racist rhetoric the numbers are a matter of fact.

But 1/3 ain't bad bro.

So, you acknowledged the first was wrong enough you had to fix it, acknowledge implicitly that the statistics are out of context (while pretending context doesn't matter), and acknowledge the site is full of hateful rhethoric. I'll take that 1/3 any day.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not saying it's right... I'm saying there's a published study out there recognizing it.

No, that's just raw statistics, not a study. Once you factor economic class into the matter, to the degree the difference is significant at all, it whites who are more likely to attack blacks.

 

[LogGrad98]

That is a blatantly ignorant and one sided review of the situation, and I know you're smart enough to see that.



The quick answer; Yes. That's the cost of the "freedom" that is envisioned. Yes, I'm aware that statement, too, is blatantly ignorant and one sided.

Are we sure it's genetic and not a social problem? African American males and 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person than blacks against a than a white person.********** As such, should we ban African American males? Should their unfettered human rights put the rest of our society in danger?

**********

Let me help you with that: link.

 

[Harambe]

So, you acknowledged the first was wrong enough you had to fix it, acknowledge implicitly that the statistics are out of context (while pretending context doesn't matter), and acknowledge the site is full of hateful rhethoric. I'll take that 1/3 any day.

I'm absolutely sure you would. But it still won't change anything.

No, that's just raw statistics, not a study. Once you factor economic class into the matter, to the degree the difference is significant at all, it whites who are more likely to attack blacks.

Thanks for making my point for me. The social upbringing and development of the subject(man or dog) is more to blame than genetics does on the final project. So instead of asking if pitbulls should be banned, perhaps we should be asking should those raising the pitbulls be scrutinized first?

Congrats, Onebrow! I just trolled you into expressing my point more simply.

Let me help you with that: link.

Mine worked great.

 

[LogGrad98]

That said, it is a valid discussion, although maybe not for this thread. There is a limit to rights, by the very definition of living in a society based on laws. You cannot say that we all have the right to do whatever we want whenever we want without consequence. See it is the consequence part where we establish, as a society, which rights to allow and which to punish. You can still act as you please, but you will by and large suffer a consequence. The rapist's right to rape another person should not infringe on that person's right to not be raped. I know that is extreme, but it is the same idea. As a society we decide which rights are more important than others and build rules to enforce those differences accordingly. No one should fool themselves into thinking we have every single unfettered right we can think of, because that is called anarchy.

So it is your right to own a dangerous dog, and right now there is no consequence if that dangerous dog impinges on someone elses right to not be attacked by a dangerous dog, other than most often to the dog itself. In the case I posted, there was a case of people defending the dog's right itself to injure a human being and suffer no consequences other than "jail" time, which really means what to the dog? IMO that is messed up. The dog should pay the price of being vicious. Whether it was trained that way or not it is no longer safe to be among humans, so it should be put down, or let it go in the wild with the wolves if you want to. But even moreso the owner should pay a price for his dog injuring another human being. Otherwise what we are condoning as a society is that a person's rights to own an animal that can and does attack, maim, and kill people, are more important than anyone else's rights to be free of that sort of menace. And with the bill Trout noted, they are removing peoples' rights to choose which circumstance they want in their local communities.

That is Trout's point with comparing it to tigers or gorillas. We have decided as a society they are too dangerous to be kept as pets so no nut job (or nice family with an innocent family friendly Cujo) can keep 8 Tigers in his yard, so we don't have to worry about them escaping and hurting people. Yet we allow the single most dangerous dog breed (or group of breeds if you prefer...the laws don't differentiate among tiger sub-species) to be kept with no consequences at all even in the event something terrible happens. Some of us disagree with that.

 

[Harambe]

That said, it is a valid discussion, although maybe not for this thread. There is a limit to rights, by the very definition of living in a society based on laws. You cannot say that we all have the right to do whatever we want whenever we want without consequence. See it is the consequence part where we establish, as a society, which rights to allow and which to punish. You can still act as you please, but you will by and large suffer a consequence. The rapist's right to rape another person should not infringe on that person's right to not be raped. I know that is extreme, but it is the same idea. As a society we decide which rights are more important than others and build rules to enforce those differences accordingly. No one should fool themselves into thinking we have every single unfettered right we can think of, because that is called anarchy.

So it is your right to own a dangerous dog, and right now there is no consequence if that dangerous dog impinges on someone elses right to not be attacked by a dangerous dog, other than most often to the dog itself. In the case I posted, there was a case of people defending the dog's right itself to injure a human being and suffer no consequences other than "jail" time, which really means what to the dog? IMO that is messed up. The dog should pay the price of being vicious. Whether it was trained that way or not it is no longer safe to be among humans, so it should be put down, or let it go in the wild with the wolves if you want to. But even moreso the owner should pay a price for his dog injuring another human being. Otherwise what we are condoning as a society is that a person's rights to own an animal that can and does attack, maim, and kill people, are more important than anyone else's rights to be free of that sort of menace. And with the bill Trout noted, they are removing peoples' rights to choose which circumstance they want in their local communities.

That is Trout's point with comparing it to tigers or gorillas. We have decided as a society they are too dangerous to be kept as pets so no nut job (or nice family with an innocent family friendly Cujo) can keep 8 Tigers in his yard, so we don't have to worry about them escaping and hurting people. Yet we allow the single most dangerous dog breed (or group of breeds if you prefer...the laws don't differentiate among tiger sub-species) to be kept with no consequences at all even in the event something terrible happens. Some of us disagree with that.

I agree with most of that, believe it or not. Except for the bolded part. I'm not convinced there's any solid, imperical evidence that supports the pitbull is all that more dangerous than a husky, a dobberman, a german shepherd, a bull terrier, a Gull Dong, a rott wieller, or a Caucasian Ovcharka.

Take a look at the wikipedia article. At first glance, Pitbulls are a menace. They are implicated for 42-45% of attacks. This section highlights it quite well:

A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45%). Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) of the attacks were by pit bulls. In 45% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family.

That seems downright damning. But then look at a lack of mention if the dogs were well treated, kept up on shots, trained to fight or be menacing. No mention of the social or economic upbringing. No mention of if the dog felt threatened. And even if it is mentioned, the person reporting it was the one that got bit, or knows the one who got bit. Doesn't that seem a little convenient?

Now look at the "Other Studies" section:

A study by Raghaven in Canada, which showed that breed specific legislation limits the number of pitbulls, and where sled dogs and free roaming packs of dogs is more common than in the United States, an electronic search of newspaper articles found that pit bull terriers were responsible for 1 (4%) of 28 dog-bite-related fatalities reported in Canada from 1990–2007.

So, when Pitbulls aren't common in the area, it accounts for only 4% of fatalities.

In a project called the "Calgary Model," legislation addressing bad owners instead of breeds has been the focus. After implementation, which included fining the owner $350–$1,500 in dog bite cases, there was a 25-year low in the incidence of such cases

True, a citation is needed, but once identified as bad owners, and having to own up to that, Calgary hit a 25 year low of bites.

Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions than did "low risk" dog owners. A 2009 study and a followup 2012 study generally supported these findings.

This seems to backup the statement above about the dogs upbringing/training/environment. If you're a bad owner, you have a bad dog. A bad dog can be any breed, and a dangerous dog can be just about anything over 20 lbs. Kinda like this site shows: https://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/

If we're gonna ban this breed, perhaps we should just expand that out and say any dog over 20 lbs is banned. Once you get rid of the pit bulls, there's just gonna be a new bad boy on the block with something else.

Just like with guns, we need hold owners responsible.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I've noticed that everyone in favor of owning terrorist dogs are young adult boys without children, the same makeup we find in Afghani al qaeda cells. Aller ackbar.

i have grown up with atleast 2 pitbulls around the yard at every moment of my youth.

one was so vicous his hobby was chewing on bricks. cement building bricks we used to build real houses with. he would chew on them till they where small stones.

nothing ever happened he protected us with his live. he was the sweetest dog to me and my siblings.
my fathe ris a responsible gun and dog owner.

edit i know loiots of prominent members of comunity who are family man and own pittbuls.

its all about the upbrining of the dog

 

[fishonjazz]

I agree with most of that, believe it or not. Except for the bolded part. I'm not convinced there's any solid, imperical evidence that supports the pitbull is all that more dangerous than a husky, a dobberman, a german shepherd, a bull terrier, a Gull Dong, a rott wieller, or a Caucasian Ovcharka.

Take a look at the wikipedia article. At first glance, Pitbulls are a menace. They are implicated for 42-45% of attacks. This section highlights it quite well:



That seems downright damning. But then look at a lack of mention if the dogs were well treated, kept up on shots, trained to fight or be menacing. No mention of the social or economic upbringing. No mention of if the dog felt threatened. And even if it is mentioned, the person reporting it was the one that got bit, or knows the one who got bit. Doesn't that seem a little convenient?

Now look at the "Other Studies" section:



So, when Pitbulls aren't common in the area, it accounts for only 4% of fatalities.



True, a citation is needed, but once identified as bad owners, and having to own up to that, Calgary hit a 25 year low of bites.



This seems to backup the statement above about the dogs upbringing/training/environment. If you're a bad owner, you have a bad dog. A bad dog can be any breed, and a dangerous dog can be just about anything over 20 lbs. Kinda like this site shows: https://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/

If we're gonna ban this breed, perhaps we should just expand that out and say any dog over 20 lbs is banned. Once you get rid of the pit bulls, there's just gonna be a new bad boy on the block with something else.

Just like with guns, we need hold owners responsible.

Sounds like you are not sure if pits are more dangerous than other breeds...... seems retarded that you wouldnt know the answer but all you really need to do is live life and talk to people.

Everyone has had or knows someone who has had problems with a pitbull

 

[fishonjazz]

i have grown up with atleast 2 pitbulls around the yard at every moment of my youth.

one was so vicous his hobby was chewing on bricks. cement building bricks we used to build real houses with. he would chew on them till they where small stones.

nothing ever happened he protected us with his live. he was the sweetest dog to me and my siblings.
my fathe ris a responsible gun and dog owner.

edit i know loiots of prominent members of comunity who are family man and own pittbuls.

its all about the upbrining of the dog

If those pits get out of your property and come across another dog or feel threatened by someone and there would have been a problem.

 

[franklin]

i have grown up with atleast 2 pitbulls around the yard at every moment of my youth.

one was so vicous his hobby was chewing on bricks. cement building bricks we used to build real houses with. he would chew on them till they where small stones.

nothing ever happened he protected us with his live. he was the sweetest dog to me and my siblings.
my fathe ris a responsible gun and dog owner.

edit i know loiots of prominent members of comunity who are family man and own pittbuls.

its all about the upbrining of the dog

That's such a cute story. Can I send it 1-800-flowers?