Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[LogGrad98]

Interesting to find out my dog just had killer puppies:

https://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

 

[Bronco70]

When my sons were younger, they had a sitter whose house they stayed at during the day. They had a pitbull in the house that was gentle and pretty much minded its own business. Well, until one morning my wife took the boys to drop them off. A little earlier, the sitter's two sons had been wrestling and the dog, who was not involved in the horseplay, suddenly went berserk on the smaller boy. Two surgeries and hundreds of stitches later, they got his face put back together, sort of. They put the dog down, of course.

Personally, I believe they are dangerous, not only because of breeding, but because they are frequently owned by people who can barely manage themselves, let alone a dog of that type.

 

[Bronco70]

Gotta be careful with the "how many attacks do you hear about" argument. How many attacks by hippos do you hear about? How many attacks by sharks? So by that standard sharks are WAY more dangerous than hippos, even though hippos kill more people every year than sharks do, by quite a wide margin. The media is sensationalistic by nature. Shock sells. And since pitbulls have the rep for being mean, it riles people up when they hear about a pitbull attack, and that sells.

This is an interesting and valid point, and made me want to look into it. I found the following:

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2010.php

33 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2010. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 650 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 67% (22). Pit bulls make up approximately 5% of the total U.S. dog population.

In 2010, the combination of pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (4) accounted for 79% of all fatal attacks. In the 6-year period from 2005 to 2010, this same combination accounted for 71% (129) of the total recorded deaths (181).

 

[Agoxlea]

I don't ever want a pitbull. They are ugly dogs, but I have a German Shepherd and have had a Rottweiler. They both have the same bad reputation for no reason. I totally disagree with you. It's definitely the owners' fault, not the breed of dog.

 

[bigb]

Personally, I believe they are dangerous, not only because of breeding, but because they are frequently owned by people who can barely manage themselves, let alone a dog of that type.

That is probably the most accurate statement I've read in this thread. They are a dangerous breed and the people who own them (usually) are retards.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't ever want a pitbull. They are ugly dogs, but I have a German Shepherd and have had a Rottweiler. They both have the same bad reputation for no reason. I totally disagree with you. It's definitely the owners' fault, not the breed of dog.

So if those same owners had teacup poodles, then we would have seen that 71% of all deaths were from teacup poodles? There is no way you can say the breed had nothing to do with it at all.

Maybe. I don't know, which looks more dangerous to you:

 

[Agoxlea]

Good point, and that link was interesting. I think the reason that most of the dogs are certain breeds are because they are the breeds that are capable of killing people. I was surprised by how pitbulls caused such a large percentage of the dog attack deaths. I think banning pitbulls would set a precedent that would ban other breeds considered dangerous. I know it is hard to find a place to rent even with a well behaved German Shepherd with an excellent doggy "resume". This is partly for insurance reasons. I don't think any breed should be banned, but more neighborhoods should form HOAs which I think should interview the dogs and look over the dog's training history.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Maybe I'll reverse my decision and support an all-out ban on pittbulls. When 67% of dog related homicides are coming from a breed that is only 5% of the national dog population, you obviously have a problem with the breed itself. It still doesn't help that most pittbull owners are trying to live the thug life.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So if those same owners had teacup poodles, then we would have seen that 71% of all deaths were from teacup poodles? There is no way you can say the breed had nothing to do with it at all.

Maybe. I don't know, which looks more dangerous to you:

Those clipped ears also say a lot about the owner of that pit.

I think most of the problems with pit bulls are attributed to the trashy owners. You can raise any dog to be mean, or be nice. Those poodles might not be killing people, but they would be as aggressive as pit bulls if they were raised to be. They're just too small to be a real threat to kill anyone.

I wonder if we have more accidental pit bull deaths, or accidental shooting deaths in this country? I am not against banning guns or pit bulls. But if you are going to start banning things for being dangerous, then guns, cars, and plenty of other things should be on that list too.

 

[LogGrad98]

Dogs are unpredictable, guns are not. If a gun is just sitting there on the lawn with no one around likely it won't spontaneously fire at you. If a pitbull is sitting there on the lawn with no one around, you just don't know if it will spontaneously attack you or not.

Also, clipped ears can be part of the breed standard.

https://www.pitbulllovers.com/american-pit-bull-terrier-breed-standard.html

 

[Bronco70]

I wonder if we have more accidental pit bull deaths, or accidental shooting deaths in this country? I am not against banning guns or pit bulls. But if you are going to start banning things for being dangerous, then guns, cars, and plenty of other things should be on that list too.

Certainly, there are more accidental shootings, and at first I thought about drawing these comparisons. Here's the difference: A gun, car, or any other inanimate object is not going to cause damage without direct human interaction. An animal, on the other hand, can make its own decision to attack. I am not suggesting that animals possess the same reasoning power that people do, merely that they do not require direct human negligence or malice to be harmful.

edit: I didn't see Log's post before writing mine, but I think we're essentially saying the same thing.

 

[bigb]

But if you are going to start banning things for being dangerous, then guns, cars, and plenty of other things should be on that list too.

Like smoking pot and driving?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I think you should change your stance to outlaw those little yapper dogs that won't shut up.
That is dangerous to an individuals sanity to have a neighbor's dog yapping 24/7 and could cause some serious mental damage.
Then again, the option to take out the owner may be the better option there too.

Don't outlaw dogs, outlaw dog owners... genius.

 

[Bronco70]

Like smoking pot and driving?

Repped.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Dogs are unpredictable, guns are not. If a gun is just sitting there on the lawn with no one around likely it won't spontaneously fire at you. If a pitbull is sitting there on the lawn with no one around, you just don't know if it will spontaneously attack you or not.

Also, clipped ears can be part of the breed standard.

https://www.pitbulllovers.com/american-pit-bull-terrier-breed-standard.html

No pit bull is born with clipped ears. If you see one with clipped ears, someone purposely clipped them. It's losers like that who give pit bulls a bad name.

They are just dogs. They'll act the way they are taught to act.

If there was some way to track it, I would bet the vast majority of pit bull attacks are from dogs that have been owned by a loser at some point. (and by loser, I mean someone that did not raise the dog right and either on purpose or inadvertently made it a mean dog)

 

[bigb]

No pit bull is born with clipped ears. If you see one with clipped ears, someone purposely clipped them. It's losers like that who give pit bulls a bad name.

They are just dogs. They'll act the way they are taught to act.

If there was some way to track it, I would bet the vast majority of pit bull attacks are from dogs that have been owned by a loser at some point. (and by loser, I mean someone that did not raise the dog right and either on purpose or inadvertently made it a mean dog)

That doesn't mean they're not an overly aggressive and dangerous breed. I'll bet you've owned at least one in your lifetime. Am I right?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That doesn't mean they're not an overly aggressive and dangerous breed. I'll bet you've owned at least one in your lifetime. Am I right?

Yes I have. I adopted him when he was a small puppy and his loser owners went to jail. He went his entire life without ever even barking at another person.

He was raised with another dog though (not a pit) so he had no social issues.

I don't think they're naturally over aggressive. They're just easy to make really aggressive, so lots of losers get them for this purpose.

 

[Bronco70]

There are probably thousands of pit bulls that have never hurt anyone. If there were a way to know which ones would behave, and which wouldn't, this would be an entirely different problem.

Owners can be a huge part of the problem. But, as I cited by personal experience in my original post in this thread, being a responsible owner is no guarantee. The dog that attacked that kid was not neglected, mistreated, or teased. He was a really good dog that snapped, unprovoked. You just don't know.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There are probably thousands of pit bulls that have never hurt anyone. If there were a way to know which ones would behave, and which wouldn't, this would be an entirely different problem.

Owners can be a huge part of the problem. But, as I cited by personal experience in my original post in this thread, being a responsible owner is no guarantee. The dog that attacked that kid was not neglected, mistreated, or teased. He was a really good dog that snapped, unprovoked. You just don't know.

And that can (and does) happen with just about any dog breed. It happens more often with pit bulls because that is the trashy losers' dog of choice.

 

[billyshelby]

I have a pit bull. I've had several dogs and never thought I'd own a pit bull until fate dropped one into my life. Everything I know about pit bulls (besides my Masters in Talking To People and Internet PhD) is from observing her for the last year and a half. I don't pretend to know where DNA and experiential trauma divide in figuring out why she does what she does. These are my objective findings about aggression in pit bulls:

They exhibit more aggression than other dogs. They're incredibly strong. My dog is 55 pounds, she could tow a Volkswagen over the Rockies, and it would be the best day of her life. They have intense play drives. If I threw her over the fence of the Cheetah Cage, I think they'd be fast friends. Because pit bulls are so strong and capable of violence, I completely understand other people's fear. I don't entirely trust my own dog at this stage of her development.

But she's come a long way with training. And I encounter pit owners every day whose dogs are no more dangerous than your standard lab. Very unscientifically, my experience is all dogs have common fear issues. But with Labs and other breeds, you never really have to figure them out because they express their fears with timidity. A pit is more inclined to express fear with their physicality. I doubt pits require more training than other breeds, but they do require more conscientiousness on the part of owners for that reason.

So I understand the urge to ban ban pit bulls. Pit bulls require responsible owners. But any system that requires people to do the right thing for everything to work perfectly is a doomed system. Which basically applies to every system with people in it, including but not limited to local governments that hilariously pretend to make the world safer by creating more systems to protect themselves from each other.

In conclusion, my advice is to remind your constituents that people are much scarier than dogs. Then move on to more pressing matters like setting a date for an exploratory meeting about when to hold an official meeting on the controversial motion to ease restrictions on sprinkler heads per acreage.