Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
pantherclub

Yet another Pitt Bull attack

Recommended Posts

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
Why do dogs hate you?
I figure it's the opposite: I just taste really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
Why do dogs hate you?
I figure it's the opposite: I just taste really good.
Confirmation of my peanut butter theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
How many other ways have you been injured during your life?And please define your use of the word "hospitalized".
1. Couple of minor broken bones and cuts from sports. I think I stepped on a tack once and got it stuck in my foot. All those were short emergency room visits. :confused: Dogs have easily been the main source of fear/injury in my life. Aside from those two incidents I've been bitten and knocked over and several other ocassions. 2. Taken to the hospital, given a room, and kept there for a period of time for tests and medical work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
How many other ways have you been injured during your life?And please define your use of the word "hospitalized".
1. Couple of minor broken bones and cuts from sports. I think I stepped on a tack once and got it stuck in my foot. All those were short emergency room visits. :confused: Dogs have easily been the main source of fear/injury in my life. Aside from those two incidents I've been bitten and knocked over and several other ocassions. 2. Taken to the hospital, given a room, and kept there for a period of time for tests and medical work.
1) Gotta get rid of those tacks and ban sports too.2) How long and what were your injuries? Stitches? Rabies test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogs can be dangerous, no question about it but to categorically state that breed X must be eliminated is completely ignoring the problem.

Ban one breed and idiot owners will move to another.

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

It would also be nice if some people in here just come out and say "I'm scared of dogs and that is why I think they should be banned." Instead of caching it as some sort of public service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogs have easily been the main source of fear/injury in my life.

There's a good chance your fear played a role in you getting injured.
Woz has heard and ignored this argument many times in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of deaths from dog attack in 2008: 23

Number of deaths from:

Tobacco - 435,000

Being fat and Lazy - 365,000

Alcohol - 85,000

Microbial Agents - 75,000

Toxic Agents - 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347

Prescription Drugs - 32,000

Suicide - 30,622

Firearms - 29,000

Homicide - 20,308

Sex - 20,000

Drug use - 17,000

Asprin - 7,600

Marijuana - 0

But yeah, let's get rid of the dogs, that'll make us safe.

And spare me the non-fatal attack argument because all of the causes listed above have non-fatal outcomes as well.

That is a lot of suicides. So sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
Do any of the girlfriends family members have german shepherds?
Well, they are definitely more likely to have a german shepherd than, say, a black lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of deaths from dog attack in 2008: 23

Number of deaths from:

Tobacco - 435,000

Being fat and Lazy - 365,000

Alcohol - 85,000

Microbial Agents - 75,000

Toxic Agents - 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347

Prescription Drugs - 32,000

Suicide - 30,622

Firearms - 29,000

Homicide - 20,308

Sex - 20,000

Drug use - 17,000

Asprin - 7,600

Marijuana - 0

But yeah, let's get rid of the dogs, that'll make us safe.

And spare me the non-fatal attack argument because all of the causes listed above have non-fatal outcomes as well.

That is a lot of suicides. So sad.
Agreed.

The lifestyle categories (tobacco and lack of health/fitness) are also forms of suicide. Staggering numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't often read stories about other large breeds like Golden or Lab Retrievers killing kids. Sorry, its not just the owners, its the dog.

I've been hospitalized twice because of dogs. Once by a lab, and another time by a golden. Dogs are aggressive creatures and any type of dog with the physical capability to be lethal likely has a history of attacks. I get that for some dog breeds the odds aren't as high (IIRC Dalmations are actually the worst), but any type of bigger dog has caused some substantial bodily harm to some victim.
Do any of the girlfriends family members have german shepherds?
Well, they are definitely more likely to have a german shepherd than, say, a black lab.
:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.
Where do you see that I am casting blame? But yes there is no question that in many instances of dog attack the dogs were provoked by the eventual victim and would have been preventable if the person understood how to interact with dogs. Or do you think that all dog attacks are completely unprovoked?You can go off on all the crusades to ban dangerous breeds that you want but it is downright stupid not to educate yourself on how do deal with those dangerous animals that are a part of society whether you want them to be or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of deaths from dog attack in 2008: 23

Number of deaths from:

Tobacco - 435,000

Being fat and Lazy - 365,000

Alcohol - 85,000

Microbial Agents - 75,000

Toxic Agents - 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347

Prescription Drugs - 32,000

Suicide - 30,622

Firearms - 29,000

Homicide - 20,308

Sex - 20,000

Drug use - 17,000

Asprin - 7,600

Marijuana - 0

But yeah, let's get rid of the dogs, that'll make us safe.

And spare me the non-fatal attack argument because all of the causes listed above have non-fatal outcomes as well.

That is a lot of suicides. So sad.
Good to know the Mary Jane smokers are immortal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of deaths from dog attack in 2008: 23

Number of deaths from:

Tobacco - 435,000

Being fat and Lazy - 365,000

Alcohol - 85,000

Microbial Agents - 75,000

Toxic Agents - 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347

Prescription Drugs - 32,000

Suicide - 30,622

Firearms - 29,000

Homicide - 20,308

Sex - 20,000

Drug use - 17,000

Asprin - 7,600

Marijuana - 0

But yeah, let's get rid of the dogs, that'll make us safe.

And spare me the non-fatal attack argument because all of the causes listed above have non-fatal outcomes as well.

That is a lot of suicides. So sad.
Good to know the Mary Jane smokers are immortal.
It's a shame that there can be only one. Fortunately potheads aren't in any hurry to get to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.
Where do you see that I am casting blame? But yes there is no question that in many instances of dog attack the dogs were provoked by the eventual victim and would have been preventable if the person understood how to interact with dogs. Or do you think that all dog attacks are completely unprovoked?You can go off on all the crusades to ban dangerous breeds that you want but it is downright stupid not to educate yourself on how do deal with those dangerous animals that are a part of society whether you want them to be or not.
Since we are in a thread discussing attacks from renegade pit bulls, I fail to see how I can protect my kids (from say, a deranged, drooling, snarling animal that leaps a 6-foot high fence to eat a toddler) byt teaching them not to stick their hand in puppy's face while puppy is eating.Mind you, I will still teach my kids how to act around animals. But that really has no bearing on this specific discussion.I haven't advocated banning pit bulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.
Where do you see that I am casting blame? But yes there is no question that in many instances of dog attack the dogs were provoked by the eventual victim and would have been preventable if the person understood how to interact with dogs. Or do you think that all dog attacks are completely unprovoked?You can go off on all the crusades to ban dangerous breeds that you want but it is downright stupid not to educate yourself on how do deal with those dangerous animals that are a part of society whether you want them to be or not.
Since we are in a thread discussing attacks from renegade pit bulls, I fail to see how I can protect my kids (from say, a deranged, drooling, snarling animal that leaps a 6-foot high fence to eat a toddler) byt teaching them not to stick their hand in puppy's face while puppy is eating.Mind you, I will still teach my kids how to act around animals. But that really has no bearing on this specific discussion.I haven't advocated banning pit bulls.
Of course you are correct, if the animal is deranged (as you put it) and decides to attack unprovoked there is little you can do except defend yourself. However those are not the only circumstances that precipitate fatal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States.[43]

Year Total Involving pit bull-type dogs

2005 28 16 (57%)

2006 30 16 (53%)

2007 35 20 (57%)

2008 23 15 (65%)

2009 31 14 (45%)

Large percentage for one breed of dog.

here our the stats on the 2009 dog fatalities (i made a horrendous mistake and mentioned this thread to my wife):

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/201...nal-report.html

it is a little long, but here is a synopsis:

2009 Dog Bite Fatalities Final Report

This is my least favorite post I do every year because I don't like dwelling on the negative stuff, but because there is a lot of misleading information out there on this topic that I feel like having all of the attacks in a central location will at least allow people to have easy access to the actual data.

Before I get into the information, there are a couple of things that I want to note:

1) Fatal incidents are extremely rare. With about 75 million dogs in the US, and 32 fatal dog attacks each year, they are such a statistically anomoly that decisions on "breed" aggression should not be based on such rare incidents. By comparison, the US Population is 300 million (4x the dog population) and saw over 16,000 murders (500x the number of dog-related deaths). If only humans could be close to as safe as dogs.

2) When you look at fatal incidents, the circumstances surrounding them usually follow a couple of different criteria that will become obvious when you read. It is my hope that by seeing the circumstances behind the attacks we can eliminate many future attacks so these tragedies can be avoided.

3) If people track bite information only by breed, without tracking the information by circumstances, the only correlation they can come up with for attacks is by breed and have missed the most obvious conclusion.

4) The vast majority of my data, including breed ID, comes from media sources, so they come with the inherant ID issues that come from visual breed identification and from media mis-reporting.

5) The difference in media exposure for the different breeds of dogs is extremely notable.

In total, there were 33 dog-bite related fatalities (32 events) in 2009.

-- 16 different dog breeds, or mixes thereof, were involved (counting 'mixed breed' as it's own category).

-- 9 cases involved chained dogs

-- 8 cases were in areas that were affected with high poverty rates

-- 4 cases involved packs of feral or near feral dogs

-- 3 involved newborns

-- of the 5 incidents that were covered by 150 media sources or more, 2 involved 'pit bulls', 1 involved a Rottweiler, 1 involved a pit bull/akita mix (that was widely reported as a 'pit bull mix') and 1 involved a Weimaraner.

-- There were 7 incidents that were covered by fewer than 6 media outlets, the breeds involved were Husky, Chow Chow, Husky, Boxers, Australian Shepherd/Blue Heeler mixes and a Great Dane.

Yes, apparently all attacks are not created equally in the eyes of the media.

The attacks fall into roughly 4 categories:

1) Children under 1 year of age: 5 fatalities -- 3 of the children were less than 3 weeks old. 3 different breeds of dogs were involved. Introducing a child into a family with a dog can be tricky, and takes a little dedication by the owners/parents. This is why I recommend any newly expecting parent to read sites dedicated to dog training with young children. I interviewed the founder of one such organization, Jennifer Shyrock of Dogs & Storks earlier this year and this is a great first source for expecting parents who own dogs.

2) Children 1 year to 5 years -- I've chosen this division because this is roughly the area where children become mobile, yet are still too young to be truly able to deal with most situations unsupervised. 13 of the fatalities fell into this category -- 8 different breeds were involved. In 9 of the attacks, the child was left unsupervised -- in 4 of those, the child left the house under their own accord. Chaining appears to have played a role in 8 of the 13 attacks (I'll talk a little bit more about this in a separate post later in the week).

3) Older Children - 5-15 years of age - There were two attacks here, two different breeds of dogs involved. Chaining was a factor in one of the two attacks.

4) Adults - 12 victims here, in 11 different incidences. Nine different breeds of dogs involved. In 5 of the cases (6 victims), victims were attacked by a pack of dogs -- with anywhere from 3 to 16 dogs being involved. Most of these cases involved wild or feral dogs. In two of the cases, the victim got in the middle of two other dogs either fighting or breeding and was attacked. Four cases involved individual dogs (with four different breeds involved). Six of the victims were over the age of 65, with 3 of them being over the age of 85.

It appears that major improvements could be made in preventing these attacks if we did the following:

1) Worked harder to educate new parents how to socialize their pets with newborn children.

2) Emphasized supervising younger children when they interact with dogs.

3) End the process of leaving dogs chained 24/7 as their primary or sole form of containment.

4) Educate owners that early signs of aggression should be dealt with through training and socialization and not avoided. Many of the dogs involved had previously shown signs of aggression.

5) Deal with large packs of wild and feral dogs.

Edited by modogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna get dragged into this except to post this, which sums up a lot of my feelings:

Stop BSL (breed specific legislation)

Highlights:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BSL?

* Breed identification is impossible. (don't think so? try this Find the Pit test)

* New breeds fill the void.

* It's a hassle to own a dog of a restricted breed. (so mostly criminals own them, perpetuating the problem)

* Upholding BSL is a burden.

* BSL is EXPENSIVE!

* BSL is ineffective.

* BSL does not consider owner responsibility.

* BSL treats victims of dog attacks unequally. (based on breed of dog doing the attacking)

BSL IS NOT THE ANSWER:

BSL does not address these root causes behind dog attacks. It simply blames a particular breed or breeds without actually solving the real problem of irresponsible ownership and lack of education. BSL is illogical, expensive, and ineffective. Non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws and anti-cruelty laws are more effective, provided those laws are strongly written and firmly enforced. Increased education (especially for dog owners and children) will also help reduce dog bites/attacks, as will low-cost spay/neuter campaigns. We need more funding for animal control agencies to enforce the laws and tackle dog fighting. These strategies make sense. BSL is a wet bandaid.

Edited by Maelstrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:confused: You are making the point that it's the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:ph34r: You are making the point that it's the owner.
Was rushed gettin' out to SB festivities, so my post was all over the place. 1) The breed is the breed. Even those pitbulls who have been "great around kids for years" can and do snap out of the blue. The article said that even previously tame pitbulls become aggressive in packs. I wouldn't be sad if they eradicated the breed.2) A lot of it is on the owners, no doubt. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - the people I see owning pit bulls, for the most part, are not the type of people I'd want my daughter dating. I think the majority of them are idiots. How many babies do you need to see get mauled before it sinks in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:shrug:

You are making the point that it's the owner.

Was rushed gettin' out to SB festivities, so my post was all over the place.

1) The breed is the breed. Even those pitbulls who have been "great around kids for years" can and do snap out of the blue. The article said that even previously tame pitbulls become aggressive in packs. I wouldn't be sad if they eradicated the breed.

2) A lot of it is on the owners, no doubt. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - the people I see owning pit bulls, for the most part, are not the type of people I'd want my daughter dating. I think the majority of them are idiots. How many babies do you need to see get mauled before it sinks in?

:lmao: If you have interest in this particular subject, please read the below post so you can be a little better informed with more factual information:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/201...nal-report.html.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.
Where do you see that I am casting blame? But yes there is no question that in many instances of dog attack the dogs were provoked by the eventual victim and would have been preventable if the person understood how to interact with dogs. Or do you think that all dog attacks are completely unprovoked?

You can go off on all the crusades to ban dangerous breeds that you want but it is downright stupid not to educate yourself on how do deal with those dangerous animals that are a part of society whether you want them to be or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:lmao: You are making the point that it's the owner.
Was rushed gettin' out to SB festivities, so my post was all over the place. 1) The breed is the breed. Even those pitbulls who have been "great around kids for years" can and do snap out of the blue. The article said that even previously tame pitbulls become aggressive in packs. I wouldn't be sad if they eradicated the breed.2) A lot of it is on the owners, no doubt. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - the people I see owning pit bulls, for the most part, are not the type of people I'd want my daughter dating. I think the majority of them are idiots. How many babies do you need to see get mauled before it sinks in?
Some of the most well behaved dogs I've met are pitbulls. The owner on your block is going to have a horrid dog no matter what the breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:popcorn: You are making the point that it's the owner.
Was rushed gettin' out to SB festivities, so my post was all over the place. 1) The breed is the breed. Even those pitbulls who have been "great around kids for years" can and do snap out of the blue. The article said that even previously tame pitbulls become aggressive in packs. I wouldn't be sad if they eradicated the breed.2) A lot of it is on the owners, no doubt. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - the people I see owning pit bulls, for the most part, are not the type of people I'd want my daughter dating. I think the majority of them are idiots. How many babies do you need to see get mauled before it sinks in?
1) That can be said about almost any dog breed2) How about more than get killed by plastic bags every year? Or more than get killed by things you find under the kitchen sink. I would like to see that before I start legislating against one dog breed.Seriously people if you are so concerned about the welfare of society and our children in particular then there are far, far more worthy causes than picking on one specific dog breed. Do some research into causes of injury and death to children I am sure there are more significant causes that you can try and do something about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn how to properly interact with dogs and teach your children the same. That's the smartest thing you can do.

Yeah, it's the fault of people not teaching their kids how to interact with dogs.
Where do you see that I am casting blame? But yes there is no question that in many instances of dog attack the dogs were provoked by the eventual victim and would have been preventable if the person understood how to interact with dogs. Or do you think that all dog attacks are completely unprovoked?

You can go off on all the crusades to ban dangerous breeds that you want but it is downright stupid not to educate yourself on how do deal with those dangerous animals that are a part of society whether you want them to be or not.

And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most well behaved dogs I've met are pitbulls. The owner on your block is going to have a horrid dog no matter what the breed.

:bag:Worst thing my dog has ever done to anybody is beg for food. He is 95% pit. This is a dog that had his ears cut off as a puppy b/c he was born in a fighting operation. Since we rescued him, he's been around babies, old people, strangers, doesn't matter. He plays with other dogs, and always backs down when things get a little too aggressive.Blame people who chain them to trees, antagonize them, neglect them and/or teach them to be aggressive. Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around. In the hands of anybody but the worst owners they are ideal pets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of deaths from dog attack in 2008: 23

Number of deaths from:

Tobacco - 435,000

Being fat and Lazy - 365,000

Alcohol - 85,000

Microbial Agents - 75,000

Toxic Agents - 55,000

Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347

Prescription Drugs - 32,000

Suicide - 30,622

Firearms - 29,000

Homicide - 20,308

Sex - 20,000

Drug use - 17,000

Asprin - 7,600

Marijuana - 0

But yeah, let's get rid of the dogs, that'll make us safe.

And spare me the non-fatal attack argument because all of the causes listed above have non-fatal outcomes as well.

Clearly, pit bulls need to get high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pit Bull Nerds>Nuclear weapons don't kill people -- the people who use them irresponsibly too. I still prefer my neighbors not have nuclear weapons.HTH

I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons kill people.HTH(Also, as an aside, defensive pit bull owners are funny.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around.

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around.

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.
It's also a statement that 90% of all pitbull owners involved in attacks would make one day before their creature snapped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogs have easily been the main source of fear/injury in my life.

There's a good chance your fear played a role in you getting injured.
Initially caused by the dogs. And if you can't see the problem with "well it's your fault because you showed fear and dogs attack fear" then there is something wrong with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around.

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.
It's also a statement that 90% of all pitbull owners involved in attacks would make one day before their creature snapped.
And the day after. Or in court when they are facing convictions and insane amounts of restitutions and the victims are visibly messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if its the owners or the breed's fault, but theses animals are too big and too strong to be available to the general public.

Sure, lions are pretty tame with the right owner, but I don't want to see one roaming my neighbor's yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be a honda, don't have time to look, but huge article in the LA Times yesterday re: Pit Bulls. Trying to neuter them in the Inland Empires. One guy said it was almost a right of passage to give a 13 year old a pit bull for a birthday present. Are you kidding me? Then the boy grows tired of the dog and ties him to a tree. Then they go loose and roam the streets in packs. Maulings/deaths everywhere. Said they will scale 6 foot fences to breed, and females can have 14 in a litter. I have a guy on my block who has a very aggressive Akita. Let's him loose all the time. Attacked my lab twice while I was walking him, puncture wounds in his back. Made the ##### pay for entire vet bill, and good thing I just grazed that freakin' dog in the head when he came back a second time - would have f upped his head somethin' fierce. So owners, go ahead and own breeds like this. Say it's the owner. Studies show that even tame they are pack animals and will get aggressive with others and follow suit. Be prepared for lawsuits. Up your umbrella policy. Be ready for prison. Worthless species. If you have to own, live on a 100 acre ranch where they can only kill your own family and animals - not others. Just don't live near kids or the elderly.

This is an argument for the culpability of owners.
:rolleyes: You are making the point that it's the owner.
Was rushed gettin' out to SB festivities, so my post was all over the place. 1) The breed is the breed. Even those pitbulls who have been "great around kids for years" can and do snap out of the blue. The article said that even previously tame pitbulls become aggressive in packs. I wouldn't be sad if they eradicated the breed.2) A lot of it is on the owners, no doubt. I'm not gonna sugar coat it - the people I see owning pit bulls, for the most part, are not the type of people I'd want my daughter dating. I think the majority of them are idiots. How many babies do you need to see get mauled before it sinks in?
1) That can be said about almost any dog breed
Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if its the owners or the breed's fault, but theses animals are too big and too strong to be available to the general public.

Sure, lions are pretty tame with the right owner, but I don't want to see one roaming my neighbor's yard.

I'm impressed with how much dumb some folks can pack into a mere two sentences. Pit bulls aren't even large dogs, they're medium sized. Most weight 50-60 pounds, with an average of mid 50's. That's smaller than the average Golden Retriever, which weighs in 60-80.

Comparing a domesticated animal to a wild animal is as helpful as comparing a BB gun to an assault rifle. And before anyone dismisses that comparison of a pit bull to a BB gun, recognize that more kids die/year from BB guns than dog attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around.

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.
It's also a statement that 90% of all pitbull owners involved in attacks would make one day before their creature snapped.
And the day after. Or in court when they are facing convictions and insane amounts of restitutions and the victims are visibly messed up.
Which proves nothing more than people are stupid. People being stupid doesn't in any way make it remotely logical to eliminate or outlaw an entire breed of domesticated dog. Particularly one that is safely owned and loved by well over 99% of the people who own them.

Additionally, places where breed specific legislation has been enacted have not only seen zero decrease in dog attacks, but a 50% increase. Why? If it's just the dog and just the breed, why has breed specific legislation failed so spectacularly? Eliminating the breed is a preposterous suggestion on it's face and in light of available data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Okay I will gladly substitute "plastic bags" with "homicides committed by humans", the most irrational animal on the planet.Dogs are responsible for deaths numbering in the tens every year. Human homicides number in the thousands. But keep your focus on saving the tens and we'll worry about the thousands at a later time.Repeat after me "I want large dogs exterminated because I am scared of them" Admit it, just come out and say it but don't try to tell me that it has anything to do with protecting society from some kind of clear and present danger. Edited by Chaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around.

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.
It's also a statement that 90% of all pitbull owners involved in attacks would make one day before their creature snapped.
And the day after. Or in court when they are facing convictions and insane amounts of restitutions and the victims are visibly messed up.
Which proves nothing more than people are stupid. People being stupid doesn't in any way make it remotely logical to eliminate or outlaw an entire breed of domesticated dog. Particularly one that is safely owned and loved by well over 99% of the people who own them.

Additionally, places where breed specific legislation has been enacted have not only seen zero decrease in dog attacks, but a 50% increase. Why? If it's just the dog and just the breed, why has breed specific legislation failed so spectacularly? Eliminating the breed is a preposterous suggestion on it's face and in light of available data.

1. Yes and no. It proves that people are stupidly ignorant about how dangerous their dogs are.

2. I'm not at all shocked at that result for two reasons. First, I'd say that there is probably a good chance that people who are good dog owners are also not law-breakers. So, the people providing the homes for these outlawed breeds aren't going to be your top owners. This is gonna happen until we can actually eliminate the breed. Second, I'm guessing there is no medical oversight of these dogs since they are unlawful (similar to the abortion argument). A dangerous dog in poor health when coupled with poor ownership is a recipe for disaster. That's why we need to physically removes these dogs rather than outlaw them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if its the owners or the breed's fault, but theses animals are too big and too strong to be available to the general public.

Sure, lions are pretty tame with the right owner, but I don't want to see one roaming my neighbor's yard.

I'm impressed with how much dumb some folks can pack into a mere two sentences. Pit bulls aren't even large dogs, they're medium sized. Most weight 50-60 pounds, with an average of mid 50's. That's smaller than the average Golden Retriever, which weighs in 60-80.

Comparing a domesticated animal to a wild animal is as helpful as comparing a BB gun to an assault rifle. And before anyone dismisses that comparison of a pit bull to a BB gun, recognize that more kids die/year from BB guns than dog attacks.

But those deaths are accidental so they don't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Okay I will gladly substitute "plastic bags" with "homicides committed by humans", the most irrational animal on the planet.Dogs are responsible for deaths numbering in the tens every year. Human homicides number in the thousands. But keep your focus on saving the tens and we'll worry about the thousands at a later time.Repeat after me "I want large dogs exterminated because I am scared of them" Admit it, just come out and say it but don't try to tell me that it has anything to do with protecting society from some kind of clear and present danger.
I bet I know how you voted in the save a dog or a human poll. And no kidding I want dogs eliminated because I am scared of them. They've caused me the most injury for no reason. This is unlike a homicide where, while the reasons may be unethical, there is like some loosely rationale or goal behind the murder (most likely financial or emotional).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if its the owners or the breed's fault, but theses animals are too big and too strong to be available to the general public.

Sure, lions are pretty tame with the right owner, but I don't want to see one roaming my neighbor's yard.

I'm impressed with how much dumb some folks can pack into a mere two sentences. Pit bulls aren't even large dogs, they're medium sized. Most weight 50-60 pounds, with an average of mid 50's. That's smaller than the average Golden Retriever, which weighs in 60-80.

Comparing a domesticated animal to a wild animal is as helpful as comparing a BB gun to an assault rifle. And before anyone dismisses that comparison of a pit bull to a BB gun, recognize that more kids die/year from BB guns than dog attacks.

So dogs are slightly less dangerous than BB guns in young kids' hands. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Okay I will gladly substitute "plastic bags" with "homicides committed by humans", the most irrational animal on the planet.Dogs are responsible for deaths numbering in the tens every year. Human homicides number in the thousands. But keep your focus on saving the tens and we'll worry about the thousands at a later time.Repeat after me "I want large dogs exterminated because I am scared of them" Admit it, just come out and say it but don't try to tell me that it has anything to do with protecting society from some kind of clear and present danger.
I bet I know how you voted in the save a dog or a human poll. And no kidding I want dogs eliminated because I am scared of them. They've caused me the most injury for no reason. This is unlike a homicide where, while the reasons may be unethical, there is like some loosely rationale or goal behind the murder (most likely financial or emotional).
I'll bet you don't.You actually just justified homicide to press your own agenda. As Stan Marsh would say "That's pretty ####ed up right there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yours might be good, but this statement is just completely untrue.

It's also a statement that 90% of all pitbull owners involved in attacks would make one day before their creature snapped.
And the day after. Or in court when they are facing convictions and insane amounts of restitutions and the victims are visibly messed up.
Which proves nothing more than people are stupid. People being stupid doesn't in any way make it remotely logical to eliminate or outlaw an entire breed of domesticated dog. Particularly one that is safely owned and loved by well over 99% of the people who own them.

Additionally, places where breed specific legislation has been enacted have not only seen zero decrease in dog attacks, but a 50% increase. Why? If it's just the dog and just the breed, why has breed specific legislation failed so spectacularly? Eliminating the breed is a preposterous suggestion on it's face and in light of available data.

1. Yes and no. It proves that people are stupidly ignorant about how dangerous their dogs are.

2. I'm not at all shocked at that result for two reasons. First, I'd say that there is probably a good chance that people who are good dog owners are also not law-breakers. So, the people providing the homes for these outlawed breeds aren't going to be your top owners. This is gonna happen until we can actually eliminate the breed. Second, I'm guessing there is no medical oversight of these dogs since they are unlawful (similar to the abortion argument). A dangerous dog in poor health when coupled with poor ownership is a recipe for disaster. That's why we need to physically removes these dogs rather than outlaw them.

:blackdot:

That's a Herculean twist of logic to wind yourself into in order to ignore data that doesn't kit your hypothesis. The article expressly states that "very few Pit Bulls exist" in the UK. And yet, dog attacks and injuries are increasing. You really want to go with "it's probably unhealthy, aged Pits that are accounting for the increase in dog bites despite the article expressly stating there are very few Pit Bulls in the UK" as your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if its the owners or the breed's fault, but theses animals are too big and too strong to be available to the general public.

Sure, lions are pretty tame with the right owner, but I don't want to see one roaming my neighbor's yard.

I'm impressed with how much dumb some folks can pack into a mere two sentences. Pit bulls aren't even large dogs, they're medium sized. Most weight 50-60 pounds, with an average of mid 50's. That's smaller than the average Golden Retriever, which weighs in 60-80.

Comparing a domesticated animal to a wild animal is as helpful as comparing a BB gun to an assault rifle. And before anyone dismisses that comparison of a pit bull to a BB gun, recognize that more kids die/year from BB guns than dog attacks.

So dogs are slightly less dangerous than BB guns in young kids' hands. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
And yet I don't see anyone arguing the ridiculous notion that if we eliminated all BB guns, kids would be safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Okay I will gladly substitute "plastic bags" with "homicides committed by humans", the most irrational animal on the planet.Dogs are responsible for deaths numbering in the tens every year. Human homicides number in the thousands. But keep your focus on saving the tens and we'll worry about the thousands at a later time.Repeat after me "I want large dogs exterminated because I am scared of them" Admit it, just come out and say it but don't try to tell me that it has anything to do with protecting society from some kind of clear and present danger.
I bet I know how you voted in the save a dog or a human poll. And no kidding I want dogs eliminated because I am scared of them. They've caused me the most injury for no reason. This is unlike a homicide where, while the reasons may be unethical, there is like some loosely rationale or goal behind the murder (most likely financial or emotional).
I'll bet you don't.You actually just justified homicide to press your own agenda. As Stan Marsh would say "That's pretty ####ed up right there."
Saying there is some modicum of "reason" for killing isn't justifying it. I'm just distinguishing it from a dog killing a kid for zero reason and to explain that humans have the ability to reason (albeit poorly e.g. murder) whereas dogs don't have this ability and that is why they are inherently dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blackdot: That's a Herculean twist of logic to wind yourself into in order to ignore data that doesn't kit your hypothesis. The article expressly states that "very few Pit Bulls exist" in the UK. And yet, dog attacks and injuries are increasing. You really want to go with "it's probably unhealthy, aged Pits that are accounting for the increase in dog bites despite the article expressly stating there are very few Pit Bulls in the UK" as your argument?

You actually expected me to read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Most dog breeds are inherently dangerous and we should get rid of them all. And your "plastic bag" examples aren't relevant. Dogs have the ability to be deadly on their own. The examples you give provide some sort of "fault" by the initial owner - be it negligence in leaving a plastic bag out, recklessness in keeping a gun case unlocked, intentional with smoking cigarettes, etc. You can have the best dog owner in the world and his dog could still maul a little kid through no fault of his own. It's true that the risk of a dog attacking rises exponentially with poor ownership, but the ability to kill for no rational reason is inherent in an irrational animal.

Okay I will gladly substitute "plastic bags" with "homicides committed by humans", the most irrational animal on the planet.Dogs are responsible for deaths numbering in the tens every year. Human homicides number in the thousands. But keep your focus on saving the tens and we'll worry about the thousands at a later time.Repeat after me "I want large dogs exterminated because I am scared of them" Admit it, just come out and say it but don't try to tell me that it has anything to do with protecting society from some kind of clear and present danger.
I bet I know how you voted in the save a dog or a human poll. And no kidding I want dogs eliminated because I am scared of them. They've caused me the most injury for no reason. This is unlike a homicide where, while the reasons may be unethical, there is like some loosely rationale or goal behind the murder (most likely financial or emotional).
I'll bet you don't.You actually just justified homicide to press your own agenda. As Stan Marsh would say "That's pretty ####ed up right there."
Saying there is some modicum of "reason" for killing isn't justifying it. I'm just distinguishing it from a dog killing a kid for zero reason and to explain that humans have the ability to reason (albeit poorly e.g. murder) whereas dogs don't have this ability and that is why they are inherently dangerous.
I am quite sure dogs have their reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.