Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

Nice, you pretty much ran the gambit on that one. Attacked the source and the validity of the outcome. Then attacked fellow board members.

That report was a bullseye. Reality agrees with it. So does the military (which trumps damn near everything).

You are ignoring the truth of pitbull breeding, they are simply performing as they were bred to do.

I wish we could find a pitbull to gnaw down that long sig of yours.

Right after you pry him loose with a break stick from its current victim.*imagine, having to have their own item to pry their victims free with.

 

[Chaka]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

Nice, you pretty much ran the gambit on that one. Attacked the source and the validity of the outcome. Then attacked fellow board members.

That report was a bullseye. Reality agrees with it. So does the military (which trumps damn near everything).

You are ignoring the truth of pitbull breeding, they are simply performing as they were bred to do.

That report is deeply flawed in its methodology across the board that is a fact, not an attack.It doesn't matter to you, that is also a fact not an attack.

I am ignoring nothing about pit bulls, I defy you to find a post where I said they were not a potential danger. I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

 

[Chaka]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

 

[TexanFan02]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

 

[Chaka]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Wow, I've never seen a "study" ripped to shreds that bad. Poor Merritt Clifton must be pretty embarrassed he/she/they wasted time on it, just as I am embarrassed for believing that BigSteelThrill was worth responding to in this thread.

 

[TexanFan02]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

 

[Chaka]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

I honestly thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't realize that you don't know what a red herring is.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

I honestly thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't realize that you don't know what a red herring is.

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

I honestly thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't realize that you don't know what a red herring is.

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

 

[Chaka]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

I honestly thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't realize that you don't know what a red herring is.

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

 

[Chaka]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

You had probably never heard of any breed doing it before you read that blurb.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I have continually stated that we need legislation to deal with all dogs because breed specific legislation are ineffective, expensive and ignore the real issue.

Then you are ignoring that this breed of domesticate canine is vastly different in its inherent dangers because of the way it was purposely bred.

Because it's a red herring. I am guessing you know that.

Red herrings don't jump over fences and kill people. I am guessing you know that.

Yeah, your posts in this thread are pretty funny.

I honestly thought you were trying to be funny. I didn't realize that you don't know what a red herring is.

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

 

[Chaka]

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?

Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I didn't move the conversation, you tried to call me on that and were wrong and now you're trying to move the conversation?Fine, however breed specific legislation does nothing but cost money without fixing the problem. And if you try to define what is or is not a dangerous dog then every exception will be that much more glaring. Besides is it somehow any less tragic when a one in a million shot happens and a Jack Russel kills a child? It is still the owner's fault and the dog ultimately proved dangerous.

Besides I am not sure that the issue is that people won't support tougher legislation to hold owners increasingly responsible for the actions of their dogs. I think it is just as likely that people and legislators have been made aware of the issue and haven't made it any sort of a priority because they recognize that it just isn't that big of a problem. We're talking about 40 deaths/year from dog attack (less than the number who die from lightning strike) I think it is quite possible that most people and legislators don't think that is an issue worth spending tax dollars on.

Creating tougher legislation on all dogs is a far more viable option than killing them all or putting them in zoos which are the best that has been offered in here so far.

 

[beavers]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

 

[Mister CIA]

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs.

You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I'll assist Chaka on this snipe hunt. Link?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?

Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I didn't move the conversation, you tried to call me on that and were wrong and now you're trying to move the conversation?Fine, however breed specific legislation does nothing but cost money without fixing the problem. And if you try to define what is or is not a dangerous dog then every exception will be that much more glaring. Besides is it somehow any less tragic when a one in a million shot happens and a Jack Russel kills a child? It is still the owner's fault and the dog ultimately proved dangerous.

Besides I am not sure that the issue is that people won't support tougher legislation to hold owners increasingly responsible for the actions of their dogs. I think it is just as likely that people and legislators have been made aware of the issue and haven't made it any sort of a priority because they recognize that it just isn't that big of a problem. We're talking about 40 deaths/year from dog attack (less than the number who die from lightning strike) I think it is quite possible that most people and legislators don't think that is an issue worth spending tax dollars on.

Creating tougher legislation on all dogs is a far more viable option than killing them all or putting them in zoos which are the best that has been offered in here so far.

He called you out on "red herring" logic, because you gleefully used it on someone else. Hypocrisy? Or just amusement for the rest of us?I've stated this elsewhere: the minute a dog (pit or otherwise) attacks my kids and causes serious injury, I will kill the dog. Period. Severity of my child's injury would dictate what I did to the idiot dog owner. Death would not be out of the question.

 

[eoMMan]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

Notice at the end it says that they are attempting to find the dogs owner.....Sounds like a pet that was really loved and cared for. Frankly, i am shocked that he would be in the state of mind to jump off a second story building.

 

[eoMMan]

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?

Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I didn't move the conversation, you tried to call me on that and were wrong and now you're trying to move the conversation?Fine, however breed specific legislation does nothing but cost money without fixing the problem. And if you try to define what is or is not a dangerous dog then every exception will be that much more glaring. Besides is it somehow any less tragic when a one in a million shot happens and a Jack Russel kills a child? It is still the owner's fault and the dog ultimately proved dangerous.

Besides I am not sure that the issue is that people won't support tougher legislation to hold owners increasingly responsible for the actions of their dogs. I think it is just as likely that people and legislators have been made aware of the issue and haven't made it any sort of a priority because they recognize that it just isn't that big of a problem. We're talking about 40 deaths/year from dog attack (less than the number who die from lightning strike) I think it is quite possible that most people and legislators don't think that is an issue worth spending tax dollars on.

Creating tougher legislation on all dogs is a far more viable option than killing them all or putting them in zoos which are the best that has been offered in here so far.

He called you out on "red herring" logic, because you gleefully used it on someone else. Hypocrisy? Or just amusement for the rest of us?I've stated this elsewhere: the minute a dog (pit or otherwise) attacks my kids and causes serious injury, I will kill the dog. Period. Severity of my child's injury would dictate what I did to the idiot dog owner. Death would not be out of the question.

Wait, so you would hurt or even kill the owner? Why? I thought these dogs were killers and the owner isnt at fault?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Wait, so you would hurt or even kill the owner? Why? I thought these dogs were killers and the owner isnt at fault?

Link to where I wrote that the dogs were killers and the owner isn't at fault?

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist per se, but the pitbull haters in this thread have me convinced that the government (or a large media empire) has been breeding flaming political liberals with sensationalistic, jello-eating fox news zom-bots.

We're living in evil times.

 

[Chaka]

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?

Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I didn't move the conversation, you tried to call me on that and were wrong and now you're trying to move the conversation?Fine, however breed specific legislation does nothing but cost money without fixing the problem. And if you try to define what is or is not a dangerous dog then every exception will be that much more glaring. Besides is it somehow any less tragic when a one in a million shot happens and a Jack Russel kills a child? It is still the owner's fault and the dog ultimately proved dangerous.

Besides I am not sure that the issue is that people won't support tougher legislation to hold owners increasingly responsible for the actions of their dogs. I think it is just as likely that people and legislators have been made aware of the issue and haven't made it any sort of a priority because they recognize that it just isn't that big of a problem. We're talking about 40 deaths/year from dog attack (less than the number who die from lightning strike) I think it is quite possible that most people and legislators don't think that is an issue worth spending tax dollars on.

Creating tougher legislation on all dogs is a far more viable option than killing them all or putting them in zoos which are the best that has been offered in here so far.

He called you out on "red herring" logic, because you gleefully used it on someone else. Hypocrisy? Or just amusement for the rest of us?I've stated this elsewhere: the minute a dog (pit or otherwise) attacks my kids and causes serious injury, I will kill the dog. Period. Severity of my child's injury would dictate what I did to the idiot dog owner. Death would not be out of the question.

red her·ring[*]misleading clue: something introduced, e.g. into a crime or mystery story, in order to divert attention or mislead

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

 

[Mister CIA]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

Notice at the end it says that they are attempting to find the dogs owner.....Sounds like a pet that was really loved and cared for. Frankly, i am shocked that he would be in the state of mind to jump off a second story building.

Cool avatar pic. I tried changing mine, but as you might have guessed, my dog gnawed off both my hands just as I was trying to select file.ETA: Looks like my pic passed inspection. Note to self - buying an expensive camera to use to create a new avatar pic was a very bad idea.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Mister CIA]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I would have gone with "Frankly my dear, whatever helps you sleep at night."

 

[Chaka]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs.

You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I'll assist Chaka on this snipe hunt. Link?

My linkDidnt remember the details exactly, which is fine because they were actually worse than I remembered. A man took a bat to the dogs and they wouldnt stop attacking. Eventually had to be shot to stop the attack.

Link to Jack russell incident?

ETA: there is actually video available of a pit attack where they couldnt get it to release and they had to shoot it. Bit 5 officers. Several other stories available with simple google searches regarding pits not letting go while being beaten.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Kind of like when you say you move the discussion to legislation for all breeds?

Does that fit the bill of a red herring?

Not when this is the OP:

I couldnt find the original thread but here is yet another shining example of why this breed needs to be banned. At this point it is ridiculous. The excuses seem to never stop: Owner not the breed, misidentified, loverable pets etc....

I did find out that if you have a neighbor with a Pitt and you can find out who there home owners insurance is then you can contact them and inform them that a pitt is living there. Most insurance agencies these days treat Pitts as a dangerous breed and will either pull their policy all together or at least raise the rates.

http://www.charlotte...ry/1226684.html

The conversation has been legislation from the first sentence of the first post. So unless the thread title is "This is where we talk only about why Pit Bull bans are good and nothing else" suggesting legislative solutions for the root cause behind the hysteria that drives the anit-pit crowd in this thread is not a red herring.

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs. You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I didn't move the conversation, you tried to call me on that and were wrong and now you're trying to move the conversation?Fine, however breed specific legislation does nothing but cost money without fixing the problem. And if you try to define what is or is not a dangerous dog then every exception will be that much more glaring. Besides is it somehow any less tragic when a one in a million shot happens and a Jack Russel kills a child? It is still the owner's fault and the dog ultimately proved dangerous.

Besides I am not sure that the issue is that people won't support tougher legislation to hold owners increasingly responsible for the actions of their dogs. I think it is just as likely that people and legislators have been made aware of the issue and haven't made it any sort of a priority because they recognize that it just isn't that big of a problem. We're talking about 40 deaths/year from dog attack (less than the number who die from lightning strike) I think it is quite possible that most people and legislators don't think that is an issue worth spending tax dollars on.

Creating tougher legislation on all dogs is a far more viable option than killing them all or putting them in zoos which are the best that has been offered in here so far.

He called you out on "red herring" logic, because you gleefully used it on someone else. Hypocrisy? Or just amusement for the rest of us?I've stated this elsewhere: the minute a dog (pit or otherwise) attacks my kids and causes serious injury, I will kill the dog. Period. Severity of my child's injury would dictate what I did to the idiot dog owner. Death would not be out of the question.

red her·ring[*]misleading clue: something introduced, e.g. into a crime or mystery story, in order to divert attention or mislead

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

This thread was about banning pit bulls. Not about legislation regarding all dogs. You are pretending to be a proponent of such legislation because as I stated before, you know it is ridiculous. Putting yorkies and toy poodles under the same umbrella as pit bulls is just plain stupid. I know you arent stupid, so I know you are using it as a distraction.

So before you post another wikipedia link, or another dictionary definition of something that almost everybody knows the definition of, why don't you reread the same OP you copied and pasted.

You know the one where it talks about banning pit bulls not toy poodles.

 

[Chaka]

This thread was about banning pit bulls. Not about legislation regarding all dogs. You are pretending to be a proponent of such legislation because as I stated before, you know it is ridiculous. Putting yorkies and toy poodles under the same umbrella as pit bulls is just plain stupid. I know you arent stupid, so I know you are using it as a distraction. So before you post another wikipedia link, or another dictionary definition of something that almost everybody knows the definition of, why don't you reread the same OP you copied and pasted.You know the one where it talks about banning pit bulls not toy poodles.

You can't ban pit bulls without laws. The tragedy of a loved one dying from a dog attack is not proportional to the size of the dog. Yorkies are unlikely to kill anyone or anything so they would already be insulated by their size but if they do manage to kill then #### 'em and their owners. All breed legislation is viable and might actually have a positive impact. Breed specific legislation doesn't work fix the problem and wastes tax payer dollars, although I agree they are better than the silliness of suggesting killing all pits or locking them in zoos which is what has been suggested in here. All of this directly relates to the OP and content of this thread.

 

[Mister CIA]

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs.

You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I'll assist Chaka on this snipe hunt. Link?

My linkDidnt remember the details exactly, which is fine because they were actually worse than I remembered. A man took a bat to the dogs and they wouldnt stop attacking. Eventually had to be shot to stop the attack.

Link to Jack russell incident?

ETA: there is actually video available of a pit attack where they couldnt get it to release and they had to shoot it. Bit 5 officers. Several other stories available with simple google searches regarding pits not letting go while being beaten.

These dogs attacked in a way of dogs that have been trained to kill,'

and then...

the owner of the two pit bulls was not charged with any criminal violations but he did receive tickets for failing to restrain the dogs and not having city dog licenses. This could result in fines up to $200.

Dr. Andrew Dennis told NBC Chicago, 'It was a rough go for several days. He was on a breathing machine. He was very sick. He got a lot of blood. I mean, his injury was nearly equivalent to stepping on a landmine.”

Valentino Jackson, one neighbor, told CBS ...

Any chance you can link me to NBC or CBS link? I'm not familiar with opposingviews.com, but it looks like they are doing an excellent job at keeping payroll costs to a minimum ... Sorry, can't help you with the Jack Russell query. If the OP did not provide a link, I suggest asking her/him.

 

[Mister CIA]

ETA: there is actually video available of a pit attack where they couldnt get it to release and they had to shoot it. Bit 5 officers.

Available, as in not available?

 

[Mister CIA]

OpposingViews.com has Onion like qualities. I take back my previous snide comment about saving money on payroll. They're actually pretty clever. Example from another pitbull news story which was not difficult to find:

Pitbull kills 8-month old, yet...

All three Pit Bulls in the rental unit were males and believed to belong to the mother and one of her roommates. According to UTSanDiego.com two of the dogs were between 2 and 3 years of age and the other was about 6 years old. Officials had not yet determined if they are neutered. .

The Pit Bulls were taken to the Chula Vista Animal Shelter and will be quarantined for ten days to assure they do not have rabies, according to Anne Steinberger, Communications Manager for Chula Vista, which provides animal-control services for Lemon Grove.

We've determined their age and sex, but damn, it's gonna take a while to figure out if they've had their nuts chopped off.

 

[parasaurolophus]

"All dog" legislation is a red herring because you know that people will never agree to legislation for all dogs. Everybody knows it would be ridiculous to put the kind of regulations on all dogs that should be put on dangerous dogs.

You can post all you want that a jack russell terrier did this, or a toy poodle did that, but those are simply one in a billion fluke occurences. They also were on infants. You don't legislate for one in a billion flukes. You know it. I know it. Show me where a jack russell terrier had to have its jaw broken because it had locked onto a person's femur and wouldn't let go after it had been hit with a bat several times and then we can have a serious discussion.

Until then, it is simply a red herring.

The next thread can be about forest path legislation because a tree fell in the woods and hit somebody.

I'll assist Chaka on this snipe hunt. Link?

My linkDidnt remember the details exactly, which is fine because they were actually worse than I remembered. A man took a bat to the dogs and they wouldnt stop attacking. Eventually had to be shot to stop the attack.

Link to Jack russell incident?

ETA: there is actually video available of a pit attack where they couldnt get it to release and they had to shoot it. Bit 5 officers. Several other stories available with simple google searches regarding pits not letting go while being beaten.

These dogs attacked in a way of dogs that have been trained to kill,'

and then...

the owner of the two pit bulls was not charged with any criminal violations but he did receive tickets for failing to restrain the dogs and not having city dog licenses. This could result in fines up to $200.

Dr. Andrew Dennis told NBC Chicago, 'It was a rough go for several days. He was on a breathing machine. He was very sick. He got a lot of blood. I mean, his injury was nearly equivalent to stepping on a landmine.”

Valentino Jackson, one neighbor, told CBS ...

Any chance you can link me to NBC or CBS link? I'm not familiar with opposingviews.com, but it looks like they are doing an excellent job at keeping payroll costs to a minimum ... Sorry, can't help you with the Jack Russell query. If the OP did not provide a link, I suggest asking her/him.

Are you really that lazy? Do you not know how to use google? Do you really think this method of debate is going to pay off? This isn't some obscure topic that people won't be able to find thousands of stories about. You won't be able to attack every news source and try to pretend that these are fake.http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/03/ald-fioretti-time-to-consider-a-ban-on-pit-bulls/

Find the video yet? It is gruesome. You actually see the pitbull locked on and you also see it shot. It is really hard to find so you can pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Reading about a pit bull attack in my state where the boys face got thrashed and the pit bull locked onto the boy's neck. Pretty gruesome. Then I read the comments and the first two comments are from supporters in this thread I think.

Any dog can attack a kid! I don't think it matters what kind of dog it is! What's important in this is that the child is okay and at recovering from this attack!

Interesting, A dog attacking for no reason?? Did anyone ask the kids what they did to intice this dog? Also, why does this liberal rag only report when a pit bull bits someone, what about the other 73% of do attacks that are not pit bull related?? Curious.......

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

para has already responded...but here is another definition: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." Unless you are some bizarre literalist, that very closely matches your proposal.btw - I agree with you that breed-specific legislation won't fix the issue. The same morons who own & improperly raise pitbulls will just pick a different breed to screw up. Until people learn to take responsibility for their animals, I'll continue to default to....if a dog attacks (unprovoked) and injures my kid, I'll respond based on severity of injury. That could absolutely include killing the dog and maiming the owner.

 

[TexanFan02]

Reading about a pit bull attack in my state where the boys face got thrashed and the pit bull locked onto the boy's neck. Pretty gruesome. Then I read the comments and the first two comments are from supporters in this thread I think.

Any dog can attack a kid! I don't think it matters what kind of dog it is! What's important in this is that the child is okay and at recovering from this attack!

Interesting, A dog attacking for no reason?? Did anyone ask the kids what they did to intice this dog? Also, why does this liberal rag only report when a pit bull bits someone, what about the other 73% of do attacks that are not pit bull related?? Curious.......

This post pretty much sums up this thread. Shut it down. Unless Otis comes back, he's doing quality work in here.

 

[beavers]

Are pit bulls Republicans or Democrats?

 

[eoMMan]

Wait, so you would hurt or even kill the owner? Why? I thought these dogs were killers and the owner isnt at fault?

Link to where I wrote that the dogs were killers and the owner isn't at fault?

I thought you were one of the people in this thread that was so bent on it being the breed and not the owner. I might have confused you with someone else. My apologies.Regardless, I think murdering someone because their pet hurt your child is just a tad bit nuts.

 

[Chaka]

Para was wrong when he called me out. This thread has been about legislation from the beginning. I disagree with him about breed specific legislation but both his and my arguments about which legislation would work are very much a part of what this thread has always been about.

Uh, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

So you don't know what a red herring is and you didn't read the OP. Got it.

para has already responded...but here is another definition: "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." Unless you are some bizarre literalist, that very closely matches your proposal.btw - I agree with you that breed-specific legislation won't fix the issue. The same morons who own & improperly raise pitbulls will just pick a different breed to screw up. Until people learn to take responsibility for their animals, I'll continue to default to....if a dog attacks (unprovoked) and injures my kid, I'll respond based on severity of injury. That could absolutely include killing the dog and maiming the owner.

WTF? I provided that very definition twice. If you're not going to actually read my posts it becomes difficult to accept that you are reading enough in this thread to have an informed opinion about what is or isn't a distraction.Let's start here so I can understand where you are coming from: In your opinion what is the issue?

 

[Charlie Frown]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

 

[eoMMan]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

Did the police track down this responsible owner yet?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Pit Bull leaps from balcony, attacks dog and owner

Never heard of a Lab doing this.

Owner's fault. The balcony was not high enough. The general rule with pits is 3 stories or higher.

Did the police track down this responsible owner yet?

How do we know that the dog wasn't using him as a chew toy?

 

[Otis]

Any new killings today?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Any new killings today?

No killings today.Pit bull mauls 7-year-old East Harlem girl's arm in terrifying two-minute attack

Pit Bull Shot After it Attacks/Kills Dog -- The pit bull ran at police after officers shot it with a stun gun.



Authorities Release Identity of 8-Month-Old Killed in Pit Bull Attack

Police: Pit bull attacks 2 women



Salem woman, teen attacked by pit bull mix

 

[Mister CIA]

Any new killings today?

Nope, but there's a red herring beating a dead horse over in the corner. Grab a nipple.

 

[MechEng]

Any new killings today?

Nope, but there's a red herring beating a dead horse over in the corner. Grab a nipple.

Pit bulls kill horse

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Any new killings today?

Nope, but there's a red herring beating a dead horse over in the corner. Grab a nipple.

Pit bulls kill horse

Just as they are supposed to...and then about 30 minutes later... “When they arrived, the white pit bull dog was still attached to the horses bottom lip. The black pit bull was attached to the neck of the animal,” Waters said.

Functioning as intended.

 

[eoMMan]

One of the pit bulls rescued from the dogfighting ring bankrolled by Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has died.Officials at the Best Friends Animal Society, where nearly two dozen of the Vick dogs were rehabilitated, said Ellen, an 11-year-old pit bull, was euthanized last weekend after a bout with an unknown illness that caused her to lose weight rapidly.Ellen was considered one of the biggest success stories among the Vick dogs. Soon after the dogs were seized from Vick's property in 2007, some experts from humane societies said Ellen and other Vick dogs would be better off dead because they had a small chance of living normal lives.But after several months at Best Friends, Ellen was regarded by people there as one of the friendliest dogs at the sanctuary.