Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[ChainsawU]

Some highlights of this article.https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-recent-dog-bite-statistics.php

Are you sure that you want to cite the website dogsbite.org as a credible source? Because this is exactly what I am trying to say for the last year on here:

I don't think we should jump to conclusions on a lot of things that we read, and I think that is a very topical issue that exists on a much broader, more important scope than just pit bulls or dig-bite fatalities.

Have you done any research whatsoever on the website or are you just copying and pasting information?

 

[IC FBGCav]

So you don't watch your 7 year old and it walks/climbs into a fenced area and drowns and it's the homeowners fault?   You guys are delusional, watch your freaking brats.

 

[parasaurolophus]

So you don't watch your 7 year old and it walks/climbs into a fenced area and drowns and it's the homeowners fault?   You guys are delusional, watch your freaking brats.

It can be the fault of the 7 year old and its parents and still be dumb as hell to own a 4 legged devil. 

 

[ChainsawU]

Fair point, but this has been covered in this topic.  It relates to the capacity of pits to cause more harm than others and the aggression of the breed. Some highlights of this article. You have a breed that makes up 6% of the dog population, but contributing to 65% of the deaths.

I tried to find an actual source for the data you cited. There is none except for this:

DogsBite.org contains verifiable information about U.S. citizens killed by dogs including the name and age of each victim, location of attack, dog breed and up to 25 other factors. Our Fatality Citations section documents sources used in our dog bite fatality research. Learn more about our data collection process, which includes collecting breed identification photographs, police and coroner reports in certain cases, legal filings, court filings, legislative materials and more.

DogsBite.org was created by a Web designer named Colleen Lynn who was bitten on the arm twice "for approximately five seconds" by an unaltered male "pit bull mix" while jogging through a Seattle neighborhood in 2007. During the incident, Lynn's arm was fractured, either by the dog or from her subsequent fall to the ground. Lynn sustained seven puncture wounds (equivalent to two total bites), but her broken arm required a stabilizer bar and screws to repair, making her injury serious enough to warrant a dangerous dog investigation. The dog that bit Lynn was subsequently euthanized, and Lynn received a sizable payout from the owners' insurance company.

She then dedicated herself to the promotion of breed-ban laws. Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behavior; neither do the sources she relies on most frequently. Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained the fortune-telling Web site DivineLady.com, on which she referred to herself as "Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul." In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes (The original Divine Lady Web site now redirects to RuneCast.com, owned and operated by Lynn Media Group).

Don't let that stop you from donating to her website though. Your gift allows her life-saving work to continue: https://dogsbite.networkforgood.com/projects/36241-2017-annual-fund

 

[ChainsawU]

It's just some lady who copies and pastes news articles. She hoards all the news articles and calls it scientific research, and then she gives you an opportunity to donate $1000 to her cause.

 

[Wildcat]

Are you sure that you want to cite the website dogsbite.org as a credible source? Because this is exactly what I am trying to say for the last year on here:

Have you done any research whatsoever on the website or are you just copying and pasting information?

If you feel like ignoring it because you don't like the domain name, so be it. 

Is the CDC good enough for you?  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm  Check Table 1.  Of the 199 deaths, pits contributed to 35% of the fatalities.  The next closest was Rottweiler and German Shepherd 15% each.  

 

[Wildcat]

It's just some lady who copies and pastes news articles. She hoards all the news articles and calls it scientific research, and then she gives you an opportunity to donate $1000 to her cause.

The source of the data is cited here:  https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-breeds-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-cdc-2000.php

 

[Wildcat]

So you don't watch your 7 year old and it walks/climbs into a fenced area and drowns and it's the homeowners fault?   You guys are delusional, watch your freaking brats.

That's not what I saying at all.  I'm saying if you choose to own a vicious swimming pool that will attack and drown a child just for going inside a fence, then you should bear some responsibility for owning such a vicious swimming pool.  

 

[eoMMan]

The source of the data is cited here:  https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-breeds-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-cdc-2000.php

But once you eliminate pit bulls, don't you think that a lot of the irresponsible pit bull owners will just buy the next "cool" powerful dog such as a Rottie?

My point is that if you have 100 irresponsible pit bull owners....take their dogs away and give them a rottweiler/Cane Corso mastiff/etc.....the dog fatalities won't really drop like you think they would.

 

[eoMMan]

That's not what I saying at all.  I'm saying if you choose to own a vicious swimming pool that will attack and drown a child just for going inside a fence, then you should bear some responsibility for owning such a vicious swimming pool.  

 

[Wildcat]

But once you eliminate pit bulls, don't you think that a lot of the irresponsible pit bull owners will just buy the next "cool" powerful dog such as a Rottie?

My point is that if you have 100 irresponsible pit bull owners....take their dogs away and give them a rottweiler/Cane Corso mastiff/etc.....the dog fatalities won't really drop like you think they would.

Given your argument, why do you think these owners are choosing pit bulls?  Do you think it might have something to do with how this breed is more dangerous?  By your own hypothesis you are admitting that.

 

[IC FBGCav]

That's not what I saying at all.  I'm saying if you choose to own a vicious swimming pool that will attack and drown a child just for going inside a fence, then you should bear some responsibility for owning such a vicious swimming pool.  

Well, if you can't fence dogs that don't like kids just kill them all?   Or is it just easier to watch the kid and not let them go on to other people's property and open fences?  

 

[IC FBGCav]

I get it, you don't want to watch your kids and they are a PITA so you throw them outside to get out of your hair but at some point you have to be responsible for them.   You can't euthanize them but adoption is always a decent option.

 

[modogg]

The source of the data is cited here:  https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-breeds-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-cdc-2000.php

 

[eoMMan]

Given your argument, why do you think these owners are choosing pit bulls?  Do you think it might have something to do with how this breed is more dangerous?  By your own hypothesis you are admitting that.

I blame DMX.

 

[modogg]

can we go back to hating on Dobermans and whatever kind of dog "Cujo" was (a general mastiff, I am really not sure). The pitbull thing seems wayyyy overdone, let's just go back little more and re-hash those fights.

 

[Wildcat]

Bang all you want, but from what I can tell, the study that is cited is valid. 

 

[ChainsawU]

If you feel like ignoring it because you don't like the domain name, so be it. Is the CDC good enough for you?  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm  Check Table 1.  Of the 199 deaths, pits contributed to 35% of the fatalities.  The next closest was Rottweiler and German Shepherd 15% each.

It's just not enough to say that the study is "valid." From that study (I copied and pasted):

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, because death-certificate data were not available, the two sources used for case finding in 1995-1996 probably underestimated the number of DBRFs and may represent only 74% of actual cases (1,2). Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals (3).

In other words, you have to know how many members of each breed there are in the American dog population. There was no way to calculate "relative risk" by breed. Without a denominator, a numerator is meaningless.

 

[modogg]

Bang all you want, but from what I can tell, the study that is cited is valid. 

from Chainsaw's post before:

DogsBite.org was created by a Web designer named Colleen Lynn who was bitten on the arm twice "for approximately five seconds" by an unaltered male "pit bull mix" while jogging through a Seattle neighborhood in 2007. During the incident, Lynn's arm was fractured, either by the dog or from her subsequent fall to the ground. Lynn sustained seven puncture wounds (equivalent to two total bites), but her broken arm required a stabilizer bar and screws to repair, making her injury serious enough to warrant a dangerous dog investigation. The dog that bit Lynn was subsequently euthanized, and Lynn received a sizable payout from the owners' insurance company.

She then dedicated herself to the promotion of breed-ban laws. Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behavior; neither do the sources she relies on most frequently. Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained the fortune-telling Web site DivineLady.com, on which she referred to herself as "Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul." In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes (The original Divine Lady Web site now redirects to RuneCast.com, owned and operated by Lynn Media Group).

Go ahead and choose whatever website you want, just saying maybe look at the source material.

 

[ChainsawU]

The source of the data is cited here:  https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-breeds-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-cdc-2000.php

From that study (I copied and pasted):

It is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be  accurately  calculated,  they  do  not  factor  in  owner-related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds. Despite  these  limitations  and  concerns,  the  data indicate   that   Rottweilers   and   pit   bull-type   dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between  1997  and  1998.  It  is  extremely  unlikely  that they  accounted  for  anywhere  near  60%  of  dogs  in  the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

 

[ChainsawU]

this feels like a lot of information to just dump out; I'm overwhelmed at this point

 

[Wildcat]

from Chainsaw's post before:

DogsBite.org was created by a Web designer named Colleen Lynn who was bitten on the arm twice "for approximately five seconds" by an unaltered male "pit bull mix" while jogging through a Seattle neighborhood in 2007. During the incident, Lynn's arm was fractured, either by the dog or from her subsequent fall to the ground. Lynn sustained seven puncture wounds (equivalent to two total bites), but her broken arm required a stabilizer bar and screws to repair, making her injury serious enough to warrant a dangerous dog investigation. The dog that bit Lynn was subsequently euthanized, and Lynn received a sizable payout from the owners' insurance company.

She then dedicated herself to the promotion of breed-ban laws. Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behavior; neither do the sources she relies on most frequently. Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained the fortune-telling Web site DivineLady.com, on which she referred to herself as "Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul." In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes (The original Divine Lady Web site now redirects to RuneCast.com, owned and operated by Lynn Media Group).

Go ahead and choose whatever website you want, just saying maybe look at the source material.

I'm not sure why the motivation or the history of the website creator matters if her data is credible.  The article that is cited is valid which includes the CDC statistics.  

 

[IC FBGCav]

can we go back to hating on Dobermans and whatever kind of dog "Cujo" was (a general mastiff, I am really not sure). The pitbull thing seems wayyyy overdone, let's just go back little more and re-hash those fights.

Cujo was a St Bernard.   An acquaintance had one that went Cujo.  He had to put him down at 2. 

 

[Wildcat]

this feels like a lot of information to just dump out; I'm overwhelmed at this point

 See you in a few weeks when the next pit bull kills a kid.

 

[ChainsawU]

 See you in a few weeks when the next pit bull kills a kid.

Thanks. Just for my own sanity - and you don't have to answer if you don't want to - but what is the exact point that you arguing again? The point I am arguing is that all dogs have the same potential to kill people, breed-bans do not work, and there is no reason to single out an entire breed of dog.

Also, to a lesser extent, information sources should be researched and not simply taken at face value. Those were my main things.

 

[ChainsawU]

I'm not sure why the motivation or the history of the website creator matters if her data is credible. The article that is cited is valid which includes the CDC statistics.  

When you say this, what do you mean? Does this mean that you agree with the discussion and conclusions of the study? Because you and I share a lot of common ground if that is the case.

 

[ChainsawU]

Also I want to say thank you. Because I have a speech coming up that requires applying a lot of public speaking textbook research techniques and this has been good practice, along with good practice on how to respond to a person in real time, which I'll also need to be able to do.

 

[Foosball God]

Thanks. Just for my own sanity - and you don't have to answer if you don't want to - but what is the exact point that you arguing again? The point I am arguing is that all dogs have the same potential to kill people, breed-bans do not work, and there is no reason to single out an entire breed of dog.

Also, to a lesser extent, information sources should be researched and not simply taken at face value. Those were my main things.

This is a pretty silly statement.  A Dachshunds and a Pit Bull do not have the same potential to kill people.

 

[Wildcat]

When you say this, what do you mean? Does this mean that you agree with the discussion and conclusions of the study? Because you and I share a lot of common ground if that is the case.

My conclusions are that pits are more dangerous and kill people more frequently than any other breed.  There are reasons why people train their pits to be fighters and to be vicious.  This breed has those inherent qualities.

 

[Wildcat]

Thanks. Just for my own sanity - and you don't have to answer if you don't want to - but what is the exact point that you arguing again? The point I am arguing is that all dogs have the same potential to kill people, breed-bans do not work, and there is no reason to single out an entire breed of dog.

Also, to a lesser extent, information sources should be researched and not simply taken at face value. Those were my main things.

I do not believe that all breeds have the same potential to kill.  I believe that pits are, by nature of their breed, more dangerous. 

 

[DallasDMac]

This is a pretty silly statement.  A Dachshunds and a Pit Bull do not have the same potential to kill people.

Yea, that was a really odd statement for him to make.

 

[Otis]

Yea, that was a really odd statement for him to make.

It’s the kind of thing we see repeatedly in here. It’s these kind of logical gymnastics that defenders of these vicious animals regularly use to try and justify their lack of, well, any brains. 

 

[AAABatteries]

I get it, you don't want to watch your kids and they are a PITA so you throw them outside to get out of your hair but at some point you have to be responsible for them.   You can't euthanize them but adoption is always a decent option.

 

 

[modogg]

I'm not sure why the motivation or the history of the website creator matters if her data is credible.  The article that is cited is valid which includes the CDC statistics.  

whole point is the data is not credible, and the original article even cited the extraneous variables in the data that Chainsaw cited. 

this thread may be the worse in which it seems the opposing sides have no interest at all in changing their mind. it's a shame, but if we haven't solved this in 87 pages my guess is we won't.

 

[modogg]

My conclusions are that pits are more dangerous and kill people more frequently than any other breed.  There are reasons why people train their pits to be fighters and to be vicious.  This breed has those inherent qualities.

i got to get out of this black hole, but how many pitbulls currently are in the US and owned? and out of that, how many of those owners actually train these dogs to be fighters?  my guess is significantly less then 1%

 

[Wildcat]

 this thread may be the worse in which it seems the opposing sides have no interest at all in changing their mind. it's a shame, but if we haven't solved this in 87 pages my guess is we won't.

Probably the only thing we agree on

 

[Wildcat]

i got to get out of this black hole, but how many pitbulls currently are in the US and owned? and out of that, how many of those owners actually train these dogs to be fighters?  my guess is significantly less then 1%

Why bother based on your previous post?  Have a good night. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Thanks. Just for my own sanity - and you don't have to answer if you don't want to - but what is the exact point that you arguing again? The point I am arguing is that all dogs have the same potential to kill people, breed-bans do not work, and there is no reason to single out an entire breed of dog.

Also, to a lesser extent, information sources should be researched and not simply taken at face value. Those were my main things.

I am not sure if this is sad or funny. Probably both. Same potential. Jesus christ. You arent even trying.

 

[eoMMan]

Another important point, and it's sort of like a chicken and egg scenario, is that so many of the pit bulls that attack humans and have behavior issues is BECAUSE they were abused, be it from fighting, as a bait dog, or simply abusive owners. They get thrown away like trash and end up in shelters. Sad. 

 

[eoMMan]

I am not sure if this is sad or funny. Probably both. Same potential. Jesus christ. You arent even trying.

Relax. I'm sure he didn't mean a Chihuahua could cause as much damage as a pit bull.

Settle down.

 

[Wildcat]

Another important point, and it's sort of like a chicken and egg scenario, is that so many of the pit bulls that attack humans and have behavior issues is BECAUSE they were abused, be it from fighting, as a bait dog, or simply abusive owners. They get thrown away like trash and end up in shelters. Sad. 

It is sad, agreed.  But again, why do owners such as this choose pits?  What makes an abused pit bull more dangerous than other abused breeds?  If you answer honestly, we probably will have some common ground.   

 

[parasaurolophus]

Relax. I'm sure he didn't mean a Chihuahua could cause as much damage as a pit bull.

Settle down.

A golden retriever is even a dumb comparison. 

 

[eoMMan]

A golden retriever is even a dumb comparison. 

You mean like this golden retriever that killed a 2 month old baby?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/months-infant-mauling-dog-attack-mcgrew-home-article-1.1237732

 

[ChainsawU]

I am not sure if this is sad or funny. Probably both. Same potential. Jesus christ. You arent even trying.

Who hurt you?

 

[ChainsawU]

All dogs have the same potential to hurt/kill. A Pomeranian killed a six-week-old. A golden retriever killed a two-month-old. Just because you can't fit the breed into the gruesome, bloody, Hollywood narrative you're picturing in your mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's another argument on why all these ridiculous news stories hook you in so easily against "pit bulls."

 

[parasaurolophus]

You mean like this golden retriever that killed a 2 month old baby?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/months-infant-mauling-dog-attack-mcgrew-home-article-1.1237732

You trying to look silly? Nobody said golden retrievers can't kill a baby.

Doesnt change the fact that a golden retriever is not just as likely to kill somebody as a pitbull. 

The merits of breed bans, ethical solutions for animal issues, etc all are debatable. 

That statement isnt.

 

[DallasDMac]

All dogs have the same potential to hurt/kill. A Pomeranian killed a six-week-old. A golden retriever killed a two-month-old. Just because you can't fit the breed into the gruesome, bloody, Hollywood narrative you're picturing in your mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's another argument on why all these ridiculous news stories hook you in so easily against "pit bulls."

Sorry, I don't really have a dog in this fight (pun intended). But your first sentence is just truly times several thousand.

 

[ChainsawU]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. And nice pun. But I am being serious. Everything I'm saying relates back to the topic and the points I'd been talking about. I'd kind of checked out of this whole thing for the last 8 hours or so, and while I'd love to humor you I just don't have time right now. Please take the time and read the conversation from the last 24 hours if this stuff doesn't make sense to you. Come on man. Stop sending me alerts to show me "I'm dumb" or that you have a sick pun up your sleeve.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You mean like this golden retriever that killed a 2 month old baby?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/months-infant-mauling-dog-attack-mcgrew-home-article-1.1237732

That said it was a mix!!@!@@

Sorry couldnt resist.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

We get it.  There simply is no definitive study from an source beyond question.  That said, there are studies, and they comport with common sense, and even if they are flawed the flaws are not so massive as to negate their essential import.  Pits, among or along with a few other breeds are unusually capable and deadly animals.  They are true to their breed.  Their capabilities attract some of the wrong owners and wrong attention, but they are several magnitudes more dangerous than a peekapoo.  Those arguing the obvious flaws in the studies are doing so for their own obvious biases.  You are not educating us on the flaws, the flaws are well known.  So too the propensities and capabilities of these animals. The only education you are providing is insight into yourselves.