It's time we ban pitbulls

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Dayze

nothing wrong with Pitts at all. any animal can be turned into a viscious animal.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I decided to do a little research and see if pit bulls are more likely to be vicious than other dogs. I found this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States .



Interesting.

This obviously proves nothing regarding what breed of dog is more likely to be vicious. But it does appear that one breed of dog does most of the killing.

[KC_Lee]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

This obviously proves nothing regarding what breed of dog is more likely to be vicious. But it does appear that one breed of dog does most of the killing.

No what it proves is what breed of dog is being exploited, bred and trained by the lowest rungs of humanity to be vicious.

Let's be honest here for a bit; take a bunch of small dicked jackasses and tell them that owning a pit bull will make them tough and you get bunch of jackasses breeding these dogs to be what these other small dicked jackasses want. So now we have jackasses warping and manipulating a certain breed of dog to sell to other jackasses. This is the problem, not the dog per se but what has happened to the bred over time.

Let's pretend that by some stroke all pit bulls are gone, no longer here. What's next? Do we get a stories of vicious rotties and that this breed must be banned!

[Lex Luthor]

Why are the vast majority of dog-bite fatalities caused by pit bulls?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

This is what you call prima facie evidence that pit bulls are dangerous.

The pit bull lovers refuse to acknowledge this, but the fact is that pit bulls are dangerous because they have such a powerful bite. All it takes it one second in the lifetime of the dog for a tragedy to occur.

A few years ago I had a Yorkie who was the most gentle dog in the world. One day we were playing, and the most gentle dog in the world suddenly bit me on the hand. He immediately realized what he had done, looked me in the eye with the most human look I've ever seen on a dog, and then he ran like hell. His bite didn't even break the skin. If that Yorkie had been a pit bull, I'd have pulled back a bloody stump. And instead of running away, he may very well have decided to just finish me off, because pit bulls are known to do that and have the strength to do that. If my Yorkie had tried to finish me off, I'd have picked him and thrown him against the wall.

Some animals are just too dangerous to have in a home, especially a home with children or in a neighborhood with children. I don't give a shit about the anecdotal evidence people provide about their personal pit bulls who were perfect little angels and the bestest dogs ever. 99% of them may be, but the 1% who are killers make the breed too dangerous to have as pets. It's trivially easy to find reports of children killed by the family pit bull. Invariably the parents are hysterically sobbing "But he was the most gentle animal ever! He never bit anyone ever ever before!"

Banning pit bulls is nothing like banning guns. An unattended gun won't escape from its pen or jump a fence and kill people. Pit Bulls can and do.

Hog Farmer nailed it when he said "Guns don't kill people. Pit bulls do.".

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Why are the vast majority of dog-bite fatalities caused by pit bulls?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

This is what you call prima facie evidence that pit bulls are dangerous.

The pit bull lovers refuse to acknowledge this, but the fact is that pit bulls are dangerous because they have such a powerful bite. All it takes it one second in the lifetime of the dog for a tragedy to occur.

A few years ago I had a Yorkie who was the most gentle dog in the world. One day we were playing, and the most gentle dog in the world suddenly bit me on the hand. He immediately realized what he had done, looked me in the eye with the most human look I've ever seen on a dog, and then he ran like hell. His bite didn't even break the skin. If that Yorkie had been a pit bull, I'd have pulled back a bloody stump. And instead of running away, he may very well have decided to just finish me off, because pit bulls are known to do that and have the strength to do that. If my Yorkie had tried to finish me off, I'd have picked him and thrown him against the wall.

Some animals are just too dangerous to have in a home, especially a home with children or in a neighborhood with children. I don't give a shit about the anecdotal evidence people provide about their personal pit bulls who were perfect little angels and the bestest dogs ever. 99% of them may be, but the 1% who are killers make the breed too dangerous to have as pets. It's trivially easy to find reports of children killed by the family pit bull. Invariably the parents are hysterically sobbing "But he was the most gentle animal ever! He never bit anyone ever ever before!"

Banning pit bulls is nothing like banning guns. An unattended gun won't escape from its pen or jump a fence and kill people. Pit Bulls can and do.

Hog Farmer nailed it when he said "Guns don't kill people. Pit bulls do.".

No that's what you call bullshit. No other breed is misidentified more. Anything that looks even remotely similar to a pit is called a pit. Sometimes the dogs don't even look lit pits get called pits when reporters show up. Several people have put together slideshows where you pick the pit bull out. Google them and see how you do.

Aside from that Pits don't have mutant freakishly powerful jaws. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Rotties bite just as hard as pits yet you aren't suggesting they should be banned.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by KC native

No that's what you call bullshit. No other breed is misidentified more. Anything that looks even remotely similar to a pit is called a pit. Sometimes the dogs don't even look lit pits get called pits when reporters show up. Several people have put together slideshows where you pick the pit bull out. Google them and see how you do.

Aside from that Pits don't have mutant freakishly powerful jaws. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Rotties bite just as hard as pits yet you aren't suggesting they should be banned.

From a study of dog attacks over the 30 year period from 1982 to 2012:

There is a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that pit bulls are overrepresented among reported dog attack deaths and maimings because of misidentifications or because “pit bull” is, according to them, a generic term covering several similar types of dog. However, the frequency of pit bull attacks among these worst-in-10,000 cases is so disproportionate that even if half of the attacks in the pit bull category were misattributed, or even if the pit bull category was split three ways, attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.

There is also a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that the use of media accounts as a data source is somehow suspect. Reality is that media coverage incorporates information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source.

http://mainphrame.com/media/Dog_atta..._June_2012.pdf

Pit Bulls make up 3.3% of the dog population. Between 60% and 70% of dog bite fatalities are caused by Pit Bulls. The statistics speak for themselves.

However, your point about Rotweillers is valid. From the same 30-year study:

Any law strong enough and directed enough to prevent the majority of lifethreatening dog attacks must discriminate heavily against pit bulls, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and perhaps Akitas and chows, who are not common breeds but do seem to be involved in disproportionate numbers of life-threatening attacks.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Pit Bulls make up 3.3% of the dog population. Between 60% and 70% of dog bite fatalities are caused by Pit Bulls. The statistics speak for themselves.

the report says 48%, not 60 or 70
the report does not state that pit bulls make up 3.3% of the population, but that 3.3% of the dogs for sale in June 2011 in online or newspaper ads were pit bulls,

also, the reports blames an average of 11 deaths per year on pit bulls.
and its conclusion:

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull
terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may
behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is
actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but
will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a
pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--
and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their
victims are paying the price.
Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with
special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to
the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by nstygma

the report says 48%, not 60 or 70
the report does not state that pit bulls make up 3.3% of the population, but that 3.3% of the dogs for sale in June 2011 in online or newspaper ads were pit bulls,

also, the reports blames an average of 11 deaths per year on pit bulls.
and its conclusion:

Different sources yield somewhat different statistics, but the ones I've found did nothing to change the basic message: Pit bulls make up a relatively small percentage of the dog population, yet an overwhelmingly large percentage of dog-bite related deaths and/or dog-bite related attacks are caused by pit bulls.

For example:

2011 statistics

• 31 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2011. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 71%. Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
• Notably in 2011, adult victims of fatal pit bull attacks more than doubled the number of child victims. Of the 22 total pit bull victims, 68% (15) fell between the ages of 32 to 76, and 32% (7) were ages 5 years and younger.
• The year 2011 also marks an increase in pet pit bulls killing their owners. Of the 8 total instances this year in which a family dog inflicted fatal injury to its primary caretaker, the dog's owner, 88% (7) involved pet pit bulls.
• Together, pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (4), the number two lethal dog breed, accounted for 84% of all fatal attacks in 2011. In the 7-year period from 2005 to 2011, this same combination accounted for 74% (157) of the total recorded deaths (213).
• The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 7-year period. From 2005 to 2011, pit bulls killed 128 Americans, about one citizen every 20 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 29; about one citizen every 88 days.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...ities-2011.php

The above statistics came from a web site called dogsbite.org, so I can understand the argument that the very name of the web site suggests a certain amount of bias. However, the Centers for Disease Control could hardly be called a biased site. This is what the CDC concluded based upon a 20 year study:

Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pit bulls were blamed for killing 76 people, or 32 percent, during a study of dog attacks from 1979-1998, the study showed. Rottweilers were the second most deadly animal, reportedly killing 44 people, or 18.5 percent, during the same period.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/P...dy-2660139.php

And of course, the table shown below (which I've already posted in this thread) came from Wikipedia.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States


All of these sites support the same basic message: Pit bulls make up a relatively small percentage of the dog population, yet an overwhelmingly large percentage of dog-bite related deaths are caused by pit bulls.

Feel free to post your own links to studies that contradict this basic message. However, if your source is bull911.com and your article is this one, you should probably acknowledge that it states plainly on the front page of the web site that it's a pit bull advocacy site. It dismisses the CDC study with a simple assertion that's not backed up by anything other than the opinion of the owner of the web site.

This might be a good time for me to mention that I've never owned a pit bull, never been attacked by one, nor do I personally know anyone who has been attacked. I don't have an agenda or a pre-conceived bias here. I've just been watching the news reports for years, and based upon that I've drawn my own conclusion. The statistics speak for themselves.

[ndws]

Originally Posted by nstygma

the report says 48%, not 60 or 70
the report does not state that pit bulls make up 3.3% of the population, but that 3.3% of the dogs for sale in June 2011 in online or newspaper ads were pit bulls,

also, the reports blames an average of 11 deaths per year on pit bulls.
and its conclusion:

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull
terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may
behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is
actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but
will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a
pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--
and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their
victims are paying the price.
Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with
special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to
the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all

Interesting. So, if you own a dog that **could** be aggressive, its recommended that the dog be handled with special precautions? You mean responsibility by the owner? Not spam breeding the shit out of them and giving them to every dickwad who wants to toughen their image?

I'm guessing some people think its ok to turn their 15 yr old with a learner's permit to just drive their Ferrari. I would have to think that might yield some unsavory results too. Ban pit bulls. Ban guns. Bubble wrap the whole world for the irresponsible, stupid, and lazy.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Why are the vast majority of dog-bite fatalities caused by pit bulls?


This is what you call prima facie evidence that pit bulls are dangerous.

The pit bull lovers refuse to acknowledge this, but the fact is that pit bulls are dangerous because they have such a powerful bite. All it takes it one second in the lifetime of the dog for a tragedy to occur.

A few years ago I had a Yorkie who was the most gentle dog in the world. One day we were playing, and the most gentle dog in the world suddenly bit me on the hand. He immediately realized what he had done, looked me in the eye with the most human look I've ever seen on a dog, and then he ran like hell. His bite didn't even break the skin. If that Yorkie had been a pit bull, I'd have pulled back a bloody stump. And instead of running away, he may very well have decided to just finish me off, because pit bulls are known to do that and have the strength to do that. If my Yorkie had tried to finish me off, I'd have picked him and thrown him against the wall.

Some animals are just too dangerous to have in a home, especially a home with children or in a neighborhood with children. I don't give a shit about the anecdotal evidence people provide about their personal pit bulls who were perfect little angels and the bestest dogs ever. 99% of them may be, but the 1% who are killers make the breed too dangerous to have as pets. It's trivially easy to find reports of children killed by the family pit bull. Invariably the parents are hysterically sobbing "But he was the most gentle animal ever! He never bit anyone ever ever before!"

Banning pit bulls is nothing like banning guns. An unattended gun won't escape from its pen or jump a fence and kill people. Pit Bulls can and do.

Hog Farmer nailed it when he said "Guns don't kill people. Pit bulls do.".

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

here's a misidentification test.

[candyman]

Originally Posted by KC native

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

here's a misidentification test.

Im a pit lover, but its pretty obvious they picked the smallest, skinniest pit they could find for that. It looks more like a Jack Russel. Needless to say I failed.

Whoever said pits are dumb dogs is dead wrong. Pits are one of the smartest, and most loyal breeds in the world.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by candyman

Im a pit lover, but its pretty obvious they picked the smallest, skinniest pit they could find for that. It looks more like a Jack Russel. Needless to say I failed.

Whoever said pits are dumb dogs is dead wrong. Pits are one of the smartest, and most loyal breeds in the world.

Yes, but that's closer to what they should be. A male pitbull should be between 50-70lbs. A female 40-60lbs. Too many assholes breed them way bigger than they should be.