It's time we ban pitbulls

[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.