Main > Everything Else
I'm amazed at how many people have the wrong idea...
patrickl:
It's more evidence than your claim that *your* pitbul is never going to maul someone. Just read any newsarticle about a dog maiming a person where the owner is interviewed and you will see the "my dog was the sweetest ever" type response.
But sure, if you want some facts:
Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September 1982 to November 13, 2006
Pit bulls and their mixes are responsible for 1182 (54%) of attacks that were included in the study, 521 (46%) of the attacks upon children, 410 (62%) of the attacks upon adults, 110 (42%) of the deaths, and 636 (48%) of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. The next most dangerous dog is the Rottweiler with about a 20% share of all the dog attacks. Indeed all dogs can be dangerous. Other breeds of dogs are also involved in attacks, but all of them together are only responsible for less than 30% of all attacks.
In other words, Pit bulls (and Rottweilers) are disproportionally dangerous and usually show no sign of being aggressive before their damaging attack.
--- Quote ---Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern: children are normally at greatest risk from dogbite because they play with dogs more often, have less experience in reading dog behavior, are more likely to engage in activity that alarms or stimulates a dog, and are less able to defend themselves when a dog becomes aggressive. Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost always the victims.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Any law strong enough and directed enough to prevent the majority of life-threatening 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. Such discrimination will never be popular with the owners of these breeds, especially those who believe their dogs are neither dangerous nor likely to turn dangerous without strong provocation. Neither will breed discrimination ever be acceptable to those who hold out for an interpretation of animal rights philosophy which holds that all breeds are created equal. One might hope that educating the public against the acquisition of dangerous dogs would help; but the very traits that make certain breeds dangerous also appeal to a certain class of dog owner. Thus publicizing their potentially hazardous nature has tended to increase these breeds' popularity.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.
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.
--- End quote ---
MikeQ:
--- Quote from: tommy on October 27, 2007, 07:54:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: patrickl on October 26, 2007, 04:30:34 am ---you know what "our" problem is? That's almost the exact same thing all owners of pitbulls say when questioned by the police after their pitbull has just mauled someone.
--- End quote ---
That's not evidence or even worth repeating. Who said that? How do you know all the circumstances are the same and how do you know the dog was trained? The dog could have been acting nice at one point and not have been trained, then was said to have thought to have been a "nice" dog that snapped. It's not credable. It's all worthless information not heard first hand and not from a person who knows anything about anything. No facts, no background, just what went on at that point in time and that's not enough to prove anything.
--- End quote ---
That is exactly what the detective in this case said:
--- Quote ---"This was a responsible owner. These animals never had any history of any type of aggression," said Animal Crimes Detective Annie Henderson.
"They were house pets, and they literally slept with her when he wasn't home. She would take them out and put them in their pen and walk them and stuff," he said.
--- End quote ---
Middleburg Woman Killed By Her Pit Bulls
http://www.news4jax.com/news/14250768/detail.html
shmokes:
--- Quote from: tommy on October 27, 2007, 07:54:42 pm ---
No facts, no background, just what went on at that point in time and that's not enough to prove anything.
--- End quote ---
Tommy, what did I tell you? You cannot win the facts argument. The facts aren't on your side. Pit bulls are more dangerous than other types of dogs. Deep down you know this is true. In fact, it's why you like them. It's why, when you want to tell someone how to protect their house, you tell them to get a pit bull.
Regardless, though, you can't win the facts argument. Stop wasting your time. The only chance you have is the policy argument.
tommy:
Shmokes, try making a case for what you believe in instead of telling me to give up on what i believe, you say you agree with me then lets hear what you got. Make a case for pit bulls and stop laying down for the majority here that have the wrong idea about these dogs. You might even learn something that could help you on your way towards your goal if you can present a decent enough case.
I challenge shmokes to pretend this is his first case and i want to see what he has learned thus far and how you would go about making a jury or board members here see things your way.
Start with an opening statement. I'm sure many people here would read what you have to say and consider you more credible than i come across at times.
jbox:
Uh, what thread have you been reading?
How does:
(a) pit bulls are more dangerous then other dogs; however
(b) banning something must always be done with caution
somehow equate to "pit bulls are snuggly-wuggly-floofy-bears that just love children so much they want to eat them"? ???
We ban people from having their own fireworks factory without the proper licensing and auditing even though we (in many places) let them buy and set-off other people's fireworks. Same principle here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version