Pit bulls kill a small child in SA (Howe: insurance, buy)

[wCat]

First of all....I believe the infant was a boy. And the grandmother tried to stab the dogs to death and they mauled her as well. She's now at University Hospital suffering from severe wounds. Nothing was said whether the dogs were hers, or if they should have been outside.....nor any comment from the parents. Only an aunt that said the little boy was "sweet"....with no comment about the dogs and how they normally behaved.

There is more to this story that will come out. I have a feeling g-ma was clueless .....in more ways than one.

It's really tragic from any angle.

[majormadmax]

I have no qualms about shooting any animal that attacks and appears to be attacking me or anyone else.

I was riding my motorcycle through a neighborhood on Friday and had a large dog come running after me while the owner stood in his yard watching it all.

Luckily, I had the ability to ride off before the dog caught me; but I half felt like stopping and shooting the damn animal right in front of the owner, then calling the police and telling them I was attacked as I was. I would then hire one of those TV lawyers to sue the pants off of the idiot owner who was standing there.

Heck, I should've just shot him as well...it would've done the world a favor!

Cheers! M2

[gwrober]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

I have no qualms about shooting any animal that attacks and appears to be attacking me or anyone else.

I was riding my motorcycle through a neighborhood on Friday and had a large dog come running after me while the owner stood in his yard watching it all.

Luckily, I had the ability to ride off before the dog caught me; but I half felt like stopping and shooting the damn animal right in front of the owner, then calling the police and telling them I was attacked as I was. I would then hire one of those TV lawyers to sue the pants off of the idiot owner who was standing there.

Heck, I should've just shot him as well...it would've done the world a favor!

Cheers! M2

I would have supported you on that one.

[Bo]

It seems like the insurance industry may address this issue before the government does. More homeowners insurance companies are refusing to insure homeowners who own certain breeds of dogs. I know that one of the questions we had to answer when we changed insurance providers was whether we owned dogs and what breed they were.

Since most homes are mortgaged and mortgage holders require insurance, it will be difficult for dog owners to avoid restrictions set by their insurance provider.

[miche111e]

I've heard a suggestion that people with dangerous dogs should be made to take out an extra insurance policy on their pets. I think it's a good idea, but I am not sure how that could be enforced. Of course, that doesn't address the issue of dogs attacking people, but it might make people think twice before buying one of these dogs. In a perfect world, at least.

I had a 13 year old pit bull who just passed away in January. I would have taken out the extra insurance on her. She was a very sweet dog, but when kids came to visit, I'd put her away. You just never know with dogs.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by mpd33

You can't blame the breed.

The statistics would lead me to believe that isn't true. Think of how many dog breeds there are, literally hundreds, and then take into consideration that most of the attacks are caused by only three breeds:

"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% 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. Clifton states:

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.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "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."

[rd2007]

-begin
I'm going to have a serious issue with Westcreek looking to ban specific breeds of dogs. That is ignorance at its highest level. Sue the irresponsible owners, like the fool a couple doors down from me. They have them and can't control them, but it's all the OWNERS fault. The dog can never be in control of the house and any owner that allows that is worthless. My dogs all know who the boss is in the house because I make sure they do what I want them to do. I of course let them have fun and love playing with them, but I'm still in control.
The fools that use them as a status symbol are the worst. It's almost always males who are trying to project a tough guy image, because they are weak inside. This topic always gets on my nerves.. I'd much rather live in a world filled with dogs than the current one that is overflowing with a never-ending supply of worthless humans.
-end rant

[mpd33]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "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."

Exactly my point. Much like any other thing that can be dangerous, they should be handled with precautions. Regulation, by nature, would punish the law-abiding, conscientious citizens who own these dogs and take these precautions.

[mpd33]

Originally Posted by rd2007

-begin
I'm going to have a serious issue with Westcreek looking to ban specific breeds of dogs. That is ignorance at its highest level. Sue the irresponsible owners, like the fool a couple doors down from me. They have them and can't control them, but it's all the OWNERS fault. The dog can never be in control of the house and any owner that allows that is worthless. My dogs all know who the boss is in the house because I make sure they do what I want them to do. I of course let them have fun and love playing with them, but I'm still in control.
The fools that use them as a status symbol are the worst. It's almost always males who are trying to project a tough guy image, because they are weak inside. This topic always gets on my nerves.. I'd much rather live in a world filled with dogs than the current one that is overflowing with a never-ending supply of worthless humans.
-end rant

And what he said.

[rd2007]

well, we obviously need to ban cars because they cause WAY more deaths than pit bulls.. same goes for almost every other product we use and everything we eat and drink.
Ron White will always have it right, you can't fix stupid. you also can't ban it, legislate it, or regulate it.