Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are not killers. You are not informed. But with your posts you have gone beyond being not informed. You are now in ignoramus territory because you are not willing to listen to people who have experience with pit bulls. Don't believe me? Speak to a vet or a shelter worker. Ask them if pit bulls are born killers.
First, all of my comments have been offered with support. Is the CDC full of ignoramuses? Don't think so.
Second, I'm sure that after you read all of the links to the studies I provided, you've reasonably held the position you had at the start. I'm curious about your reasoning. Do share.
Third, I've never called anyone names or characterized with cheap language their logic.
I've spoken to vets, and I've lived in neighborhoods that suffered from multiple pit bull attacks. So, I have published support, expert testimony, and personal experience. Evidently, those sorts of things don't matter when "stickin' to yer guns" matters more than reason or logic.
I've spoken to vets, and I've lived in neighborhoods that suffered from multiple pit bull attacks.
This now, finally, explains where you are coming from. You have lived in areas with pond scum pretendeing to be humans whom mis-raised, mis-treated, and basically abused the animals to the point of causing mayhem in your neighborhood. If I remember, and I frankly do not, Florida?
Again, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water based on your own experiences with stupid humans that ruined it for the rest of us-responsible dog guardians. Along those lines, because you lived among trash that was of the human species, perhaps all us humans should be banned and eliminated since you have had some bad experiences. In my experience, a stoopid angry human with a gun, a car, a knife, or their own hands are VERY dangerous, unpredicable, and are VERY hard to re-train to become a civil productive member of society. So, I think we should ban them all
First, all of my comments have been offered with support. Is the CDC full of ignoramuses? Don't think so.
Second, I'm sure that after you read all of the links to the studies I provided, you've reasonably held the position you had at the start. I'm curious about your reasoning. Do share.
Third, I've never called anyone names or characterized with cheap language their logic.
I've spoken to vets, and I've lived in neighborhoods that suffered from multiple pit bull attacks. So, I have published support, expert testimony, and personal experience. Evidently, those sorts of things don't matter when "stickin' to yer guns" matters more than reason or logic.
But you don't have published support. You mention the CDC. If you read some of these links you posted the CDC says that it would be unfair to ban certain breeds since the dogs are not naturally like that.
Your links and studies do you support your specific claims (these dogs are naturally aggressive, etc) and do not provide complete information, or information different from what you are claiming. In fact other links and studies posted show the opposite of what you are claiming.
This now, finally, explains where you are coming from. You have lived in areas with pond scum pretendeing to be humans whom mis-raised, mis-treated, and basically abused the animals to the point of causing mayhem in your neighborhood. If I remember, and I frankly do not, Florida?
Again, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water based on your own experiences with stupid humans that ruined it for the rest of us-responsible dog guardians. Along those lines, because you lived among trash that was of the human species, perhaps all us humans should be banned and eliminated since you have had some bad experiences. In my experience, a stoopid angry human with a gun, a car, a knife, or their own hands are VERY dangerous, unpredicable, and are VERY hard to re-train to become a civil productive member of society. So, I think we should ban them all
Call them what you want, I'm looking to solve the problem. In all likelihood I won't be able to regulate against people being stupid. It is more likely that I will be able to support regulations against stupid people owning harmful creatures.
Point is, which is the best way to solve the problem? Get rid of the animals that kill people.
First, let's say I concede the point that they bite more often (which I don't), that statistics show that they kill far more often when they do (30% of deaths by bite are caused by 3% of the population), this alone supports my contention that they should be banned. Banning the dog would reduce deaths by bite by 30%. Seems very sensible to me.
Second, you've never refuted the Clifton statement that statistics show that pit bulls (the animals with aggression bred out of them) uniquely bite adults equally as much as children. You've ignored this.
Third, all dogs have aggression bred out of them, or else they wouldn't live in homes. Still, that statistics vary between breeds is a concession that you can't obliterate aggression.
But let's look at your weak arguments:
Garmin: Animal experts and links provided would disagree with you on this (BUT YOU NEVER CITE THEM.). What makes you such an expert on the subject? Because you say so? (NEVER CLAIMED TO BE, I'VE JUST READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT).Dog experts, vets, and articles on the history of the breeds state that you can breed them so that they are "nicer" to humans than they are to other animals. (KEY WORD IS "NICER." I'VE REASONED FROM THE START THAT YOU CAN'T BREED AN ANIMAL TO BE AN AGGRESSIVE HUNTER THAT FIGHTS BEAR AND BULLS AND EXPECT THEM TO BE A RELATIVELY DOCILE BREED. THAT REASONING MAKES SENSE, AND YOU DO NOTHING TO MITIGATE IT OTHER THAN TO POINT OUT THAT I'M NOT AN EXPERT, A POINT I'VE BEEN WILLING TO GRANT FROM THE START. NEVERTHELESS, I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AVAILABLE FACTS BY CONCEDING WHAT IS A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT.) They state that human aggression was bred out of the animal. How many experts in the field have you actually spoken with? (I'VE SPOKEN WITH TWO VETS IN THE LAST WEEK WHO TOLD ME THAT WHILE YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT A DOG THAT IT WILL ATTACK, NEITHER WOULD INTRODUCE A PIT BULL INTO THEIR HOUSE TO PLAY WITH THEIR OWN CHILDREN). I think they are going to know a little more about this subject over you. (I AGREE)
So you only agree with something when it supports your narrow minded opinion? (NO, I AGREE WITH SOMETHING WHEN SUPPORTING MATERIAL IS PROVIDED). Other links that you posted do not give all of the information you are requesting for the temperament study but you take that as gospel. (IT IS ALL THAT I HAVE, BUT AN EXHAUSTIVE COLLECTION OF BITE DATA IS FAR MORE COMPELLING THAN SCORES BASED UPON VOLUNTARY TESTS). And how do you know that somebody with a "vicious" animal will not bring it in to be tested? (WHY WOULD THEY? WOULD THEY NEED A TEST TO KNOW THAT THE DOG IS VICIOUS? IF I HAVE AN ANGRY CHOW CHOW, I CAN BRING THAT DOG IN WITHOUT BEING KILLED. I CAN GET HARMED, BUT I CAN MANAGE THE SPECIES. A PIT BULL IS MORE LIKELY TO KILL ME. I MUST REALLY BE INTERESTED IN A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF DOG TEMPERAMENT TO BRING AN ANGRY BITING PIT BULL FOR THE ATTS TEST). Because you say so? (MAKES SENSE, DOESN'T IT). Now you are reduced to making assumptions. And no, a full 20% did not fail the test if you look at the numbers. around 84% of the apbt's passed. Around 83% of the am staff terriers passed and around 92% of the Bull terriers passed. (GRANTED)
I am not saying that one breed is adding all of the bites. You keep bringing this up. For all we know American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers and American Pit Bull Terriers could all have equal amounts. (I KEEP BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST ASSERTING THAT OTHER DOGS ARE INFLATING THE STATISTICS, DRAWING THE BITE NUMBERS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM FROM X FOR 3% OF THE DOG POPULATION TO 30% OF BITES. THAT IS AN ENORMOUS DISTORTION. WHAT DO YOU THINK ACCOUNTS FOR THAT? IT STANDS TO REASON THAT YOUR UNFAIR CATEGORIZING SCENARIO IS UNLIKELY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBERS).
No you can't assume that since the report does not represent what you are claiming. (FINE - THEN I WILL RELY ON THE CLIFTON STUDY THAT STATED THAT ONLY REPORTED BITES WERE REPORTED. THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING HERE ANYWAY.) You are claiming "bites" while the report is claiming serious attacks that require extensive treatment. (AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS A DEFENSE OF PIT BULLS, BUT I'LL GRANT THAT POINT - THAT PIT BULLS ACCOUNT FOR 30% OF BITES REQUIRING EXTENSIVE TREATMENT. I DON'T THINK YOU MADE UP MUCH GROUND THERE). Two very very different things. A simple bite that requires a few stitches would not be included. (I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE BITES ANYWAY). Since you are trying to claim these dogs bite more often, you would need all information.
Actually it does if you are trying to prove a claim that a dog is more aggressive and bites more than other dogs. (AGAIN, I'LL CONCEDE - THOUGH ONLY BECAUSE YOU INSIST ON AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD, AS ALL BITES AREN'T RECORDED. STILL, YOU ARE ACCEPTING A REALITY THAT MAKES QUITE CLEAR THAT PIT BULLS AND ROTTWEILERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 60%+ OF SERIOUS BITING INCIDENTS). You would need information from all breeds and all bite incidents, not some breeds and certain attacks. (FIRST, FOR REASONS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES, THAT INFORMATION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. AS IS CERTAINTY ON ANYTHING REALLY. REGARDLESS, YOU PROCEED WHEN FORMULATING PUBLIC POLICY ON POLICY THAT STANDS TO REASON. IN THIS CASE, IF YOU CAN ATTRIBUTE 30% OF SERIOUS BITING INCIDENTS TO ONE BREED, YOU ARE LIKELY TO SOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEM BY BANNING THE OFFENDING ANIMAL). You have not supported your broad claim yet.
If the stats do not exist then you can not jump to conclusions like you are. (SERIOUSLY, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN ENTERING MY CONCLUSION WITH CERTAINTY IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY. I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING MY SON.) You are condemning a dog based on partial stats. That is not logical. (ACTUALLY, IT IS LOGICAL FOR REASONS I'VE ALREADY STATED. LET'S USE A SYLLOGISM. MAJOR PREMISE: PIT BULLS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 30% OF SERIOUS BITING INCIDENTS AGAINST HUMANS. MINOR PREMISE: I AM A HUMAN. CONCLUSION: THE PRESENCE OF PIT BULLS INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF ME EXPERIENCING A SERIOUS BITE. ERADICATING THE BREED WOULD PROFOUNDLY DECREASE MY CHANCES OF A SERIOUS BITE BY DOG.
I took the number of dogs (2-3% of 74 million dogs) and compared that to the number of fatal attacks from sites that you provided. That gives you a very small amount of these dogs that are participating in these attacks. (THEY DON'T GET PROPS FOR BEHAVING. THEY GET KNOCKED FOR MISBEHAVING. SHARK BITES ARE EXTREMELY RARE, AS IS LIGHTING STRIKES ON HUMAN HEADS. REGARDLESS, WE DO WHAT WE CAN TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF EXPERIENCING BOTH. STILL, WHILE SHARKS PERFORM A FUNCTION IN THE ECOSYSTEM, THERE IS NO PURPOSE FOR PIT BULLS OTHER THAN AS A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF HOW COOL A DOG YOU HAVE.
Reduced to absurdity because you said so? (NO, YOU ARE ACCUSED OF REDUCING MY ARGUMENT TO A POINT OF ABSURDITY BECAUSE I NEVER RECOMMENDED THE THINGS YOU SAID, AND THE THINGS YOU SAID ARE RIDICULOUS. USING THEM IS A RHETORIC EFFORT TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT ABSURD WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE SUPPORT OR THE REASONING.) How do you know that a person is willfully getting injured playing sports? (A PERSON ASSUMES A RISK WHEN S/HE PLAYS A SPORT. WHILE THERE IS A CALCULABLE RISK THAT I ASSUME WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH MY SON AND GETTING HIT BY A CAR, NO ONE BARGAINS FOR A JUGULAR RIPPING PIT BULL THROAT POUNCE. DOG OWNERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. IT'S WHY YOU DON'T HAVE A WOLF AS A PET, THEY KILL PEOPLE. LIKEWISE, YOUR BREED KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH, AND I THINK ITS HISTORY WARRANTS A BAN). You only bring up the sports analogy. Why not ban cars. (THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. START A THREAD, AND I'LL DISCUSS IT). A small percentage of cars are involved killing pedestrians each year. Using your logic we should ban those. (NO, BECAUSE IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO WITH MUCH MORE TO CONSIDER. SOCIETY RELIES FAR MORE ON AUTOMOBILES THAN IT DOES ON VICIOUS DOGS).
Call them what you want, I'm looking to solve the problem. In all likelihood I won't be able to regulate against people being stupid. It is more likely that I will be able to support regulations against stupid people owning harmful creatures.
Point is, which is the best way to solve the problem? Get rid of the animals that kill people.
"Get rid of the animals that kill people."
Very nice. Eliminate a whole portion of the canine species because you "won't be able to regulate against people being stupid."
It's too simplistic an answer to a complicated problem, but Lord knows we have had crazies in power who have done things like this because THEY perceived someone or something to be a problem, like Hitler "getting rid of the type of people that in his opinion were harmful to other humans."
I noticed you didn't answer this query (and that's unusual because you answer EVERY query addressed to you):
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239
But you don't have published support. You mention the CDC. If you read some of these links you posted the CDC says that it would be unfair to ban certain breeds since the dogs are not naturally like that.
Your links and studies do you support your specific claims (these dogs are naturally aggressive, etc) and do not provide complete information, or information different from what you are claiming. In fact other links and studies posted show the opposite of what you are claiming.
Edited to say: Please address the CDC's claim "that it would be unfair to ban certain breeds since the dogs are not naturally like that," as per garmin239's post. As you, yourself, said the CDC is not full of ignoramuses. Evidently they don't support your solution to the problem.
I am realistic, I do understand Newbie. But, I like to think out of the box and push limits...so why can't we work on being able to solve the real problem here...the humans? Why can't we work on regulating and protecting ourselves against people being more than stupid, they are harmful and a disgrace to all of us.
MY point is, I think, IMHO, the best way to solve the problem is NOT to "get rid of" the innocent victims (the dogs in this case), but to get RID of the guilty parties............the humans that raise, encourage, and harbor an innocent life to do their azzbackward bidding to make themselves feel like "real men." In other words, get rid of the humans that train animals to harm people-to play off your last line.
you know I am jousting with you at this point, however I think that a balanced discussion is a fruitful one. And, you know I completely disagree with breed bans, breed discrimination, and a media frenzy fueling a fire that needs no fuel.
John I am soo sorry to hear about this attack. I would have been scared out of my mind. I carry pepper spay when i take my dog for a walk. Got it at big 5 sporting.
I can not believe what i am reading. Ban dogs because of stupid owners? I have a mixed rottwieler/Shepard (and who knows what else). I did not get her because she is a bad @ss dog, I rescued her from a shelter at 4 mos. old and fell in love. We made sure she was trained well knowing she is a big dog. She is the sweetest dog ever. COULD she bite me or the kids? yes. If she was hurt or confused.... Would she bite an intruder. yes. Little dogs attack too. I could go on and on but I can't type all night. My point of this post is:
It makes me sick that ppl think we should ban certain kinds of dogs, which means killing them! Shame on that way of thinking!
Last edited by allylang1; 04-29-2008 at 09:15 PM..
Reason: Attacking personaly?
John I am soo sorry to hear about this attack. I would have been scared out of my mind. I carry pepper spay when i take my dog for a walk. Got it at big 5 sporting.
I can not believe what i am reading. Ban dogs because of stupid owners? I have a mixed rottwieler/Shepard (and who knows what else). I did not get her because she is a bad @ss dog, I rescued her from a shelter at 4 mos. old and fell in love. We made sure she was trained well knowing she is a big dog. She is the sweetest dog ever. COULD she bite me or the kids? yes. If she was hurt or confused.... Would she bite an intruder. yes. Little dogs attack too. I could go on and on but I can't type all night. My point of this post is:
It makes me sick that ppl think we should ban certain kinds of dogs, which means killing them! Shame on that way of thinking!
Silly, silly allylang1! [insert sarcasm, lots of it] Look how China deals with dogs if there is any rabies found in the country! They take ALL DOGS from their owners and KILL THEM. Here's what we should be doing to pitbulls! Rotties, Great Danes, and lots of others too! Why not? KILL THEM ALL! Might as well get used to it and start with pitbulls since China will own us anyway when we can't pay back all the debt our wonderful government is racking up to keep the blood flowing in Iraq.
Check out this pic! (Just imagine it's a pitbull to keep with the spirit of our conversation on here.)
Bash that bad KILLER dog to pieces with a stick! It might have rabies so let's just kill it! Got that logic?
DOGS = MIGHT HAVE RABIES, SO KILL THEM ALL.
PITBULLS = MIGHT BITE OR HURT PEOPLE, SO KILL THEM ALL.
Maybe we can build concentration camps for pitbulls!
Too bad we don't eat dog! Wait there's a good way to pay back some of the national debt! Kill all pitbulls, butcher them, and export their meat to dog eating countries. Maybe we can make friends with North Korea again this way! ***Knock knock*** "Hi North Korea! Would you be interested in some cheap dog meat as a peace gesture? It's pitbull meat from killer dogs bred to be super muscular!"
Enough of this BS about any dog can be trained to be "bad". It should be illegal to own a Pit Bull, and the breed needs to be terminated. These dogs were created to fight and kill, pure and simple. Pits are the most evil breed (next to a chihuahua).
Your post was amusing especially the part about the chihuahua. History states that they were bred to fight other dogs not humans, where are you getting your information from?
And illegal and terminated? Wishful thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No
Just Kill Them All!
