Pit bull described as "very loving" kills baby in Florida (crimes, companies)
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.
What sells more papers? Pit Bull kills child or Chihuahua kills child? Enough said...
How many dog attacks are actually documented? Only the ones in which someone is seriously hurt or killed. Not if the dog kills another dog, cat, etc. Plus, some states have very strict dog bite laws yet most don't. I find it interesting that so many responses are all about attacking a breed, yet who is putting the blame where it really needs to be directed? To the irresponsible parents. If someone had found the baby unattended, they would be charged with neglect yet the dog killing their baby appears to have saved them from that.
Touch my dog. He'd be far more favorable to you than I would with your genocidal ideals.
I don't think anyone has mentioned anything about killing pit bulls en mass.
My position on this issue is, if you want a pet, it's an excellent idea to get one that's far less likely to kill someone.
There are so many great breeds that have, over time, demonstrated a far less likelihood to kill the neighbor if it gets loose and attacks. You would think that would be a most important consideration when purchasing a family pet.
It's not just the pit bull owner and family that assumes the increased risk of serious injury or worse from a pit bull as opposed to less powerful dogs. It's the people who live nearby who also are forced to assume that risk, which is why insurance companies will drop pit bull owners or charge higher rates to insure them. It's not because insurance companies just don't like pit bulls.
I don't think anyone has mentioned anything about killing pit bulls en mass.
My position on this issue is, if you want a pet, it's an excellent idea to get one that's far less likely to kill someone.
There are so many great breeds that have, over time, demonstrated a far less likelihood to kill the neighbor if it gets loose and attacks. You would think that would be a most important consideration when purchasing a family pet.
It's not just the pit bull owner and family that assumes the increased risk of serious injury or worse from a pit bull as opposed to less powerful dogs. It's the people who live nearby who also are forced to assume that risk, which is why insurance companies will drop pit bull owners or charge higher rates to insure them. It's not because insurance companies just don't like pit bulls.
Newsflash, many large breeds and medium dog breeds are on the "aggressive breed list" by insurance companies, including your examples of labs and goldens.
[quote=lifelongMOgal;16415692]Newsflash, many large breeds and medium dog breeds are on the "aggressive breed list" by insurance companies, including your examples of labs and goldens.
That list does not indicate that insurance companies are raising rates or dropping coverage for owners of all 75 of these breeds. As stated, some are on the list b/c SOMEWHERE in the US, they are under mandatory microchip statutes or mandatory spay or neuter laws.
From what I've read, insurance companies typically use the CDC's most dangerous breed list. Is it a surprise that pit bulls are #1 on that list?
Newsflash, many large breeds and medium dog breeds are on the "aggressive breed list" by insurance companies, including your examples of labs and goldens.
That list does not indicate that insurance companies are raising rates or dropping coverage for owners of all 75 of these breeds. As stated, some are on the list b/c SOMEWHERE in the US, they are under mandatory microchip statutes or mandatory spay or neuter laws.
From what I've read, insurance companies typically use the CDC's most dangerous breed list. Is it a surprise that pit bulls are #1 on that list?
Pit Bull Type
Rottweiler
German Shepherd
Husky Type
Malamute
Wolf-Dog Hybrid
Chow Chow
Doberman
Saint Bernard
Great Dane
So, in this thread you first dismiss CDC information because you claim it is not accurate and "muddies the waters" defering to your own "common sense" as superior to CDC data and now you choose to use other CDC data when it suits you arguement? That is seriously twisted logic lady!
So, in this thread you first dismiss CDC information because you claim it is not accurate and now you choose to use it when it suits you arguement? That is seriously twisted logic lady!
Yeah, you're right. Newspapers only report pit bull attack fatalities and don't report instances where other breeds of dogs kill people because it's not newsworthy. The Wikipedia list of people who were fatally attacked by dogs this year is wrong and failed to include all the people killed by Jack Russell Terriers and insurance companies are denying coverage to Labrador owners everywhere.
I'm going to give this one to Wikipedia. The CDC report muddies the water by saying that we don't know how many dogs of each breed there actually are and they mention that a large majority of attacks are not reported.
That may be true, but this isn't rocket science. I'm going to employ some common sense. When I look at the reported dog attack fatalities from numerous sources, pit bulls, invariably top the list. Rottweilers are second on every list.
As I stated before, it's not because of media bias that we hear of so many horrible pit bull attacks and fatalities, it's because Golden Retrievers and Pomeranians don't kill someone every month or two like pit bulls do.
lol @ trusting Wikipedia over a gov web site.
I have a feeling that is because the Wikipedia tells you want you want to hear.
Do you not get its hard if not really impossible to have a true count on dog bites because not everyone reports them. I've been bite. I did not report it.
To have an accurate account of the situation you need to be able to have an accurate count. Since you dont have that you are barking up a tree here. Sorry
Yeah, you're right. Newspapers only report pit bull attack fatalities and don't report instances where other breeds of dogs kill people because it's not newsworthy. The Wikipedia list of people who were fatally attacked by dogs this year is wrong and failed to include all the people killed by Jack Russell Terriers and insurance companies are denying coverage to Labrador owners everywhere.
Do you understand that I can report to wikipedia that I was attacked by a pittie and wasnt but they will still add it to that list. Just because I have a thing against Pit bulls
There is many breeds of dogs that insurance companys can have an issue with not just pit bulls
So, in this thread you first dismiss CDC information because you claim it is not accurate and "muddies the waters" defering to your own "common sense" as superior to CDC data and now you choose to use other CDC data when it suits you arguement? That is seriously twisted logic lady!
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.