You just said they were bred to be killers. This is a lie. They were bred to catch cattle/hogs, to hunt and be family companions. The main reason criminal-types want to own the breed is because they think it looks cool. Just like poor people would want to buy $300 Jordans. The problem is the media and the human predisposition to stereotype with a lack of intellect and understanding.
I'll retrace, by large majority I meant that they have the highest number. But it's not a "large majority." Probably roughly 30-45%.
I imagine the thought process for topics like these (or guns and reliogion) goes like this... with maybe a slight background noise of Yakety Sax playing during the thinking: "pre programmed response to topics of guns, minorities and pitbulls beep beeep pre programmed response to topics of guns, minorities and pitbulls beep beep. brain has been written over and cannot compute logic to indoctrinated set-in-stone belief structure topics - not enough memory: INITIATE Ir-rationalization mode INITIATE FEAR AND HATE MODE. Answer to my fear: BAN IT.INITIATE: closed ear mode. INITIATE anti-learning/ anti-update mode INITIATE: end program."
Ok, let's try this. Say you are out for a walk, walking down the sidewalk in any typical neighborhood. Then you see, walking in your direction on the sidewalk ahead of you, is a dog you do not know, oh let's pick one from your list, say, a cocker spaniel. Are you going to be afraid? Are you going to potentially fear for your life? No. Now, rewind, and let's say it is an adult pit bull. Are you going to just keep walking up on that dog? I sure as hell am not. My route just changed. And if you would just keep walking up on that dog, then the questionable intellect is not mine. Look, maybe it's just me. I know my feelings on this issue are not 100% objective. I have a very deep and visceral reaction whenever I hear about ANYTHING bad happening to a child. And we have had to endure so many horror stories over the years about stupid people leaving their children alone with their beloved family pit bull, and coming back to a dead or maimed child. That to me is inexcusable, and I will just never be ok with pit bulls. I just won't.
We'll try this again, since I prefer to use hard data over opinion/speculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull One 9-year (1979–1988) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks where breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%). A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds. One 5-year (1989–1994) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths where breed was recorded. One 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%). Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were involved in most of these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks. In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family ------------------ All in all, I stand corrected. The large majority of attacks are from non pit bull types.
All of your logic is based on opinion and not on hard data. I've run across people like you. I was walking my dog with him literally 1 foot away from me (I keep him on a short leash because I train him to walk next to me and follow me) like I always do. There was one guy that said "pit bull" and ran the other way. Well guess what... your fear is illogical. If somebody has their dog on a leash and is a responsible owner, then as long as you don't come after their owner... I'm pretty sure the dog is just thinking 1. oh i'm so happy to be on this walk and 2. i wonder if i should take a dump right there. Needless to say, I laugh and pity those with illogical fear. With that being said, do not spread misinformation about something you know nothing of. You just said nothing could change your mind. I pity you if that's how you think in life.
I said nothing about a dog on a leash, so what does that have to do with anything? And I notice you avoided answering my question. Do you HAVE an answer to the question I actually asked? Heh this kind of reminds me of that scene in Erin Brockovich, when all these suits are sitting around in some meeting/hearing, saying 'No health concerns exist from our plant, the water is perfectly safe!' And then Julia Roberts informs them that the water they have been drinking for the last hour came from the very water they were all just saying was so safe, and suddenly they are all spitting it out and freaking out. Seriously though, I am genuinely interested in your answer to the actual question I asked.
You never responded to any of the facts I listed (ie: temperament testing, other breed fatalities, etc) But sure, I just walked past a pit bull the other day near the haunted house at Party Boy on I-10/Studemont. I felt bad for the dog because it was outside on the hot pavement with no shade to sit in. I didn't fear it at all because that would have been irrational based on my experiences with the breed. Now if I see the dog growling or looking desperate... sure I would have walked the other direction. I'm sure you would have pooped your little girly diapers though.
Ok wait. So you are saying that roughly 40% of all serious dog attacks are done by one breed alone, and that does NOT seem wildly disproportionate to you? I mean, you do realize, don't you, that you are proving the point that they are incredibly dangerous compared to most other dogs? I am trying to follow along with this logic. It would be like this: (and I am making these numbers up, but the point is valid) Let's see.. say for example, in the years between 1939 and 1944, approximately 60 million people were killed total in the entire world, in all countries and nationalities. But the Nazis were only responsible for around 20 million of those, so, clearly, the Nazis were not really that bad. I am not trying to fight with you, just so you know, this is just a debate on an admittedly controversial subject.
But comparing the percentage to all other dogs combined doesn't make sense if you're trying to prove they are no more dangerous than other dogs. A better comparison would be comparing the pitbull percentage to the next highest breed percentage instead of all other breeds combined. I don't know it for a fact, but I'm willing to bet that 35% is the highest of all breeds and is much higher than the next highest breed/percentage. EDIT: Nero beat me to it.
People don't know that if a pit bull isn't put in an aggressive environment at an early age, they actually become very docile. That's why you see a lot of homeless pit bulls. Those douche bag owners see them as being "soft" and not aggressive, and they don't want pit bulls like that.
I'm jewish and had family members by the Nazis... so let's refrain from these comparisons. Embedded are some videos with facts. The first video is graphic and it loops starting around 3 minutes or so. I pulled some of the data and posted below. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VOHMcAAAaJU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bP0SYw5Uyjw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> In the case you don't watch the videos: Facts 1. Pit bulls are the #1 bred dog in America. It's no coincidence that the numbers may not line up in their favor considering the circumstances that I've attempted to lay out. 2. Pit bulls make up 40% of all dogs found in shelters. 3. 75% of shelters euthanize all pit bulls without any attempts to adopt out 4. For every 1 pit bull that kills, 10.5 million don't. Myths 1. Pitbulls have locking jaws: FALSE 2. Pitbulls are unstable/naturally aggressive: FALSE (see temperament test) 3. Banning pit bulls makes communities safer: FALSE (non-breed specific and enforceable "dangerous dog" laws address real issues when it comes to dogs and safety)
As I've stated, the pit bull is the most populous breed by a long shot. It also more likely to be owned by violent-type owners and irresponsible owners who will not socialize, neuter/spay, and will probably teach the dog to be aggressive. On a per capita basis, as tests have shown, it's less dangerous than a Chow-Chow, German Shepherd and Rottweiler.
Can you verify this from any objective source? Such as something OTHER than a pitbull advocacy website? It just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I can not find one verifiable source to corroborate this. That breed is not even in the top ten or top twenty of any of the lists I can find.
Yes, this pit-bull right here is dangerous. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pl93Hc1uH2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Chievous, just give up dude. No amount of anything you say will change their opinions that pitbulls are evil-doers. My grandma was raised in Mississippi and I hate to say it, she was racist. No amount of knowledge/education could sway her. "Look at all the blacks in jail and the crime - they are dangerous!" You can't argue with that logic. It's sad but work on educating the younger generations so they don't get indoctrinated to hate and fear everything/anything that the media they consume presents them.
Nero, I won't bother researching fully the actual stats - not because they aren't important but because (1) I don't have time, and (2) you'll find the stats to actually vary meaningfully as you already know. If looking up population numbers, do those include dogs in kennels or not? How are breeds determined (i.e. - what is a pit?)?, etc. One thing you can say fairly conclusively though is that pit bulls DO make up a large majority of shelter/kennel dogs. What this means is either (1) there are just a lot of pitbulls out there thus a lot in shelters, or two (2) despite there not being as many pit bulls out there as other breeds (if your comment "That breed is not even in the top ten or top twenty of any of the lists I can find." is correct), since they make up the majority of shelter dogs, there is clearly a huge quality of ownership issue with the breed. I'd say both scenarios further the conclusion that it is not an inherent breed/trait issue that results in pitbulls making up a disproportionate % of dog killings relative to any other single breed, but rather other issues at play. And that's without again getting into the issue of what is a pit and how do we know that pits are indeed the breed in question in some of the reported cases (often there will be mislabeling - http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html) I will say this: while I understand and respect your fear of the breed by virtue of the fact that you don't like seeing people, but especially kids, mauled or killed by dogs, I think a much more researched and logical approach to solve the problem is required. That is, if any part of you thinks it's horrible to kill even one perfectly acceptable happy go lucky dog in their prime, much less the thousands that would be put down in a "eliminate them all" type solution. Because yes, there are thousands, and the large majority, of the breed that is not "dangerous" and won't ever be. As a father of young kids and also the owner of a pit mix, while I have absolutely no fear of danger to my kids, I also don't leave my dogs and kids together, and certainly would never leave a newborn unattended with my dog, etc... but the same would be true of any breed. But it does upset me that you'll read stories of 2 week olds killed by the family pitbull. I think there is a lot of sensationalizing and lack of full disclosure in some of the stories (ie pit bull might not actually be a pit bull, story will leave out that while it was a family pet it was one that had shown previous signs of aggressive behavior, or was not neutered/spayed, or mistreated, etc.). But the deed is nonetheless being done. It's an issue and addressing it makes sense. I'm generally against breed specific legislation, but even if that was ultimately determined to be the solution I think it needs to be done more smartly. Meaning, existing animals need to be grandfathered, something that usually isn't the case (rather you get situations like in Denver where once the law went into place the city went around to houses with registered terriers, picked them up and killed them). But I think there are better solutions that are more respectful of all parties. San Francisco, for example, which instead of bsl passed a law that made it illegal to breed pits and required all pits to be spayed/neutered. As with all laws, enforcement is an issue, but it is an issue with bsl as well. just some thoughts...
