Since 1982, pit bulls are responsible for 68 percent of dog attacks and 52 percent o

If that is so true, should we ban criminal gangs and kill them as well?

I mean since criminal gangs kill way more people and children in one year than pit bulls have in 30..... then obviously we should REALLY BE GOING NUTS over that right?

The owners are the problem ... not the dog. Stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) like this causes people to lose good pets and kills innocent animals. I blame thug culture and horrible people well before I blame a dog who is taught to be mean.

And no you don't ban the owners, you throw their asses in jail for 40 years.

 

That's because Bassets are not bought nor trained by machists idiots. Even with a Basset (which is not exactly known for its patience with children, BTW), you have to be careful and responsible for your dog. Until we demand that, we're just going to switch from a "danger" breed to another (like we did for the last 50 years), chasing echoes rather than the noise's source.

 

Do you know how easy it is to make a new dog breed? Today's monster of canines is tomorrow's passé pet for those who like dog fights. It's an endless wild goose chase as new species takes the place of the previous offender. You want "the holocaust" to stop, you demand permits for any type of dogs, permits which animal-beaters, criminals and the mentally-challenged wouldn't have access to.

Banning a breed only "works" as much as far as the banned breed causing less attacks, but these attacks are, in turn, taken over by a variety of breeds instead in even greater numbers.

 

146 deaths over 4 years, in a population of 320,000,000. And in a nation in which dogs are a very common pet, and almost everyone interacts with dogs on a daily basis.

146 over 4 years is statistically insignificant. It is also insignificant in terms of the risks people face in life.

The subject of death by dog attack is a nonissue.

Every year, about 20 children drown in cleaning buckets. Are you concerned about banning cleaning buckets?
Twice as many die from wasp sting as dog attack, are you trying to eradicate wasps?

This entire subject is foolish.

 

Well then since 146 deaths from dogs is insignificant to you then we should allow citizens to have mountain lions as pets. I am sure there would not be too many more deaths.

No, your logic is illogical to me. Wasps are mostly out of our control. Plus you totally discount the many thousands of serious injuries from pitbulls --- did you read in my OP they account for 68% of all dog attacks since 1982, yet they account for only 6% of all dogs? Do you account for the immeasurable fear it puts into innocent citizens because of these dogs unpredictability? 103 of the 146 deaths in the last four years because of pit bulls. Eliminate the pit bulls and now you only have 43 deaths because rottweilers are not going to all of sudden kill 103 more because pitbulls are not around. And that still does not tell you anything? Pitbulls are far and away far more dangerous than any other dog. You will not convince me allowing this dog to remain in cities is the humane thing to do. It’s inhumane.

 

People do own mountain lions, wolves, zebras, and other wild animals. But they are not pets, they do not treat people in a friendly manner, they are not domesticated, they actually are wild animals. If you own one of those, you will get injured.

Dogs, including "pit bulls", are domesticated, do have a friendly demeanor towards people, and the huge majority of dogs (including "pit bulls") never bite anyone.

That's the difference. If you own a mountain lion, you are almost certain to be injured. If you own a dog, even a pit bull, you are almost certain to never be injured.

<>

I am familiar with dogsbite.org It is a rabidly antidog site. For example, look at the claim that "pit bulls" make up 6.6% of the dog population. The CDC studies state: “There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.”

And what is a "pit bull"? People who report dog bites guess as to the breed - a wide array of dogs get the "pit bull" label.

Ontario defines "pit bull" as: "Pit bull includes, a pit bull terrier, a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, an American pit bull terrier, (or) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to (these) dogs...."

Montreal, when enacting their "pit bull" ban (started last month), did not even bother to define what a "pit bull" is but left it up to the city employees. City employees have in the past called all kinds of dogs "pit bulls" - boxers, all kinds of terriers, rottweillers, even a Great Dane.

So how many people have been bitten by a "pit bull" and not a Boxer or Great Dane? Nobody knows.

<>

But consider dogsbite.org data in context.

There are around 80,000,000 dogs in the USA, there is at least 1 dog in about 40% of homes (that's 47,000,000 homes have at least one dog as a pet). Half the US population lives with dogs, their neighbors and friends encounter those dogs. Dogs are ubiquitous in the USA. Yet a statistically insignificant number of deaths by dog attack (<40 a year).

 

Yes, and inherent is operative here. Some dogs simply have no business being around humans, and it appears that some breeds are owned purely as 'status symbols' or lifestyle accessories, which is absolutely the wrong reason to own them.

 

I don't know how many more toddlers will have to have chunks torn out of them until they bleed to death before politicians find the will to deal with it. Only brain-dead scum choose to own such animals - in their tiny minds it's the 'power' thing.

 

Its a nonissue. Each year, less than 40 people (all ages) are killed by a dog, any dog not just "pit bulls".

Over 80 million dogs in the USA, 47 million homes (about 40% of all homes) have one or more dogs as a pet, Americans literally live with dogs, yet the risk of death or serious injury by dog is trivial.

About 20 people each year are killed by horses, and there are far fewer horses than dogs, and far fewer people involved with horses than with dogs. Horses are much more dangerous than dogs. Why aren't you so concerned about horses?

Why aren't you as concerned about the 100's of items that are far more dangerous and cause far more harm than dogs? Cars, planes, prescription medication, even cleaning buckets are a greater risk than dogs.

 

Indeed, it's the chav element predominantly; as you say, brain-dead scum.

 

Yes, they will. Barred from getting Pitbulls, the machist idiots will instead get their hands on another breed, treat it harshly and transform it into a monster.

Why don't you get it? What's the problem with what I just wrote? Is it total improbable fiction?

I am getting a bit hot under the collar here because I take offense from people who have your opinion. I have a gentle Rottweiler girl, a dog that is amicably known by all the people of the neighborhoods, including children that I don't even know that know her name and pet her, making everybody happy, until one of you people starts being hysterical and poison an idyllic picture just because of your misplaced, persistant sensibilities.

How would you feel if I attacked one of your most placid child? Same here for me.

 

I agree. And it's not counting all of the things that dogs prevent or do for us. How many thefts plots were left out all because of a threatening growl on the other side of the door? How many lost children found were because of dogs? How many lives they improved by their mere presence?

Dogs have been our loyal friends for tens of thousands of years. There are reasons for that.

 

In my opinion It's all in how any dog is raised and trained.

Pit Bulls tend to be owned by people that tend to fall short here.

It's not the dogs, it's the owners....

 

Not always; some breeds are genetically pre-disposed to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour. I prefer not to have to find out the hard way.

http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/11/10/the-science-of-how-behavior-is-inherited-in-aggressive-dogs/

 

Fine. Same argument most Muslims are a people of peace. So lets let a few terrorists in with them. Chances are it won't affect my happy home.

You are wrong. There will not be 103 deaths from other dogs if pit bulls were removed.

 

You confirm my impressions about dog breeds and racism.

Yeah, sure... Dog bites were a novelty thing before there were Pitbulls...

 

Here's an example of Rottweilers with whom the owner never had any problems, until she did...

https://usnews.newsvine.com/_news/2...y-injured-in-attack-by-aunts-rottweilers?lite

 

You refuse to look at numbers --- as though they have no meaning or value.

Racism, sure. I look at the death of an innocent child and I have other passions over this.

If I were president I would push to have all pit bulls spayed or neutered preventing the future deaths, attacks, and fears upon the innocent.

 

Same thing as in human "races": Broad generalizations can be made, but the individuals do and will vary. Now of course a breed that has been developped as a living room dog for generations will have a different tamper that another breed that has been developped in a fenced junk yard. So are humans.

But basically, it's still the same animal.

 

Mentality change between a single dog and a pack. Quite often the dominant animal (often a female) will impose its exaberted will on the others. I don't know about how the "never had any problems" bit is true; IMO, three rottweilers is a bit much for a single lady. She should never had left them alone un-restrained with a child.

Anyway, these cases are the exception rather than the norm. When one sees the ratios of dog and people numbers we have, one is forced to admit that dogs are a benefit for humans rather than a curse set upon them.

 

There's a fundamental difference; humans have the power of choice and the ability, usually, to think rationally. Animals don't have that luxury and rely on inbred instinct.

 

I was writing about all dog breeds still being basically the same animal, just as all human "races" are basically the same too.

Now of course, if dogs had those luxuries you described they would be sentient beings. They are not; They are animals, used for their facitily to adapt to our society, supposedly sentient beings.

A dog's owner's got to be entirely responsible for his animal, no matter the type or breed. Animal ownership is responsability.

 

Innocent children are killed by dogs, insects, cars, furniture, toys, food, bombs, diseases, sports, other children, their own parents, bab luck etc. That infinitely sad, but that's a fact of life, and it ever will be. If we are to ban everything that ever killed a child, the poor things would live in a padded concrete bubble until they're at whatever age their contemporary, totalitarian but safe civilisation thinks they're okay at.

 

We are not banning everything, nor are we generalizing. We deal with matters singularly and based on their own merits or faults.

I do not doubt you are passionate but you are also being evasive in using generals to defend a specific ill. And it has been explained to you in enough different ways where it is apparent you will not change. Fine. I will try to appeal to others.

 

I can't say I wish you luck in your attempt at terror-based totalitarism.