Pit Bulls

I haven't even seen anyone here make a legitimate case that they are "statistically more dangerous".

1) The statistics don't distinguish between situational and dispositional factors. In short, it doesn't say whether pit bulls are inherently so or whether their owners are.

2) The statistics don't really show whether they are disproportionately represented in attacks. The statistics do show that they constitute a significant number of attacks but there are no reliable statistics on how many pit bulls there are, so we don't know whether they are disproportionately involved in attacks.

3) Many attacks are ascribed to pit bulls or "pit bull types" of dogs when they are ambiguous. It's unclear how much the reputation of pit bulls is being reflected in the breed classifications when even when such breakdowns are available.

4) Other powerful dogs that are popular (e.g. rottweilers) are comparable to pit bulls in the statistics. If we get rid of pit bulls the owners will just gravitate to other dogs. And quite frankly, despite the reputation pit bulls have any powerful dog can be dangerous and their temperament and training is what matters most. The bad-ass owners with their bad-ass dogs aren't going anywhere. Get rid of pit bulls and then we'll just be talking about rottweilers.

Whatever big, powerful dog is popular is going to be responsible for a lot of dog attacks that cause injury, and whatever big and powerful dog is legal is going to be popular among those who buy dogs for protection.

I don't get why you guys who support buying guns for self defense (for which there are much better statistical cases for danger than dogs) are ready to ban dogs that are purchased for self-defense. And especially then when you are ready to just ban one breed.

That's kinda like banning one brand of gun. It doesn't even make sense for its stated goal.



So what? Pamela Rosa posts a lot of stories bout innocent people getting hurt by black people and you see through that kind of anecdotal evidence. Why should this anecdotal evidence be treated differently? In the case of blacks the actual statistical case can be made for disproportionate representation in violence. But even then you are able to see situational factors.

Here with pit bulls you can't make that statistical case, so what's with the quickness to want to ban them based off anecdotal evidence and weak statistics?



This is a loaded question because nobody here has made a compelling case that "one particular breed is identified as especially dangerous". You guys might get closer if you just say "all big and powerful dogs" but you simply haven't made any sort of case that pit bulls are "especially dangerous and unpredictable".

As to how much of an infringement on freedom it is I guess that depends who you ask. A pit bull breeder will answer very differently than a person who's afraid of pit bulls.

I personally don't think it would rank very high in terms of an infringement on freedom, but because the threat it purports to address is so very insignificant it's not a net benefit to me.

If anything I think communities should be able to decide on a case-by-case basis. If I don't want my kids attacked by dogs I'd want to live somewhere where there are no large dogs, I wouldn't want a law banning pit bulls. That wouldn't make my kids much safer (as long as there are a host of other dangerous dogs that are legal) and I don't want to see dog breeds disappear just because they are responsible for a tenth of the deaths that lightning causes.

well done. I'm satisfied by hearing the opposing view. Thanks for bringing out issues and repercussions of possible solutions. I still feel I've not changed my mind, but I see more definitive statistics are needed on breed sopecic issues. I think back in my stats there was issues about vaguness and some confusion over of 3 types of staffordshire terrier thus making it harder and the efficacy of a ban.

FWIW, in order to understand pit bull terriers better (and determine whether or not to do a breed-specifc ban), here's a link and small excerpt of story behind origins and breeding traits of pit bull terriers:

[Edit: if this is a repeat, pls pardon me.]

"During the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland, and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between bulldogs and terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog."
. . .
snip
. . .
"The name "Staffordshire Terrier" was adopted by some owners as a way of distancing the breed from a name with a stigma, and was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1936. Later, the word "American" was added to reduce confusion with its smaller British cousin, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Once an extremely popular family dog in the United States (for example, the dog in The Little Rascals movies and in Buster Brown was an APBT), the American Pit Bull Terrier's popularity began to decline in the United States following World War II in favor of other breeds"
...
snip
...
"Appearance

The American Pit Bull Terrier is a medium-sized dog. It has a short coat and smooth, well-defined muscle structure. Its eyes are round to almond shaped, and its ears are small to medium in length and can be natural or cropped. The tail is thick and tapers to a point. The coat is glossy, smooth, short, and slightly coarse and can be any color.

It is a common mistake to refer to dogs of many other breeds as a "pit bull" - thus "pit bull" has become an umbrella term for dogs that share some common physical characteristics.

Breeds such as the Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Bulldog are just some of the 30 easily mistaken breeds."

So, then the "jump-up" issue here is:
with all this confusion, how do you do a ban and phase out...which ones of these do you ban?
Where is/are the smoking gun..so to speak, as RG asks.

Hmmm: my info was that the tail was supposed to be bobbed or docked, thus making it harder to detect and predict it's actions

The previous excerpt stated,"The tail is thick and tapers to a point. "

I feel that your bringing up unrelated dog stories only serves to obfuscate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dog stories of mine of late purpose was pointing out in details that the emotions bond between dogs and humans place them in a far difference classification then a car tire or a laptop battery when it come to looking at a “recall” due to risks of any one breed of dog being more dangerous then others breeds.

The whole subject is in any case completely irrational as the risk is far too small to be of great concern to any same person and is driven by the need of mass media to generate news stories about happenings that generate interest and fear even if you are far more likely to win a state lottery then to end up being harm greatly by any dog breed.

In order to reduce that 30 deaths a year figure you would need to ban all large dogs not just Pitt Bulls in any case.

That's a damned good point.

We used to talk about "crim dogs"...ie dogs that anti-social guys who wanted to enhance their tough image would have....they included dogs like German Shepherds, Rotties, dobermans, bull terriers...a bunch of breeds that can be as soft and sweet as butter (except attacking other dogs really DOES seem to be hard-wired into a lot of bull terriers) in many hands, but, poor things, they would be encouraged to be mean and nasty in the hands of these guys. It made me very sorry for the poor dogs.

Am I the only one who is getting a little tired of irrational fears driving public policy in many areas of our society with the subject of Pitt Bulls just being one small example?

Nuclear energy and storing/moving nuclear waste is another fine example of this silliness and we are paying a high price in the case of nuclear power every month in our power bill and ever second in breathing in air particles from coal/oil plants.

Been in favor of teaching a risk/benefit course in high schools to our future citizens so we are less at the whim of every demigod who can used the power of mass communication to sell the public nonsense for his or her own benefit.

Well I had one in my neighborhood. He was actually quite sweet and friendly. The owner was never mean nor taught it any aggression. As the dog grew he became stronger and stronger. She had a hard time holding him on a lease and I still remember her screaming his name out as he dragged her down the street. But he was always sweet and seemed very loving.

One day he pulled loose from her and bit an elderly neighbor. She was forced (or volunteered to put him down) as the neighbor was kind enough not to sue as long as the dog was destroyed. The poor dog - with an owner that could control the dog this wouldn't happen. And of course this is just one personal situation that can't be necessarily represented of all such dogs.

You need to be the pack leader with any dog and if you not with a large dog it can prove to be dangerous as well as just annoying as with a smaller dog.

As I said before I had seen people fearing their own dogs and there is nothing sadder both for the owners and the dogs.

One lady got more then slightly annoy that her dog would obey anyone in my family but not her and the last straw was when we dog sat for her and when she came to pick the dog up she hide under our coffee table and growl at her owner.

id like to hear ragmans exact take on this right here, i think ive brought it up before..

Do you think black people should be exterminated?
regulated?
face harsher punishments for illegal activity?
have 500,000 dollar insurance policies?
be banned?


or my favorite, if they are outside in public have muzzles and handcuffs on to prevent an occurence of crime that they are statistically prone too?

since the "actualistic" danger (i dont know the word) is what we are taking into account here ^_^


haha, pitbull lovers WIN! yay!

In my opinion, docking tails is dumb, BECAUSE it doesnt let u predict the dogs actions, as well as the dogs balance.(most pitbull enthusiasts dont dock or clip fyi hehe)

there is no benifit to tail docking except looks, and alot of drawbacks.

ear clipping is less harmful. i like clipping male ears and leaving females intact, thats just me.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1171385&page=1

William Bennett Defends Comment on Abortion and Crime
'Book of Virtues' Author Says Hypothetical Remark Was Valid
By JAKE TAPPER
Sept. 29, 2005
Post a Comment Font Size PrintRSSE-mailShare this story with friendsBuzz Up!FacebookTwitterStumbleUponMore
After pondering on his radio program how aborting every black infant in America would affect crime rates, best-selling author and self-styled "Values Czar" Bill Bennett is vehemently denying he is a racist and defending his willingness to speak publicly about race and crime.

On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, "Bill Bennett's Morning in America," syndicated by Salem Radio Network, a caller raised the theory that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent because legalized abortion has reduced the number of tax-paying citizens. Bennett said economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues.

If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, "You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

"That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he added.

not my quote. not my style..not my discussion. I avoid absurdist style of debate as it's ... absurd.

But but but bu twhat the ****..

numbers are used against pitbulls but numbers cant be used against blacks?

i am attacking the method of prejudice.

the one , was it you that linked the "dog bite study"?(iono if not oh well this relates to the person who did)

if anyone uses that study as a refereence they must concede that the logic used versus pitbulls is applicable to black people.

correct me if im wrong here.. but

1. correlation doesn't mean causation. both statistics shouldnt be considered and/or the studies weren't accurate (what constitutes "black"? what constitutues "pitbull"? how many blacks how many pitbulls relating to other races/breeds?)

2.correlation does mean causation. both pitbulls and blacks should be banned due to their inherent danger to society.

3.pitbulls, blacks or both blacks and pitbulls together have factors not relating to their "breed" which are causing the results.

-poverty causing blacks more a need to commit crimes to stay monetarily solid in a currency based society?

-irresponsible owners causing pitbulls to act against their nature. abusing and/or neglecting their pitbulls. bought for looks, to impress, for prestige in their social circles. pretty much not cared for.


lawl.

Most of the fighting Pitt Bulls that was involved in the Michael Vick case was able to be recondition and some even place into homes with children if I remember correctly!

When a dog of any breed attacks people they must be put down. In that case I feel sorry for the dog. Usually the frequency of such attacks varies across breeds and the humans who have produced such breeds are really at fault. So when I say we should "breed out of existence" those more dangerous breeds (that we have created) I'm really saying we should breed out of existence certain frequencies of destructive canine behavior. I am NOT saying we should kill all existing members of statistically more dangerous breeds--we should just stop reproducing them (or more accurately: their behaviors).

What do u think about people
who desire to have them to defend their homes ?

I'm really saying we should breed out of existence certain frequencies of destructive canine behavior. I am NOT saying we should kill all existing members of statistically more dangerous breeds--we should just stop reproducing them (or more accurately: their behaviors).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting however you still have a need/desire for guard dogs and for the police and military attacks dogs and as long as that desire is there people will breed for the characters that allow such used.

Such breeds however can still be house pets as the police dogs that are member of their handlers families are and ex-military dogs that are allow to be place in their ex-handlers homes.

When it come down to it all dogs had some degree of wolf in them and should be treated with respect as a powerful predator.

A True Story

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

"A man was out walking his Pitbull off lead through the woods. When the Pit turned and started walking off in a different direction the owner called the dog back to him. The dog didn't listen, he obviously had something on his mind. This was so uncharacteristic of this particular dog, who always followed his owner, always listened to every command, that the owner of the Pit decided he had better follow his dog to see where he was going. The Pitbull led him to a secluded part of the woods, where an autistic boy had gotten himself into a deep mud hole and could not get out. The Pit proceeded to walk right up to the boy and lick his face. This story was told to me by the father of the autistic child. He stated, "The dog saved my son's life that day. Had it not been for that Pitbull, we never would have found my son."

rag, i thought that story was going downhill, but it was awesome.

on a sidenote.. my dog jefita barks at people who are intoxicated or have mental disorders..

strange, scary, but i think shes trying to alert everyone