Abundant evidence supporting my statement has already been repeatedly posted in this thread, and you have ignored all of it.. "Total bullshit"  is exactly the well reasoned, evidence supported response I've been expected from you.  Sorry, it made me laugh.

True. And that breeding for physical features can/will produce dogs with bad temperament in any breed.

 

There is no abundant evidence, just more and more bullshit.

 

Have any of you guys ever researched "temperance testing?"  It's basically pure bullshit and usually stats do not include a sample size.

Wait, I think you might be about to persuade me.....     Say something else.

Saw that this morning.  

There is no persuading you the way there is no persuading an idiot gun grabber.

 

I did some research, apparently it's true about the Brits...they really do have some fine terriers over there.



Here's a picture of a pitbull farm in England, where they're raising nanny dogs for the children of the sophisticates. Story from the biased press say they were used in a horrific dog fighting ring, but we know how the press lies. Hell, probably not even pits....without some DNA from a reputable lab, I'd say these are likely Lhasa Apsos, or Pomeranians. You know how the scum bags love Pomeranian fights.

Breed of peace strikes again

The ATTS absolutely includes sample size.

Completely unpossible. You see, they are banned over there, and as we know, bans fix those problems, which is why so many here are just itching to ban the breed.

I'll just go ahead and pull the pin on this grenade ...
[in the meantime, I will try to find my calculator]

Having just healed up from a dog bite myself from some little terrier piece of shit, I'd say this thread needs more hatchet.

Those little fuckers are fast, but I could have got him if I had something nice and heavy handy.  Actually, a "Woodsman's Pal" wouldn't have been too bad, either.

Still meaningless and lacks the most basic of controls.  It isn't a test in any scientific sense of the word.



 

How many here are just itching to ban the breed?



 

Actually, you have that backwards.

Gun grabbers say, "I don't care about your facts and statistics! Proof means nothing!  Look what happened at that school!"

Pit lovers  say, "I don't care about your facts and statistics!  Proof means nothing!  Look at my doggie with a baby!"

Same thing.  It makes me laugh.

That would be a stinging remark if made to someone who advocates bans. Haven't seen anyone in this thread so far.



I guess many is a subjective term.



 

I don't believe I've heard that mentioned.

Well that completely deflates everything I've ever said about pitbull owners. <extreme sarcasm>



 

I've certainly seen it posted before, but it is rare, and usually trolls.  I think I have seen the strawman she used in the majority of these threads for years.



 

You'll get no argument here.  ARFCOM pits are not vicious.

Heh.

I had to look up superoptimism and found the other definitions as well:

Really strange.  It's almost as if the person raising the dog influences the dog's behavior.  I just don't know if I can believe that, because GD assures me the problem is with the breed itself.

But look at their sample population - college students.  I would like to learn more about their particular sample of "college students".  In my mind, the word college student means someone who sits under an oak tree and gets into fisticuffs when simple fools claim the metric system is superior to Imperial.  However, the authors could very well have conducted this study at Straight Out of Compton Community College.  I dunno.

Weird considering I came from nothing, literally left home at 18, joined the military for two reasons 1.) Opportunity 2.) Pay for college. Turned that into a career, built my first home which became a rental. Then bought dream home. Realized my background and current career while military in nature is entirely based on the .gov.
So, I decided to transition into something entirely relied on how motivated I am and not an imaginary checkbook. Married a very similar minded woman.....who shares a Staffy and the evil human eating Cane Corso with me. All done before 30. Some of the thought process by members here is very hypocritical.

Aside from "engaged in physical fights" all those tendencies could also apply to elected officials.  This is teetering on "your guns are icky because a guy shot another guy. We need "better" gun laws."

Actually, you have that backwards.

Gun grabbers say, "I don't care about your facts and statistics! Proof means nothing!  Look what happened at that school!"

Pit lovers  say, "I don't care about your facts and statistics!  Proof means nothing!  Look at my doggie with a baby!"

Same thing.  It makes me laugh.


Valid point that I guess I had not looked at from that angle.

My point was only that I, personnally, do not automatically condemn a dog based on breed alone.  But then I am a dog lover.

Cats, however, I have prejudged as an entire species.

double

That was sarcasm; I already know that the dog's owner greatly determines its behavior.  This study just dovetails nicely with any book ever written on dogs, other studies that look at the common variables surrounding dog bites, anecdotal observation and personal experience.  There's a reason when a dog makes the news it's almost always a low income neighborhood.

Tell that to my nephew who ended up with 20+ stiches in his thigh after a pit attacked him.

Pussy ass owner owner laughed it off as a 'play bite.'

Isolated incident and all that.

Fuck that breed.

Forgive me, but you know ...
... attaching your avatar to a Monte Python skit would make it read like an obituary.

The pitbulls or the inmates?  How do you know?  Did you orgasm?

The hammer/shovel issue has me wondering.  Let's say you're standing next to a lake fishing and a dog attacks and latches onto your forearm and will not let go.  If you were able to step into the lake and hold its head underwater, do you think it would release then?  My guess is that it would, but a submersible canine may not be phased by it and instant release certainly wouldn't be guaranteed.

We had a pair of Irish wolf hounds come start playing shake the sheep to death one Christmas and I watched Dad shoot the bitch in the face with both bbls of his 12 ga.  Granted it was #8 shot but it was from inside the room distance right  up the snout.  Peeled her face back.  She sort of snort snarled and followed her mate  back over the fence.  

Dad lost his opposition to me snagging a 7.62 that day.  Big dogs are a bitch to stop.  That hammer better hit the head.

See sig line...

Generalities allow for outliers, and I'm speaking generalities, not absolutes. The popularity of pits with shitbags is 100% of the problem with the breed.



Maybe you're a tepid, laid back, mellow sort of fellow that prefers Merchant & Ivory films to the Expendables, and chose both those breeds because you drew their breed names out of a hat....having 400+ breeds to choose from, your decision was not based on the perception, looks or reputation of the breeds. Maybe you wanted a nanny breed, and figured a Basset was just too much risk.



If so, that's truly wonderful, you are the 1%.



 

Going strictly off this relatively unscientific poll posted a couple weeks ago, roughly 30% of Arfcom GD believes a ban is the answer.

Link

Didn't even notice it until now.

SNIP



Obama said the same thing about me. You keep horrible company.

Another killing machine at work

I made my own thread about that and guess what GD did?

 

LMAO!

Thats a bingo.

GD tends to do that with threads that don't fit their paradigm. Yours fits the bill. So do the ones that feature dogs other than bull breeds doing the damage, like the little girl mauled by the Lab, or the little boy mauled by the Jack Russells, or the infant killed by the Catahoula. In fact, if you post anything other than a "pit bull attacks" story with reference to dog attacks, you get accused of trolling.

Yeah that's pretty awesome.

<---------- watching his rottweiler and pitbull play in the backyard.

Multiple studies, reports, and statistics have been posted, along with countless gruesome stories, all of which are contrary to your opinion, and you completely ignore them all.  You throw down one anecdotal story of a one dog doing one good deed, pass judgement on all of GD, and claim vindication?  

I could post a bunch of gun violence statistics that make guns look bad but we all know better, it's the person not the gun.

 

Found my calculator.

The following is based on the table found here, which purports to use the Clifton study data.  I'm using this simplified table for the sake of simplicity, even though I tend to get slightly different results when using the data I pulled from M.Clifton - mostly as it relates to breed as a percentage of total dog population.

As you can see below, the Pit Bull is a standout.

Ranked by Incidents of Serious Bodily Harm:
Pit bull 2792
Rottweiler 514
Pit bull-mix 191
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 105
German shepherd 102
Wolf hybrid 85
Husky 79
Akita 68
Boxer 62
Chow 58
German shepherd-mix 43
Doberman 18


But, total incidents may simply be a function of the dog's prevalence in society, so I've normalized the rankings based upon prevalence of the dog breed.  This gives us a slightly different picture.  What's that?  I've divided by zero?  Well, deal with it.

Ranked by Bodily Harm divided by Dog Category as % of Total Dog Population:
(these number are somewhat meaningless, but useful in this context and for ranking)
Wolf hybrid DIV/0!
Pit bull-mix DIV/0!
German shepherd-mix DIV/0!
Chow 644444
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 525000
Husky 112857
Pit bull 46533
Rottweiler 25700
Akita 6800
German shepherd 4857
Boxer 4429
Doberman1286


Ok, the above is for bodily harm, but what about deaths as a function of the dog's prevalence in society?  Based upon the following table, the rankings are the same, but the difference in % likelihood may be a little different.

Ranked by Death divided by Dog Category as % of Total Dog Population:
(these number are somewhat meaningless, but useful in this context and for ranking)
Wolf hybrid DIV/0!
Pit bull-mix DIV/0!
German shepherd-mix DIV/0!
Chow 77778
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 75000
Husky 35714
Pit bull 4383
Rottweiler 4050
Akita 800
German shepherd 714
Boxer 500
Doberman 500


If a dog attacks, is one breed of dog more likely to kill than another?  The next table starts to shows a pronounced trend, and strong differentiation amongst the top offenders when it comes to the likelihood of death once an attack starts.

Ranked by Death to Mauling Ratio:
Husky 1.04
Doberman 0.70
Wolf hybrid 0.39
Rottweiler 0.28
German shepherd-mix 0.25
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 0.25
Boxer 0.24
German shepherd 0.24
Chow 0.18
Akita 0.16
Pit bull 0.16
Pit bull-mix 0.12


Building upon the trend shown in the above chart, I've now ranked the breed based upon their Adult to Child Attack Ratio.  Now we are seeing some pronounced trends among breeds and similar breeds.

Huskies and Wolf Hybrids are child predators.  There's simply no other way to put it, and if you own one of these dogs, dear god, you've got to understand the risks.  This is the reason why Husky attacks disproportionately result in deaths.  

So, clearly Husky owners breed their dogs to be child killers.  There's simply no other explanation.  It certainly couldn't be genetic and somehow related to the breed.  No way.  Not possible.  Right?

Oh, yeah, and if you're old, ditch the Boxer - he's plotting your murder.

Ranked by Adult/Child Attack Ratio:
Wolf hybrid 0.07
Husky 0.10
German shepherd-mix 0.43
Chow 0.46
Rottweiler 0.47
German shepherd 0.48
Akita 0.49
Pit bull-mix 0.60
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 0.93
Pit bull 0.94
Doberman 1.00
Boxer 1.11


So, what does it all mean?  This is where I look at what the insurers have to say.  They dive into things more deeply and from the financial side, and some of their stuff has already been posted.

Whatever you say tough guy....

Exactly, terrier went terrier. Go figure

You want a statistic? Here's one for you to ruminate.

There are maybe 50 reported serious "pit bull" attacks in a year. Fewer if you only count the ones where the dog is identified as an actual APBT or AmStaff (not just a "pit type" or "pit mix". The population of pit bulls is estimated to be 2.5-10 MILLION (low side from a source trying to paint pits as bad, high side from people saying pits are not bad, truth probably somewhere in the middle).

50/2,500,000=0.00002 x 100= 0.002% (high estimate)
50/10,000,000=0.000005 x 100= 0.0005% (low estimate)

So somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.0005%-0.002% of pit bulls ever actually causes any sort of serious injury (or at least serious enough to warrant the attention of the news) to someone. Most any statistician would call that statistically insignificant.

Please explain how this constitutes the entire breed as the nightmarishly dangerous animals they are portrayed to be.

Oh, and those multiple studies all conclude that the data presented does not make a case for a breed being labeled as dangerous, especially considering circumstances other than breed (such as owner, supervision, socialization, and training) were not taken into account.