User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:08:58 AM EDT
[#1]
Staffordshire Terriers are powerful dogs, raise them to be aggressive and you have problems. German Shepards had their day, Doberman Pincers, Rottwiellers, Chows, and junk yard dogs.
Pits have the jaws to do real damage and since they are popular right now they are in the news. It's the owners. What was the breed of dog that 2 of them killed a woman in the hallway? The owners were lawyers and had gotten the dogs from a convict? They weren't pits, they were large enough to kill someone. Take 20 - 20lb dogs, various breeds. Raise them with mistreatment, neglect and reward aggressive behavior. Then when they are 2 years old release them in the neighborhood. What would you expect to happen? Dogs - 10%, owners - 90%. Holding a handgun sideways doesn't make you a badass or a criminal, it also impedes your ability to shoot. So why is it popular? Those who think so are the types to want a Pit Bull and / or a Desert Eagle for the wrong reasons. It's the people! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:27:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Truly amazing. The lack of reasoning, logic,and reading comprehensions is quite amusing. Neither the .22 nor the 50 BMG and are going to do a damn thing on their own. That alone nullifies the bullshit comparisons some of you are trying to make. Damn, I feel like I am aruging with a fucking anti who says "guns kill". What part of that escapes some you? Yeah, I still feel the same. Your "didn't think so" was just more bullshit, just like your analogy. You are quite right. But I thought you would agree with such a dumbass sarcastic statment as you think its ok to own less powerfull dogs(.22) as opposed to strong ones(50 BMG). Its the people who own them dipshit, wake up!! What part of that excapes you? Truly amazing, the lack of reasoning and logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:43:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Staffordshire Terriers are powerful dogs, raise them to be aggressive and you have problems. German Shepards had their day, Doberman Pincers, Rottwiellers, Chows, and junk yard dogs. Pits have the jaws to do real damage and since they are popular right now they are in the news. It's the owners. What was the breed of dog that 2 of them killed a woman in the hallway? The owners were lawyers and had gotten the dogs from a convict? They weren't pits, they were large enough to kill someone. Take 20 - 20lb dogs, various breeds. Raise them with mistreatment, neglect and reward aggressive behavior. Then when they are 2 years old release them in the neighborhood. What would you expect to happen? Dogs - 10%, owners - 90%. Holding a handgun sideways doesn't make you a badass or a criminal, it also impedes your ability to shoot. So why is it popular? Those who think so are the types to want a Pit Bull and / or a Desert Eagle for the wrong reasons. It's the people! Exactly! Thank you, a bit of sanity. I love(sarcasm) hearing people say things like what Grey Ghost said about pitbull owners not "feesing up" to the fact that there could be aggressiveness in the breed.[stick] No shit! There is agressiveness in every breed. In particular pitbulls are agressive to other dogs. They are rarely agressive to humans. I'm not even going to respond to some of the other ill informed and some idiotic statements made in this thread. Same as owning a tiger?! I really hope you're kidding. If not I would suggest finding out a little bit about the topic you're discussing. You clearly know nothing about it. And Eric, how is a pitbull that is left alone like the assault rifle you described gonna hurt anyone? If it's alone there's noone to hurt right? How about from now on, if anyone wants to make a comment on pitbulls, they have just a little bit of information on the breed before they start spewing garbage. I've heard enough. To say there is no paralell to guns is the most idiotic thing I've heard today. Guns and pitbulls are treated the same by the media. That's a fact. Now who else want to show their ass? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:44:56 AM EDT
[#4]
The problem here is bigger than the dogs, or the guns. Those of you that are fixated on the dogs are just as guilty of "red herring" tossing as those comparing guns to dogs.
The issue here is personal responsitility. If your dog comes in my yard & kills my kid, I ought to be able to walk over to your house & shoot you (or your kid). Pretty goddamn simple. The problem here is that there is no accountability for the people who own these dogs. That lawyer couple in Cali was a rare case. If any object/animal that should be in your control, goes out of your control and kills someone, you should be responsible for it. Whether that be a dog, a car that's too much for you and you lose control of it (or are driving drunk) or a gun you leave lying around for a small child to get ahold of. As much as the anti-pit crowd like to scream "red herring" at the mention of dogs & guns being the same, there is a parallel. Neither should be left alone with small children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:50:23 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: The problem here is bigger than the dogs, or the guns. Those of you that are fixated on the dogs are just as guilty of "red herring" tossing as those comparing guns to dogs. The issue here is personal responsitility. If your dog comes in my yard & kills my kid, I ought to be able to walk over to your house & shoot you (or your kid). Pretty goddamn simple. The problem here is that there is no accountability for the people who own these dogs. That lawyer couple in Cali was a rare case. If any object/animal that should be in your control, goes out of your control and kills someone, you should be responsible for it. Whether that be a dog, a car that's too much for you and you lose control of it (or are driving drunk) or a gun you leave lying around for a small child to get ahold of. As much as the anti-pit crowd like to scream "red herring" at the mention of dogs & guns being the same, there is a parallel. Neither should be left alone with small children. I agree with what you said about personal responsibility. That's the key to this little problem now isn't it. I thought I did a pretty good job of showing the paralell of guns to pits and the way the media treats both of them in my last two posts. Please tell me how I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:56:12 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Quoted: The problem here is bigger than the dogs, or the guns. Those of you that are fixated on the dogs are just as guilty of "red herring" tossing as those comparing guns to dogs. The issue here is personal responsitility. If your dog comes in my yard & kills my kid, I ought to be able to walk over to your house & shoot you (or your kid). Pretty goddamn simple. The problem here is that there is no accountability for the people who own these dogs. That lawyer couple in Cali was a rare case. If any object/animal that should be in your control, goes out of your control and kills someone, you should be responsible for it. Whether that be a dog, a car that's too much for you and you lose control of it (or are driving drunk) or a gun you leave lying around for a small child to get ahold of. As much as the anti-pit crowd like to scream "red herring" at the mention of dogs & guns being the same, there is a parallel. Neither should be left alone with small children. I agree with what you said about personal responsibility. That's the key to this little problem now isn't it. I thought I did a pretty good job of showing the paralell of guns to pits and the way the media treats both of them in my last two posts. Please tell me how I'm wrong. If my post doesn't apply to you then why are you asking? To be honest I didn't read your post, it looked like one long runon sentence. Learn to use the -enter- key and break it up a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 10:03:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem here is bigger than the dogs, or the guns. Those of you that are fixated on the dogs are just as guilty of "red herring" tossing as those comparing guns to dogs. The issue here is personal responsitility. If your dog comes in my yard & kills my kid, I ought to be able to walk over to your house & shoot you (or your kid). Pretty goddamn simple. The problem here is that there is no accountability for the people who own these dogs. That lawyer couple in Cali was a rare case. If any object/animal that should be in your control, goes out of your control and kills someone, you should be responsible for it. Whether that be a dog, a car that's too much for you and you lose control of it (or are driving drunk) or a gun you leave lying around for a small child to get ahold of. As much as the anti-pit crowd like to scream "red herring" at the mention of dogs & guns being the same, there is a parallel. Neither should be left alone with small children. I agree with what you said about personal responsibility. That's the key to this little problem now isn't it. I thought I did a pretty good job of showing the paralell of guns to pits and the way the media treats both of them in my last two posts. Please tell me how I'm wrong. If my post doesn't apply to you then why are you asking? To be honest I didn't read your post, it looked like one long runon sentence. Learn to use the -enter- key and break it up a bit. Yeah good point. If someone doesn't use the queens English properly it's probably not worth reading.[rolleyes] If you didn't notice, I agreed with a part of your post. That's why I quoted you. I guess I didn't explain it clearly enough for you. It's gonna be OK though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 10:19:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem here is bigger than the dogs, or the guns. Those of you that are fixated on the dogs are just as guilty of "red herring" tossing as those comparing guns to dogs. The issue here is personal responsitility. If your dog comes in my yard & kills my kid, I ought to be able to walk over to your house & shoot you (or your kid). Pretty goddamn simple. The problem here is that there is no accountability for the people who own these dogs. That lawyer couple in Cali was a rare case. If any object/animal that should be in your control, goes out of your control and kills someone, you should be responsible for it. Whether that be a dog, a car that's too much for you and you lose control of it (or are driving drunk) or a gun you leave lying around for a small child to get ahold of. As much as the anti-pit crowd like to scream "red herring" at the mention of dogs & guns being the same, there is a parallel. Neither should be left alone with small children. I agree with what you said about personal responsibility. That's the key to this little problem now isn't it. I thought I did a pretty good job of showing the paralell of guns to pits and the way the media treats both of them in my last two posts. Please tell me how I'm wrong. If my post doesn't apply to you then why are you asking? To be honest I didn't read your post, it looked like one long runon sentence. Learn to use the -enter- key and break it up a bit. Yeah good point. If someone doesn't use the queens English properly it's probably not worth reading.[rolleyes] If you didn't notice, I agreed with a part of your post. That's why I quoted you. I guess I didn't explain it clearly enough for you. It's gonna be OK though. What is the point of language? That's right, it's to communicate. If you want to get your point across, it's up to you to know your audience, and do what you can to make it as easy as possible for that audience to digest what you're trying to say. If you cut it up in little pieces, it's easier to eat. Don't shoot the messenger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 10:25:25 AM EDT
[#9]
I was too pissed off to write properly. I just kind of exploded. This is a very personal topic for me. My dog Mojo is like a daughter. I spend more time with her than anyone but my wife. She's sitting in my lap right now. I'm just now cooling off enough to think clearly. Sorry if I sounded curt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 11:11:13 AM EDT
[#10]
Let's ban coyotes! After all they're not dangerous [;D]
Sorry folks but if you want to own a pitbull please do it. Don't tell me I can't. And if you don't like it-TOUGH. Let's compromise and ban DOG TEETH. Then maybe the can mouth ya. CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 11:34:33 AM EDT
[#11]
[url]http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/palm_beach_news/article/0,1651,TCP_1020_2471764,00.html[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2003/11/23/horse23.DTL[/url] [url]http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/buncombe_news/46599[/url] [url]http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10630141&BRD=1947&PAG=461&dept_id=168657&rfi=6[/url] [url]http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=21527[/url] [url]http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-12-02-0016.html[/url] [url]http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20031121/localnews/680186.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 12:35:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Let's ban coyotes! After all they're not dangerous [;D] Sorry folks but if you want to own a pitbull please do it. Don't tell me I can't. And if you don't like it-TOUGH. Let's compromise and ban DOG TEETH. Then maybe the can mouth ya. CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:19:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
[url]http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/palm_beach_news/article/0,1651,TCP_1020_2471764,00.html[/url] According to the police report, Beltran said her ex-boyfriend had trained the 2-year-old dog to fight, but had hoped to rehabilitate the dog. [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2003/11/23/horse23.DTL[/url] A woman was walking her pit bull in the park when she removed the dog's leash [url]http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/buncombe_news/46599[/url] "I wouldn't care what my neighbor thought of me," she said. "If I, or another neighbor, had called animal control on that pit bull, I wouldn't have a son who was harmed." [url]http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10630141&BRD=1947&PAG=461&dept_id=168657&rfi=6[/url] Regina Arispe, who was bitten by a German shepherd at a dog washing shop. [url]http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=21527[/url] McCuen has a criminal record in Aurora dealing with pit bulls. She was arrested when she lived at an Aurora home, where she had six pit bulls. Only three adult pit bulls are allowed in Aurora. [url]http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-12-02-0016.html[/url] DEAD LINK [url]http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20031121/localnews/680186.html[/url] She said the dog had escaped from his pen and her nephew had gone out to retrieve him when Jacob was bitten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:22:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Why is it always the same breed? The media has found pitbull bites to be news worthy, when German Shepard and Cocker Spaniel bites are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:26:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: ETH hit the nail on the head. If you own such an animal, you should be required to have some sort of insurance to pay for damages. German Shepards have more bites every year than any other breed. Cocker Spaniels are face biters of children. Do a search for Rage syndrome and cocker spaniel sometime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:29:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Why is it always the same breed? The media has found pitbull bites to be news worthy, when German Shepard and Cocker Spaniel bites are not. remember prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was nothing going on newsworthy. The media started reporting on all these shark attacks, and how everyone anywhere near a beach for the previous 6 months was going to get attacked, and watch out, and all you could hear was the jaws theme playing in the background..... In fact, that year the total number of shark attacks was one of the lowest in history. There's your news media. Until one of the anti-pit crowd can post some sort of documentable evidence that CONFIRMED pitbulls are responsible for more attacks annually (ir better yet over the last 20 years or so) than any other breed, then they don't even have a leg to START to stand on here. I'm kind of hoping one of you DOES find something, because I've got some statistics of my own I'd love to toss out as a rebuttal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:30:22 PM EDT
[#17]
I say we ban French Poodles. The damn sissy looking dogs have a bad attiude.
Tj |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:32:20 PM EDT
[#18]
1GUNRUNNER,don't you know all those links are propaganda put out by the New World Order????And what is behind the NWO?Why of course those evil,cunning cocker spaniels who really do ALL the maiming and killing of those who have not been assimilated!!!How do I know this?SHhhh,quiet now....... a friend of mine who has an secret informant on the mother ship told me this is all part of the master plan of those Cocker Spaniels who are hell bent on world domination!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:37:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The difference between a AK w/30 rounds locked & loaded in a corner and a pit bull is is the capacity to make decisions. That capacity for independant action is exactly why a dog is part of a sound home defense plan. If you wife is in the other room when someone kicks in the door that AK in the corner wont do her a bit of good. But the dog will engage on his own to protect the alpha female. My dog knows his place in the pack. Which is dead last, below our children. But he also knows his place is above anything from outside the pack. It's a gift from God that domestic dogs do so much for us and expect nothing more than food, water, and to be a part of our pack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:38:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: 1GUNRUNNER,don't you know all those links are propaganda put out by the New World Order????And what is behind the NWO?Why of course those evil,cunning cocker spaniels who really do ALL the maiming and killing of those who have not been assimilated!!!How do I know this?SHhhh,quiet now....... a friend of mine who has an secret informant on the mother ship told me this is all part of the master plan of those Cocker Spaniels who are hell bent on world domination!!! It's a challenge. If you know you're right, and pitbulls are disproportionally responsible for dog attacks, find some stats & post the link. Otherwise you're basing your opinion on a feeling. Something everyone complains about the DUers doing. Or, you can just go ahead and admit that your opinion is based on a feeling, and discredit yourself in the eyes of many here, take your pick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:47:39 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm doing my own experiment. My sister just got an Am Staff with five generations of AKC pedigree, in my opinion is an upgraded pitbull. It's a cute little puppy, & she brings it to work every night. I pick it up, & pet it, & love on it. I'm wanting to see if I imprint, or if when shes big will she be bitey towards me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:48:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: remember prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was nothing going on newsworthy.[/quote} So we all lived in a news vacumn until 9/11?Dude,your tinfoil hat is cutting off the ciculation to your brain. Originally By norman74: Until one of the anti-pit crowd can post some sort of documentable evidence that CONFIRMED pitbulls are responsible for more attacks annually (ir better yet over the last 20 years or so) than any other breed, then they don't even have a leg to START to stand on here. I know this stat will meen nothing because it is from the US Govt,who routinely practices mind control via the radio waves in the sky but here goes.... [url]www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] See how slick those cockers are???Not 1 mention of them as far as fatal dogbites.This just proves how evil and cunning they really are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:51:50 PM EDT
[#23]
I digress. Pitbulls = good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:53:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Poodle bits just USUALLY aren't deadly. Anyone here that thinks Pit Bull's are all sweet and loving want to try it? I'll go to the pound get a Maltese, French Poodle, German Shepard and a Pit Bull and you can tell me which one bites the worst and is the most dangerous. Poodles bite and so does every other breed but none can compare to the strength of a Pit Bull's jaws. I'm sure if given the choice of having your kids bit you would choose ANY dog but a Pit. No?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 1:59:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Poodle bits just USUALLY aren't deadly. Anyone here that thinks Pit Bull's are all sweet and loving want to try it? I'll go to the pound get a Maltese, French Poodle, German Shepard and a Pit Bull and you can tell me which one bites the worst and is the most dangerous. Poodles bite and so does every other breed but none can compare to the strength of a Pit Bull's jaws. I'm sure if given the choice of having your kids bit you would choose ANY dog but a Pit. No? I wasn't aware of any scientific evidence that showed the PSI of a dog bite across multiple breeds. I'd be very interested to see that. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:01:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Raven,it's some of both but you'll never ever get a pit owner to fess up that this breed,which was bred to fight,maybe,just maybe, might have a "LITTLE" aggresiveness bred into it's genes. As I said........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:03:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I'm sure if given the choice of having your kids bit you would choose ANY dog but a Pit. No? You are forgetting that small breeds usually bite out of fear or pain, and target the face of children. Pitbulls, which have a high pain tolerence, and are not generally fearful, will not bite a child in a situation that most any small dog breed will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:06:35 PM EDT
[#28]
I have a 1 year old female american staffordshire terrier. Her name is Charlie. Got her when she was 6 weeks old. I have a 4 yr old son and a shit load of nieces and nephews who are always over the house. I have neighbors with dogs and neighbors without dogs. She is a big bitch with a head the size of a basketball and a mouth just as big. She is extremely strong. I've grown up with all sorts of dogs. You name it we've owned it. I will never have any other breed of dog as long as I live. I highly recommend getting this type of dog from a reputable breeder. I'm really surprised to read the reply's and find so many misconceptions about pitbulls. Most of these misconceptions are brought upon by the media sensationalizing and making headlines. lets try to be smarter than that guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:13:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: [url]www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] I'm just going to edit out all your personal attack bullshit. If you can't stick to the topic at hand, and seek to distract from your not having any facts, I won't be dragged down to your level, and I will do what I can to bring you back on topic. Now, let's look at the contents of your link. Here are some fact that I pulled out of that article. I'll try to go in order. -From 1979 through 1996, attacks by dogs resulted in 199 deaths of humans in the United States where the breed of the dog was "known" -60 of those deaths were caused by pitbulls -10 of those deaths were caused by pit bull cross breeds So, let's say that 70 out of 200 dog attack fatalities were pit related, or 35%. The next closest would appear to be the Rottweiler, with 32 fatalities out of 200, or 16%. Look at the akita. It's responsible for 4 attacks out of 200, or only 2%. However, this data is skewed. Without knowing the percentage of each breed in America, there's no way to qualify this data. It's presented to make a specific point. What would be more valid would be a breakdown of the percentage of each breed kills a human. I honestly don't know what that breakdown would look like. Can anyone supply statistics on the demographics of America's dogs? There is also one interesting quote at the end of the article Most of the approximately 55 million dogs in the United States never bite or kill humans. However, the findings in this report indicate that DBRFs continue to occur and that most are preventable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:17:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: I have a 1 year old female american staffordshire terrier. Her name is Charlie. Got her when she was 6 weeks old. I have a 4 yr old son and a shit load of nieces and nephews who are always over the house. I have neighbors with dogs and neighbors without dogs. She is a big bitch with a head the size of a basketball and a mouth just as big. She is extremely strong. I've grown up with all sorts of dogs. You name it we've owned it. I will never have any other breed of dog as long as I live. I highly recommend getting this type of dog from a reputable breeder. I'm really surprised to read the reply's and find so many misconceptions about pitbulls. Most of these misconceptions are brought upon by the media sensationalizing and making headlines. lets try to be smarter than that guys. "Petey" from the little rascals was a pit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:19:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I know this stat will mean nothing because it is from the US Govt [url]www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] I could be wrong but the stats indicate that a pit is twice as more likely to be in a fatal attack as any other breed.I'm sure there must be some mistake!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:27:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: I know this stat will mean nothing because it is from the US Govt [url]www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] I could be wrong but the stats indicate that a pit is twice as more likely to be in a fatal attack as any other breed.I'm sure there must be some mistake!!!! Actually, there is a mistake, it's in your wording. Allow me to correct your phrase-ology for you. you said: the stats indicate that a pit is [i]twice as more[/i] (sic) likely to be in a fatal attack as any other breed. What the stats actually show: In the time period between 1979 and 1996, pittbulls and/or pitbull cross breeds were responsible for twice as many human fatalities in the U.S. as Rottweilers. Do you understand the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:29:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Let's ban coyotes! After all they're not dangerous [;D] Sorry folks but if you want to own a pitbull please do it. Don't tell me I can't. And if you don't like it-TOUGH. Let's compromise and ban DOG TEETH. Then maybe the can mouth ya. CRC This is a common misconception. For hundreds of years, pitbulls have been bred to be non aggressive to humans. A tiger has never been bred to be non aggressive to humans that I know of. Certainly not extensively. Originally pitbulls were used as bull baiters and fighting dogs because they were naturally aggressive toward dogs. Dog aggression is entirely different from human aggression. The handlers of the dogs had to be in the pit with their dogs during the fights so they could stop it before it became deadly. If the dog bit a human it was usually culled on the spot. Human aggressive pits were certainly not bred. Recently, back yard breeders that are trying to make money off the current trend of gangbangers wanting "mean" dogs to feed their egos are breeding dogs no matter what their disposition, and often inbreed them causing temperment problems. These dogs are then usually mistreated, abused and inproperly socialized. Often when the owners find out that their dogs are not as mean as they wanted them to be(They are terrible guard dogs because they like humans so much), they abuse and neglect them. As far as temperament is concerned, APBT’s have consistently scored an 82% and higher on the American Temperament Test Society’s evaluation, higher than Goldens, German Shepherds and most other breeds. The people that own these dogs need to held accountable for their misdeeds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 2:37:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Raven,it's some of both but you'll never ever get a pit owner to fess up that this breed,which was bred to fight,maybe,just maybe, might have a "LITTLE" aggresiveness bred into it's genes. As I said........ I responded to this statement once already. I see you have managed to overlook that. As I said before. EVERY dog has aggressiveness bred in their genes. Pitbulls have been specifically bred to be dog aggressive. That is entirely different from human aggression. They have had human aggression specifically bred OUT of their genes. In my last post I explained how and why. I also explained why some pitbulls recently have had human aggression problems. I would suggest reading it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:04:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: However, this data is skewed. Without knowing the percentage of each breed in America, there's no way to qualify this data. It's presented to make a specific point. What would be more valid would be a breakdown of the percentage of each breed kills a human. I honestly don't know what that breakdown would look like. Can anyone supply statistics on the demographics of America's dogs? The only reason it is "skewed" is because you're skewing it. There are hard numbers there that somehow you are finding a way to argue them. Those number go to '96... I would be willing to bet the latest numbers will shed an even dimmer light on this breed as the number of "people" just having to have one.[rolleyes] Now rather than the rest of us running around trying to bring you skewed data; how about you bring something factual to the table to support your position? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:13:38 PM EDT
[#36]
P.S. If [b]EricE's "Debo"[/b] is reading this thread I just want to say I love pits and think they are the kindest most loving dogs on the planet! So when I come over [b]Debo[/b] remember that ok boy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:26:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Ok, here is an analysis of those CDC figures. It makes some very interesting points and puts those statistics in perspective. They are NOT entirely accurate.
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:30:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: P.S. If [b]EricE's "Debo"[/b] is reading this thread I just want to say I love pits and think they are the kindest most loving dogs on the planet! So when I come over [b]Debo[/b] remember that ok boy? All joking aside I think they are the kindest most loving dogs on the planet. It's sad how badly these dogs get treated in a lot of cases. I wish you could meet my pitbull Mojo. I have never met a nicer dog, and I'll never have anyother breed again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:40:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Ok, here is an analysis of those CDC figures. It makes some very interesting points and puts those statistics in perspective. They are NOT entirely accurate. http://www.fataldogattacks.com/ This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. [red]Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value[/red], only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events. hmmm [lol] Unless you are having a discussion of [b]Those cute little pit bulls..... [/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:45:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: However, this data is skewed. Without knowing the percentage of each breed in America, there's no way to qualify this data. It's presented to make a specific point. What would be more valid would be a breakdown of the percentage of each breed kills a human. I honestly don't know what that breakdown would look like. Can anyone supply statistics on the demographics of America's dogs? The only reason it is "skewed" is because you're skewing it. There are hard numbers there that somehow you are finding a way to argue them. Those number go to '96... I would be willing to bet the latest numbers will shed an even dimmer light on this breed as the number of "people" just having to have one.[rolleyes] Now rather than the rest of us running around trying to bring you skewed data; how about you bring something factual to the table to support your position? It's unfortunate that you don't kow how to read data. I truly don't know how else to explain this to you. The numbers provided are raw data, and are not properly qualified. They state the number of total fatal dog attacks, and how many of those attacks are perpetrated by pit bulls. That's it. They do not speak in any way, shape, or form to the breed's propensity, or lack there of, towards attacking humans. Not one iota. The way you would determine the breed's propensity towards attacking humans would be to take the total number of pittbulls in this country between 1979 and 1996, and compare that to the 70 pitbull related fatalities that occurred in that same time period. Let's be quite simple about this. Do you understand the difference in the two or not? Incidentally, I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making any claims. I have not stated my position on pit bulls one time in this thread. You and others are making claims about the breed (and to be honest, not very coherent claims either) and are providing nothing more than anectodal evidence and raw data to substantiate those claims. The best I can figure, you and others are claiming that pitbulls are more likely to attack a human being and cause a fatality than any other breed. Is this the case or not? So far all you've done is post little new articles, and shown your ignorance of how to interpret statistics. Was there something direct you wanted to say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 3:51:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Norman,how about replying to the stats I posted instead of trying to cloud the issue over semantics.In another reply you insinuated you had a wealth of data you were ready to unload on us people ignorant of the true pit bulls.
Well............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:00:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Cute huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:01:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Ok, here is an analysis of those CDC figures. It makes some very interesting points and puts those statistics in perspective. They are NOT entirely accurate. http://www.fataldogattacks.com/ This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. [red]Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value[/red], only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events. hmmm [lol] Unless you are having a discussion of [b]Those cute little pit bulls..... [/b] I'm failing to see your point. The little laughing icon is the only point I can see in your post. You find my link amusing. Care to explain your position, or is this just an attempt at being derogatory? The result of sensationalizing individual incidents of severe or fatal dog attacks, included with the use of unexamined statistical "evidence" has created an unfortunate and inaccurate public and political perception as to the dangerousness and predictability of certain breeds of dogs.[endquote] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:17:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Norman,how about replying to the stats I posted instead of trying to cloud the issue over semantics.In another reply you insinuated you had a wealth of data you were ready to unload on us people ignorant of the true pit bulls. Well............ Your facts alone make no case at all. How many illegal poodle fighting rings do you think there are? This is a breed that is being horribly abused and poorly bred by a large number of irresponsible and immoral people.The dogs are not to blame! These people want the toughest dog there is. They take them and train them to be bad. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. How can you not see that?If poodles had a history of being good dog fighters they would have the same problems right now. Dirt bags like DMX, a rapper that romanticises fighting pitbulls are the reason for this bad attention. It makes me sick |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:28:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Norman,how about replying to the stats I posted instead of trying to cloud the issue over semantics. Have you ever taken a statistics class, or studied statistics? I would guess not, based on your replies. If you don't understand the diference between what you said and what I said, this point is moot. I even tried to explain it further in my reply to 1gunrunner. As it stands, it is clear that both of you are incapable of understanding the numbers, and I'm not sure that further debate is merited. Just like I can't discuss architecture with someone without the proper education, I can't discuss statistics with those that don't understand them. In another reply you insinuated you had a wealth of data you were ready to unload on us people ignorant of the true pit bulls. Well............ yet again, with your assumptions and leaps, let me quote myself. I'm kind of hoping one of you DOES find something, because I've got some statistics of my own I'd love to toss out as a rebuttal. I said I had statistics as a rebuttal. I didn't say I had statistics that proved pitbulls are less dangerous than any other breed. The waters here have gotten entirely too muddy. You and others have rambled on, insinuated, made snide comments, insulted people, and generally proven my point about trolling. Let's clear the air, and start fresh. In order to better understand your point (since you keep claiming to have one), how about if you and 1gunrunner (and anyone else interested) answer a few basic questions. In the interests of being clear, for a change. 1) Do you believe that pittbulls are more pre-disposed to violence against humans than other breeds of dog? 2) Do you believe this pre-disposition is a natural, biological trait caused by years of selective breeding, or is it caused by individual owners raising their dogs to be human-aggresive? 3) Do you believe that pitbulls are biologically and physically more capable of doing damage to a human than other breeds of dog? 4) Do you believe that pitbulls should be legislated out of existance? That last one was just something to satisfy my own curiosity, feel free to answer it or not. Since you started the thread, I think you should answer first. Once you've been clear about your thoughts & intentions, perhaps I can try, YET AGAIN, to explain the statistics you provided. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:34:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Despite my better judgment, I'll try once more to explain the problem with the stats provided. I will try to do that through example.
(all numbers are hypothetical) Let us say that there are 10,000 ford mustangs in the U.S. Of those 10,000, let us say that 500 got speeding tickets last year. Let us also say that there are 3,000 Porsche Boxsters in the U.S. And let us say that of those 3,000, 300 got speeding tickets last year. Now, based on that data, BOTH of the following sentences are true. -Last year, more Mustang owners got speeding tickets than Boxster owners. -Last year, a Boxster owner was more likely to get a speeding ticket than a Mustang owner. Get it yet? It is NOT just semantics, each sentence, to a 10 year old, would appear to say different things, and one must be false. Yet to someone who understands statistics, they say completely different things, and are both true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:48:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's ban coyotes! After all they're not dangerous [;D] Sorry folks but if you want to own a pitbull please do it. Don't tell me I can't. And if you don't like it-TOUGH. Let's compromise and ban DOG TEETH. Then maybe the can mouth ya. CRC This is a common misconception. For hundreds of years, pitbulls have been bred to be non aggressive to humans. A tiger has never been bred to be non aggressive to humans that I know of. Certainly not extensively. Originally pitbulls were used as bull baiters and fighting dogs because they were naturally aggressive toward dogs. Dog aggression is entirely different from human aggression. The handlers of the dogs had to be in the pit with their dogs during the fights so they could stop it before it became deadly. If the dog bit a human it was usually culled on the spot. Human aggressive pits were certainly not bred. Recently, back yard breeders that are trying to make money off the current trend of gangbangers wanting "mean" dogs to feed their egos are breeding dogs no matter what their disposition, and often inbreed them causing temperment problems. These dogs are then usually mistreated, abused and inproperly socialized. Often when the owners find out that their dogs are not as mean as they wanted them to be(They are terrible guard dogs because they like humans so much), they abuse and neglect them. As far as temperament is concerned, APBT?s have consistently scored an 82% and higher on the American Temperament Test Society?s evaluation, higher than Goldens, German Shepherds and most other breeds. The people that own these dogs need to held accountable for their misdeeds. I've tried explaining this to people here before. But trust me, the rabid anti pit bull crowd on this board aren't going to listen. And like you, I have a couple very friendly (in fact, it could be said OVERFRIENLDY) pits. But again, these guys aren't going to hear anything about it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, their opinions are based on ignorance of the breed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 4:53:49 PM EDT
[#48]
100% of the punks in my ghetto run pit bulls - often loose in the 'hood. I never work the garden in the front yard without a weapon near by.
I find it hard to belive that any of them are paying the home owners insurance premium required by the handful of companies that I shopped. Don't focus on the breed - focus on the problem. If dogs are killing, eating, and maiming kids then the problem is with dogs ... ban all dogs not just assault dogs based on a set of physical looks. If there's a pretty white giant poodle mauling my wife it's going to die just like the butt ugliest pit bull. I'm not a racist, or a "breedist" [:)]. Kill them all and let Buddha sort them out. PS: are the insurance companies biased by the media against pit bulls, rotwielers, chows and other breeds? Like when you drive a Mustang you pay more insurance than some one who drives a Camery. Just like risk takers (accident prone speeders?) drive Mustangs, the pit bull is owned by a lot of rotten people. Owning a Mustang doesn't make you a speeder or accident prone and owning a pit bull doesn't make you a bad pet owner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 5:21:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Talk about insinuate!!!How about you coming right out and saying only YOU are intelligent enough to understand statistics.Let me clue you in Mr Yale,if a certain breed kills at twice the rate of the next highest breed,I'd say we might have a problem here.This isn't rocket science.You asked for stats and all you've done is play smoke and mirrors.Further dicussion is useless here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 5:25:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: remember prior to the 9/11 attacks, there was nothing going on newsworthy.[/quote} So we all lived in a news vacumn until 9/11?Dude,your tinfoil hat is cutting off the ciculation to your brain. Originally By norman74: Until one of the anti-pit crowd can post some sort of documentable evidence that CONFIRMED pitbulls are responsible for more attacks annually (ir better yet over the last 20 years or so) than any other breed, then they don't even have a leg to START to stand on here. I know this stat will meen nothing because it is from the US Govt,who routinely practices mind control via the radio waves in the sky but here goes.... [url]www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm[/url] See how slick those cockers are???Not 1 mention of them as far as fatal dogbites.This just proves how evil and cunning they really are. Norman asked you to post stats on ATTACKS not fatalities. Of course there are going to be more fatalities attributed to pitbulls vs poodles. So just what is it you think you proved? A pitbull is stronger than a poodle? Congratulations you did it. The challenge still stands! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
