Pit Bull kills its' owner after seizure!?
- Thread starter Tiger Williams
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Tiger Williams said:You want to tackle this one Sheik? lol
I'm not sure but I think 1st down is agreeing with you.
i know i am not agreeing with you? but how is this scenario different. you say pitt bulls are violent. the cops on norfinch drive will tell you that many people in that area are violent. whats the difference? should they be banned there?
you seem to have an answer for everything else
Sure why not?1st down said:depending who you talk to....so did segregation. you want to open that can of worms too?
I'm sure you can find a way to link segregation and Pit Bulls and the people in the Jane/Finch area together. Why not throw in the NHL lockout and the upcoming Presidential election?
You're up 1st down..........oh sorry, I mean Phat Boy.
(why did you change your handle? I thought Phat Boy had a certain ring to it!)
I believe you Sheik but apparently we both noticed the similarities. Maybe he's at a different computer? Lots of Internet cafes out there.Sheik said:Tiger, phat boy and 1st down are not the same person, trust me, I checked.
PS- you're a wily old vet. I really WAS hoping you'd bite on 1st down's train of thoughts here. It would have been fun for at least one of us. lol
Boulder's ban was a stunning success, as you posted, know one else was attacked by these breeds since the ban was put in place. How is that not a stunning success?? And since these breeds account for 2/3 of all dog attacks, it is very significant.Originally posted by Sheik The ban was not a stunning success, people still owned them illegally. Dog fighting was still going on. It drove it underground and is that what you want? Do you want the wrong kind of people owning these dogs?
I don’t really care if the owners of these animals go underground, all I care about is that people don’t have to live in fear from these animals.
Sheik, you are checking up on like minded people who have the same views as you?Sheik said:Tiger, phat boy and 1st down are not the same person, trust me, I checked.
If I can find the stats that show 2/3 of the serious attacks are Pit Bull type breeds, would you change your viewpoint? Admit that you were wrong and move away from the company of Tiger, phat boy and 1st down's viewpoint., Otherwise, I’m not going to bother re-finding the source.Sheik said:prove the 2/3 of all attacks. Because I can prove to you that it is not the case.
Shiek, you have posted no stats, just fuzzy good feelings and opinions.
Whoa......whoa.........whoa.............KBear!KBear said:If I can find the stats that show 2/3 of the serious attacks are Pit Bull type breeds, would you change your viewpoint? Admit that you were wrong and move away from the company of Tiger, phat boy and 1st down's viewpoint.
Since when did I share any of 1st down/Phat Boy's viewpoints?
(has Hell frozen over?)
Actually, I'd like to see those statistics myself. I'd also like to see how you define serious as well as what a "pit bull type" breed is?KBear said:If I can find the stats that show 2/3 of the serious attacks are Pit Bull type breeds, would you change your viewpoint?
Sheik said:Tiger, phat boy and 1st down are not the same person, trust me, I checked.
OMG, Sorry Tiger, I missread the post and thought there was a "Tiger", and you, "Tiger Williams". Again, sorry, I should have scanned through the whole thread before posting. My mistake.
From http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001
The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.
Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old
The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).
The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).
Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.
Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001
The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.
Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old
The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).
The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).
Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.
Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
No problem, KBear.KBear said:OMG, Sorry Tiger, I missread the post and thought there was a "Tiger", and you, "Tiger Williams". Again, sorry, I should have scanned through the whole thread before posting. My mistake.
Cardinal Fang said:Actually, I'd like to see those statistics myself. I'd also like to see how you define serious as well as what a "pit bull type" breed is?
Here is one fact sheet, if you go to the main site there is a link to the stats and other discussions. They do breakdowns on the dogs, male/female, nutered, chained etc.
http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html
"From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths."
It is a serious attack when someone is killed. Obviously if you include scratches and cuts, then house cats would move to be the trouble makers. It does depend on what you consider serious.
Tiger Williams said:Sure why not?
I'm sure you can find a way to link segregation and Pit Bulls and the people in the Jane/Finch area together. Why not throw in the NHL lockout and the upcoming Presidential election?
You're up 1st down..........oh sorry, I mean Phat Boy.
(why did you change your handle? I thought Phat Boy had a certain ring to it!)
so i am 1st down? why? is it because more then 1 person disagrees with you then we all must be the samer poster?
your act is wearing thin....
but 1st down has a point...how is the blanket ban on all pitt bulls different then a blanket ban on all people in the jane finch corridor?
Tiger Williams said:I believe you Sheik but apparently we both noticed the similarities. Maybe he's at a different computer? Lots of Internet cafes out there.
PS- you're a wily old vet. I really WAS hoping you'd bite on 1st down's train of thoughts here. It would have been fun for at least one of us. lol
phat boy dont need to internet cafes to post from. why not expalin how it is much different. an ban is ab ban. just because it isnt politically correct doesnt make it right or wrong
Tiger Williams said:Whoa......whoa.........whoa.............KBear!
Since when did I share any of 1st down/Phat Boy's viewpoints?
(has Hell frozen over?)
this guy only shares the viewpoint of his toilet paper.
KBear said:Here is one fact sheet, if you go to the main site there is a link to the stats and other discussions. They do breakdowns on the dogs, male/female, nutered, chained etc.
http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html
"From 1979 to 1998, at least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in bite related deaths. Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50 percent of these deaths."
It is a serious attack when someone is killed. Obviously if you include scratches and cuts, then house cats would move to be the trouble makers. It does depend on what you consider serious.
great a stat from a site that who the hell knows who's opinions they are. it s just like a documenatry. the director can put in anything he wants. find me a government site with those stats oin them
From the website you provided:KBear said:Here is one fact sheet, if you go to the main site there is a link to the stats and other discussions. They do breakdowns on the dogs, male/female, nutered, chained etc.
"The information presented below has been gathered from numerous sources, many of which include news reports on the internet. The reader should assumed the information below is accurate, although no attempt at independent validation has been made by this author."
Nice........
Personally Kbear, any attack that causes trauma is serious in my mind.
What is your definition of trama, something that requires stiches or more to help heal, or something that just needs a kiss?Cardinal Fang said:Personally Kbear, any attack that causes trauma is serious in my mind.
Here is the report where some of the information in the fact sheet came from. This report includes the data collected and its source.
http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/dogbreeds.pdf
One thing missing in this report was the percentage of Pit Bull type dogs in the total dog population. Another report set the percentage at 1%, which seems more or less a reasonable number.
Trauma for me would be any injury resulting in a trip to the hospital where serious medical attention would have to be provided ie. Stitches at a min. Not every trauma requires death.KBear said:What is your definition of trama, something that requires stiches or more to help heal, or something that just needs a kiss?
The data was collected only up to 1998. The statistics I posted appear to be more current. In the end there is no definative answer to this.Originally posted by KBear
Here is the report where some of the information in the fact sheet came from. This report includes the data collected and its source.
http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/dogbreeds.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
