Pit Bull swallows teen's ear!?!

[papasmerf]

Not assinine at all - shows the power of the modern media.
Not all dogs are alike, no - even at a genetic level. HOWEVER, the fact is that dogs are TRAINED to do all kinds of things. Breeds are selected, for a dog that's going to be *trained* to do something, based on genetic factors.
Does that answer your question?

Not at all
Pit Bulls were bred for one reason only. They became all the rage in the late 80's and early 90's because of the fear factor they presented. And during this period Pits were produced by puppy mills with inbreeding is well doccumented, even by the liberal 60 minutes. It is not so much the early breed that made the damgerous as it was the inbreeding caused by the popularity of the breed. I have found that most dog owners are not type A personality and do not present the ALPHA to their dogs. Even those that do are not there 24/7 and that is when attacks can occur.

 

[Ranger68]

LOL
Of COURSE I answered your question. Don't be obtuse. (If that's possible.)
Pit Bulls were NOT bred for one reason only - you're just showing your ignorance, your buying of the pap that the media has fed you. How about Rottweilers? They used to be all the rage. Of course, you ignore the fact that Pit Bulls have been bred for over a HUNDRED years, and in the past they've been models of quite the OPPOSITE of what they're portrayed as now. This has to do with TRAINING not BREEDING.
Try again.

 

[papasmerf]

LOL
Of COURSE I answered your question. Don't be obtuse. (If that's possible.)
Pit Bulls were NOT bred for one reason only - you're just showing your ignorance, your buying of the pap that the media has fed you. How about Rottweilers? They used to be all the rage. Of course, you ignore the fact that Pit Bulls have been bred for over a HUNDRED years, and in the past they've been models of quite the OPPOSITE of what they're portrayed as now. This has to do with TRAINING not BREEDING.
Try again.

Rottweilers are quite an impressive breed. They are big old pussycats who are prone to hip problems as are many large breeds. While the the breed was bred as working drovers they are now popularized are pets and working dogs.

As for the pitbull: "The breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier was selectively bred specifically with the idea of it becoming the ultimate canine gladiator." http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html


Hope this helps clarify it for you.

 

[Ranger68]

Rottweilers used to have EXACTLY the same reputation as Pit Bulls have today.

I could post a hundred or so links that make things clear for you, but there's no point. I've already done so.

Enjoy your witch hunt.

 

[papasmerf]

I was never speculating based on hysteria. I am simply showing breed defination. Anyone who knows dogs will tell you that a rott is a working dog that has a pleasent disposition and will take to people and children. As with all breeds inbreeding will damage the breed and should be discouraged.

 

[Ranger68]

Uh, yeah - that's why Rotts, if you believe the stats, are involved in the second-most attacks on people.


ALL breeds are inbred.

Seriously, go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk. You're basing your entire argument on "what people tell you".

Come back when you've got something to back up your rhetoric.

 

[papasmerf]

Uh, yeah - that's why Rotts, if you believe the stats, are involved in the second-most attacks on people.


ALL breeds are inbred.

Seriously, go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk. You're basing your entire argument on "what people tell you".

Come back when you've got something to back up your rhetoric.

ok show me the stats.

 

[Ranger68]

I'll repeat, since you can't read that well:
"Go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk, when you've got something to back up your rhetoric."

 

[papasmerf]

I'll repeat, since you can't read that well:
"Go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk, when you've got something to back up your rhetoric."

You said rotts are cited as the 2nd highest attacker. Show me the stats. Otherwise stand down.

 

[Ranger68]

If I do, will you shut the fuck up and go away?

 

[jwmorrice]

Round and round the debate goes. All the same crapola wheeled out for the umpteenth time. All the same personal insults - just different targets. I guess Ontario will be a nice test case for this issue. Perhaps it can be revisited more fruitfully once we have more facts to hang our arguments on.

jwm

 

[papasmerf]

If I do, will you shut the fuck up and go away?

You imply you had facts
where are they??????????

 

[Ranger68]

Facts??
I've posted plenty.

Just peruse some of these articles:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm

NOBODY from the opposing side has posted ANY articles from informed authority arguing that a breed ban is effective.

The only reason we go "round and round" is the inability to think outside the mob.

Oh, and papasmerf, click on practically ANY of the links on that site - they all show that Rott's are the "second-most dangerous breed". (If that statement really has any meaning.)

So SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.
LOL
That felt good.

 

[papasmerf]

Found one table siting from 1979 to 1996 there were 60 deaths by pitts and 29 by rotts. Hardly a recent table to support you arguement.

Second refrence was from 1995 and 1996. "During 1995–1996, rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in
fatal attacks (Table 1). Fatal attacks were reported from 14 states (California [four
deaths]; Florida and Pennsylvania [three each]; Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, and
South Dakota [two each]; and Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington [one each]).
Reported by: R Lockwood, PhD, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC. Div of
Unintentional Injuries Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC."


Another study citing 1979 to 1998 shows 66 to 39 Pittbull still a winner by a mile.


Thanks for the info. And you are right based on older stucies rotts do bite about 1/2 a much as pitts. But the numbers based on this data bear out that rotts are considered #2 in 1998. OBTW did I ever say they were not?

 

[Ranger68]

I posted my facts, proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, my point - that Rotts are the second-most dangerous breed.
You're still here.
Why?
I guess you're a liar as well as an idiot.

You can be safely Ignored now. Enjoy your fantasies.
I'll revisit your case in a few months, when you've had some time to grow up and learn some things.

Until then, buh-bye.

 

[papasmerf]

I posted my facts, proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, my point - that Rotts are the second-most dangerous breed.
You're still here.
Why?
I guess you're a liar as well as an idiot.

You can be safely Ignored now. Enjoy your fantasies.
I'll revisit your case in a few months, when you've had some time to grow up and learn some things.

Until then, buh-bye.

Let me get this straight. You just insult people, call them Liers and idodits because they disagree with you. Were it my place I would verify your age. As you present yourself well untill you get rattled, then you revert to a 4 year old.

 

[n_v]

Let me get this straight. You just insult people, call them Liers and idodits because they disagree with you. Were it my place I would verify your age. As you present yourself well untill you get rattled, then you revert to a 4 year old.

You hit the nail on the head with this guy papasmerf!

 

[Ranger68]

Now I've got two guys on Ignore posting together.

Whatta country! LOL

 

[papasmerf]

Now I've got two guys on Ignore posting together.

Whatta country! LOL

Truth a bit too harsh?

 

[Ranger68]

(One wonders if dude knows what "Ignore" means. LOL Somebody PM him. LOL)