Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[Ranger68]

Some numbers:

Based on a study by the CDC (between 1979 and 1994)
pit bulls were involved in 57 fatal attacks -- well over twice the number for the next breed on the list, Rottweilers with 19, and more than German Shepherds (17), Huskies (12) and Malamutes (12) combined.

The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that pit bulls "were involved in 65 fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998 ... twice that of rottweilers and more than three times German shepherds.''

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/15/deadly.dogs.ap/

Not that it's meaningful, but .......

 

[Morgan Ellis]

I think it's more that lots of humans are not fit for dog ownership.

-- Morgan

 

[Ranger68]

Uhhh.. we have smoking laws that effectively ensure people are not exposed to cigar smoke. This has effectively been done.

Oh, no, no - we need to BAN CIGARS. Don't misunderstand me. Cigars are a MILLION TIMES more dangerous than pit bulls.

The breed causes problems out of proportion to its population. This is a mathematical fact. It is simple... pick a breed that is more manageable! I love Shepherds (though mauled by one as a child and still wear the scar) but given their behavior, I am not dumb enough to actually own one.

It's not a mathematical fact that they're even the most dangerous breed of dog, what the f*ck are you talking about?

Anyway, apparently we should just, for whatever reason, take the most "dangerous" dog breed and ban them. Despite the fact that we're talking about 0.0000004% of even that population that's responsible for the problems?
Please.
As I said, why don't you focus on things that are REALLY dangerous, and leave the things that only generate fear out of ignorance alone.

I agree on tougher licensing.... though not 25. If you are old enough to go to jail.. to go to war.. you are old enough to drive As for mathematics, factor the number of pitbulls and the number of cars and the incidence of death and I am curious what the results would be. Lies, damned lies, and statistics and all that rot.

Yeah, sure - when YOU use statistics, it's okay, but when I use them, I'm trying to prove some dastardly point.

I'll tell you what the results ARE, regarding your little question: that cars are about 100000 times more dangerous.

To say something is worse is not an argument that something should *not* be done.. it is deflection at best.

I'm NOT. I'm saying that there are LOTS of things, HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS, that are MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE.
Why all the talk about banning pit bulls when there are so many other things people should be worried about?

Media sensationalization, and mob mentality, that's why. And you're one of them.

 

[jwmorrice]

....JWM, there is no other province or state in north america that has enacted a breed ban, its always been local bylaws...

So, I guess you're no longer going to be asserting that breed bans don't work? It has worked in cities and there's no evidence to suggest that it won't work on the provinicial level. It's a matter of 'we shall see'.

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

Such intemperance!

Your argument would lead you to ban LOTS of things - whatever the most "dangerous" example of some kind of lifestyle is. Cigars are far more dangerous to your health than cigarettes - I suggest we ban cigars. If you're hit by an SUV it's much worse than being hit by a normal sized vehicle - I propose we ban SUVs.

Look, I think my chances (and practically ANYONE'S) of being attacked by a pit bull are vanishingly small. This is a mathematical fact.
HOWEVER, I think my chances of being run over by someone who doesn't know how to drive are NOT vanishingly small. In fact, they're an order of magnitude higher. To that end, I propose that the driving test become more difficult - to the effect of carving away half the existing drivers - that licensing become drastically more costly, and that the legal driving age be raised to 25.
This would have MUCH MORE EFFECT on our society than your pit bull ban, in terms of money saved, improved environmental benefits, and public safety.
Is anyone proposing this? Despite the fact that it would do MUCH MORE for us than banning some dog breed? I suspect lots of people would think this insane. But, by your argument, we SHOULD do it.

The pit bull ban is a ludicrouse piece of knee-jerk legislation, pandering to the worst in us - fear borne out of ignorance.

Also, your arguments are false, but hey - don't let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.

In this society, and probably all others, lots of things are banned for the greater good. I don't think that's ignorant or "ludicrouse" (sic!).

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

Okay jwm, then tell me which one of these seven dogs is a pit bull? http://cuteandkinky.com/dogs/breed.htm

Put your vote on this thread https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66795


And remember the taxpayers foot the bill for any court challenges against the government plus any damages that the courts award the dog owners whose pet was wrongly put to death because someone couldnt tell it wasnt a pit bull but something else entirely.

And the relevance of my being able to identify a pitbull is what???

jwm

P.S. For what it`s worth, I voted five.

 

[tzahal]

So, I guess you're no longer going to be asserting that breed bans don't work? It has worked in cities and there's no evidence to suggest that it won't work on the provinicial level. It's a matter of 'we shall see'.

jwm

they dont work. go to hollywood florida for example. since they have enforced a no rottie breed ban the masses went to pit bulls and the bites stayed the same. no they are banning pit bulls and the next breed will be even bigger and meaner that the government doesnt know about yet. then they will have to ban those and so on and so on and so on untill they have tried to ban all breeds.

its garbage and it doesnt work. i know about hollywood florida because i was living (and still have a place there) and was on an advisory comittee for the rottie ban. it didnt work in the sense that it stopped the vicious bites(although it did stop the rottie ones..go figure) but there is now an abundance of pitt bulls and akita's and presa's there and they just cant ban them all.

they passed an ordinance last year requiring all dogs over 80 pounds to be muzzled. problem is no enforcement officer will take the time to weigh a dog so they just ticket anyone who has a big dog unmuzzled...all this did was lead to alot of people in court tying up the system from crimes that needed to be dealt with. its too bad.

 

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by Ranger68 .... I'm saying that there are LOTS of things, HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS, that are MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE.
Why all the talk about banning pit bulls when there are so many other things people should be worried about?

Media sensationalization, and mob mentality, that's why. And you're one of them.

Well, the next time some little kid gets her face torn all to hell, we'll tell her how she should be worried about all these other things that cause more deaths. Yeah, that should be comforting!

jwm

 

[sweet guy]

Personally I don't like Pitbulls. I always lump the Pitbulls with the Rotweilers and the Dobelmanns....Bad asses dogs.

I would not shed any tears for Pitbulls bans. In any case Pitbulls aren't that smart and hard to train.

I love Labradors, Goldie and German Sheppards.

 

[jwmorrice]

Guess again because 5 is a mastiff called a Presa Canario, not a terrier, in fact its not even remotely close to a pitbull.

It is however even more dangerous and if you remember earlier I said that a lot of people are going to turn to this breed now.

The relevance is, no one can accurately determine what is an APBT. So how can you enforce the breed ban? The last dog attack was a Terrier/Lab cross breed and it was called a pitbull even though it wasnt. Does this mean that all terriers or all labs will be banned as well?

Oh god, this again. See the Winnipeg by-law, which I cited in another thread, for details on how pit bulls and such would be identified. And there doesn't seem to have been a problem with identification in Kitchener either.

Round and round, you guys go, trying your best to see problems in legislation, where, in the real world, there haven't been any.

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

jwm.... instead of giving the breed so much publicity which is the reason why so many people crave them. You should allow those who understand dogs work to get the problem under control....

Haven't you got it ass-backwards? Publicity came because of horrifying attacks by this breed of dog. Media types didn't put the names of breeds in a hat and out came 'pitbulls'.

jwm

 

[tzahal]

Well, the next time some little kid gets her face torn all to hell, we'll tell her how she should be worried about all these other things that cause more deaths. Yeah, that should be comforting!

jwm

tell her that when her mother is killed by a drunk driver because the government was trying to take the doggis away instead of using their resources to fight real problems in the province.

 

[sweet guy]

As a dog lover, I love different breeds of dogs and hell even the mix breed and the "Taco Bell" dog.

BUT I don't feel very comfortable to play with the breeds such as the Rotweilers, Dobelmann and the Pitbulls. They are breed to fight and not necessarily be "tamed" and "obedient". Their reputation is so bad that most of the time when you hear dog attacks, the overwhelming majorities are those breeds.

It's hard to prove the case of not banning the breeds when the "rap sheets" of the dogs attacks from those breeds are long.

And hell, even other breeds of dogs are scare like shit when they smell their assholes .

 

[tzahal]

Haven't you got it ass-backwards? Publicity came because of horrifying attacks by this breed of dog. Media types didn't put the names of breeds in a hat and out came 'pitbulls'.

jwm

but many could have come out. the one that did came out was pitbull because all the rappers owned them in cali and they were breeding them for fighting. this was the problem when i was in florida. too many kids were idolizing these guys and their dogs and everyone had to have the baddest one. untill the early 90's these dogs were NEVER a problem

 

[jwmorrice]

but many could have come out. the one that did came out was pitbull because all the rappers owned them in cali and they were breeding them for fighting. this was the problem when i was in florida. too many kids were idolizing these guys and their dogs and everyone had to have the baddest one. untill the early 90's these dogs were NEVER a problem

I've never heard of rappers owning pitbulls. Hey, maybe if I get jiggy with it, I'll change my mind on the whole issue?

jwm

 

[tzahal]

I've never heard of rappers owning pitbulls. Hey, maybe if I get jiggy with it, I'll change my mind on the whole issue?

jwm

thats who made them really popular in the late 80's early 90's.

i guess you have learned something new.

getting jiggy with it is hip hop. the badass rappers would shoot you for saying get jiggy with it to them.

 

[tompeepin]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/15/deadly.dogs.ap/

Not that it's meaningful, but .......

Touché. It appears that I am a little dated in my stats.

 

[Ranger68]

Re: Such intemperance!

In this society, and probably all others, lots of things are banned for the greater good. I don't think that's ignorant or "ludicrouse" (sic!).

jwm

No, to pick the five-hundredth most dangerous thing and ban it, while ignoring the 499 things above it IS ludicrous.

 

[Ranger68]

Well, the next time some little kid gets her face torn all to hell, we'll tell her how she should be worried about all these other things that cause more deaths. Yeah, that should be comforting!

jwm

Thanks for proving my point about sensationalism and fear-mongering.

Next.

 

[Ranger68]

It's people who would ban breeds of dogs, when there are really dangerous things out there to be concerned about, who are the REAL dangers to society.