Pit Bulls - not personal attacks please

[jwmorrice]

Booga-booga!!

Originally posted by 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.

I feel just soooo menacing! However, I haven't killed anybody....yet!!

jwm

 

[Garrett]

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

That is not what I said... I said they cause problems disproportionate to their population.

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?

The article references a study that had pitbulls as the most likely to bite and require hospitalization. Look at the ratios... not really the dream pet for little Timmy.

Find a better study if you want... but you really are pulling numbers out of thin air.

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

Dude... i am a fucking mathematician. I was merely saying it is possible to twist stats... I am pretty much a realist here and always prefer to see the supporting data. I have not looked at the supporting data at all for the study I mentioned... until I see a better one, it is pretty damned strong.

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

Instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, prove it. Show the numbers I was curious about. In the article I provided... the "bite rate" was 16 for pitbulls. I am surrounded by 100's of cars a day... one has yet to bite me.

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. [/B]

Hey, I provide facts. Instead of whining... offer some facts.

The counter argument is... why the fuck does anyone want to own a pitbull? Penis size? Overcompensating? The fact that a dog can savagely kill someone (ref. Diane Whipple) and *more* people want to own it is pretty telling.

 

[mandrill]

I saw a pit bull savage and almost kill a shih tzu on College a couple of months ago. Unprovoked attack on a smaller, weaker animal. I wish I could show all you pitbull defenders some film footage of the shih tzu screaming and bleeding.

Pit bulls cause a disproportionate amount of damage. they also tend to be owned and bred by a disporportionate number of less responsible people - younger males from a less sophisticated background who are looking for a muscle dog. It is a dangerous combination. so i support the ban.

 

[Ranger68]

Re: Booga-booga!!

I feel just soooo menacing! However, I haven't killed anybody....yet!!

jwm

No, but you're supporting killing thousands of dogs....yet!!

 

[Ranger68]

That is not what I said... I said they cause problems disproportionate to their population.

The article references a study that had pitbulls as the most likely to bite and require hospitalization. Look at the ratios... not really the dream pet for little Timmy.

Find a better study if you want... but you really are pulling numbers out of thin air.

Dude... i am a fucking mathematician. I was merely saying it is possible to twist stats... I am pretty much a realist here and always prefer to see the supporting data. I have not looked at the supporting data at all for the study I mentioned... until I see a better one, it is pretty damned strong.

Instead of pulling numbers out of your ass, prove it. Show the numbers I was curious about. In the article I provided... the "bite rate" was 16 for pitbulls. I am surrounded by 100's of cars a day... one has yet to bite me.

Hey, I provide facts. Instead of whining... offer some facts.

The counter argument is... why the fuck does anyone want to own a pitbull? Penis size? Overcompensating? The fact that a dog can savagely kill someone (ref. Diane Whipple) and *more* people want to own it is pretty telling.

1. You're providing your own definition of "disproportionate with their population", and not bothering to determine whether other breeds do. Yet, you're quick to offer to kill off all the pit bulls. Again, ignorance.

2. I'm not pulling numbers out of thin air - I've referenced web pages. I could point you to the BOOKS ON MY SHELF, but that wouldn't do much good now, would it?

3. So, as a mathematician, you see one study and conclude that it's best to ban the species. Pretty weak. You should know that the results of one study are generally meaningless. Dig deeper.

4. http://www.fataldogattacks.com

http://http://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm

Grab your torch while you can. Burn those witches.

I don't think you have a clue about statistics or mathematics, or you wouldn't be proposing this nonsense about pit bulls being a danger to society. LOL

Nice try, though.

 

[Ranger68]

Oh, here's a fact jack.
Rottweilers are responsible for more attacks, and more fatal attacks, then Pit Bulls, despite very comparable populations.
Why not ban them?

Idiot.

 

[Ranger68]

I saw a pit bull savage and almost kill a shih tzu on College a couple of months ago. Unprovoked attack on a smaller, weaker animal. I wish I could show all you pitbull defenders some film footage of the shih tzu screaming and bleeding.

Pit bulls cause a disproportionate amount of damage. they also tend to be owned and bred by a disporportionate number of less responsible people - younger males from a less sophisticated background who are looking for a muscle dog. It is a dangerous combination. so i support the ban.

Keep pandering to the fear, folks.

Sensationalism writ large.

If I show you tape of a drunk driver butchering some innocent family, does that make you want to ban alcohol? 'Cause banning drunk driving hasn't stopped the problem.
How 'bout if I show you tape of some young wife who's had her face beaten in by some drunk bastard? You tell HER why we shouldn't ban alcohol.

Your facts are DEAD WRONG. It's sensationalism to claim that pit bulls are owned and bred by a disproportionate number of irresponsible people. Do you know how many pit bulls there are in North America? What percentage of them attack people? It's a very thin edge, people.

Also, you could use that argument for a ban on alcohol - that a disproportionate number of young and irresponsible people abuse it. Therefore, we should ban it. It's nonsense.

 

[Garrett]

Hey Garrett, that very same article you are quoting... look for the paragraph which talks about the Presa Canarios.... Read the last sentence in the paragraph... (near the bottom of page 2)

When the media senstationalizes those issues it gets people excited about something and this is the main reason why breed bans and all this media attention is not healthy.

The paragraph below that one explains how to curtain the problem in a reasonable manner. Which is the same thing I've been trying to drill into peoples heads.

Keep drilling... there are a handful of people in this world I truly trust... I am not going trust someone to do the right thing by their pet. I would say less than 10% of the people I know with pets actually have them properly trained. Why roll the dice... never mind large dogs do not belong in the city... they require more exercise than the typical 9 to fiver can offer... twenty minutes to poop in the morning ain't gonna cut it.

The very last line shows the reason why so many assholes own these dogs.

I could not agree more...

The same article also debunks your claim that pitbulls lead the fatalities involving dog bites and proves mine that Rotties lead instead.

It has pitbulls at number one for fatalities... with a spike for 93-98 for rotties... no matter though... I am happy to ban the top two... I could even warm up to the top ten.

Now, car accidents in the US account for a hell of a lot more deaths than those from dogs. More people die in plane crashes every year in the US than dog bites. Children account for 70% of the bites because their parents don't teach them to stay away from strange dogs or teach them how to behave around dogs.

... or because, they just like smaller targets... at their level. As for cars/planes... there are a hell of a lot more people on cars and planes than around pitbulls... adjust the numbers and we will see what happens...

Because the data is skewed it can be misinterpreted to suit just about any argument.

Yup... pick your model...

Again you guys are avoiding the issue of proper training and responsibility for the animals by the owners. That is the root of the problem..... you dont toss a set of keys to a 17 year old who has never driven before and say go take the car for a ride. But thats how simple it is for anyone to get their hands on a dog. This has to stop, only those who have the education should be permitted to own one.

Not at all... I just do not think it would work... between a real solution and a fantasy one... I will take the real solution every time.

I am curious what the state of criminal prosecution is for owners of these dogs (I believe in the Whipple case, there was a 2nd degree murder charge.. that stuck).

 

[Ranger68]

What's the "real solution", Garrett?!
How is this "ban" going to be enforced??
By what criteria are the ridiculously underfunded animal control people going to determine whether or not a dog fits this profile? Are you not concerned that thousands of otherwise innocent animals are going to be put to death?

Why should we treat animal abuse, or ownership, any differently than we treat those who use or abuse alcohol and commit crimes? Those who use weapons to commit crimes? Nobody's proposing a total ban on alcohol or guns in this country. Should we?

Jawhol.

 

[Garrett]

1. You're providing your own definition of "disproportionate with their population", and not bothering to determine whether other breeds do. Yet, you're quick to offer to kill off all the pit bulls. Again, ignorance.

My own definition? Uhhhh, the definition is pretty clear. I am happy to ban more than pitbulls... you think there are other bad breeds... throw em on the list!

2. I'm not pulling numbers out of thin air - I've referenced web pages. I could point you to the BOOKS ON MY SHELF, but that wouldn't do much good now, would it?

Show a better number. The breed is a problem... like it or not.

3. So, as a mathematician, you see one study and conclude that it's best to ban the species. Pretty weak. You should know that the results of one study are generally meaningless. Dig deeper.

Uhhhh... I have yet to find a study that refutes my basic contention that the breed is a problem disproportionate to its population. Instead of waving your arms, offer data (and not about plane crashes). Come on, you can do it.

4. http://www.fataldogattacks.com

Dead link for me.

http://http://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm

This was good for a laugh... a pro pitbull site that glosses over everything.. though it does distinguish between "good" and "bad" pitbulls...

Grab your torch while you can. Burn those witches.

For someone who bitches about hysteria... you are sure hysteric.

I don't think you have a clue about statistics or mathematics, or you wouldn't be proposing this nonsense about pit bulls being a danger to society. LOL

Nice try, though. [/B]

Ok, put your money where your mouth is. Put some money in escrow (say, $10k) and we will see who can back it up. Note that when you do write papers, you are subject to peer review where your assertions and supporting data are questioned. I have backed up my statements... I am merely asking you to do the same. So far, I have seen no evidence of this. Also, in a thread that requests "no personal attacks", you can surely do better...

 

[Garrett]

What's the "real solution", Garrett?!
How is this "ban" going to be enforced??
By what criteria are the ridiculously underfunded animal control people going to determine whether or not a dog fits this profile? Are you not concerned that thousands of otherwise innocent animals are going to be put to death?

All very good questions. I have serious issues with simply leaving it to owners' A friend of mine has about 4-5 bull mastiffs (she breeds them)... I trust her... but not a random stranger. Has Winnipeg had issues with enforcement?

Why should we treat animal abuse, or ownership, any differently than we treat those who use or abuse alcohol and commit crimes? Those who use weapons to commit crimes? Nobody's proposing a total ban on alcohol or guns in this country. Should we?

Jawhol. [/B]

Do we support criminal prosecution for the owner's of these animals. I only know of the whipple case, and I believe it was contentious there (and the US). Also, just because something else is a problem, does not mean you should not deal with the problem at hand (I will give you my thoughts on what we should do to drunk drivers sometime...). For guns, there are legitimate safety reasons to own one (I was raised up north). For alcohol, let's face it, prohibition will not work. I know of no actual reason to own a pitbull or why prohibition will not work.

 

[Ranger68]

My own definition? Uhhhh, the definition is pretty clear. I am happy to ban more than pitbulls... you think there are other bad breeds... throw em on the list!

Again, you seem unconcerned about the fate of now TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOGS. Good for you.

Okay, define "disproportionate with the population". Define "bad.

You're not thinking for yourself. You're not capable of it. You've joined the mob. Just don't come crying to me when the mob comes after you.

Show a better number. The breed is a problem... like it or not.

No, fear-mongers like you are a problem... like it or not.
Alcohol's a real problem... like it or not. Should we ban that? Unfortunately, there aren't as many supporters of pit bulls as there are of alcohol. Again, the mob mentality rules.

Uhhhh... I have yet to find a study that refutes my basic contention that the breed is a problem disproportionate to its population. Instead of waving your arms, offer data (and not about plane crashes). Come on, you can do it.

I already have. You refuse to listen, read, or understand. Check out some of the links I've posted. If you know how. Get help if you need it.

 

[Ranger68]

Do we support criminal prosecution for the owner's of these animals. I only know of the whipple case, and I believe it was contentious there (and the US). Also, just because something else is a problem, does not mean you should not deal with the problem at hand (I will give you my thoughts on what we should do to drunk drivers sometime...). For guns, there are legitimate safety reasons to own one (I was raised up north). For alcohol, let's face it, prohibition will not work. I know of no actual reason to own a pitbull or why prohibition will not work.

Yes, as I've said, if LOTS of things are FAR MORE of a problem, I have issues spending time and money on "solving" these issues.

Why not just put in place firm rules for prosecution of people whose animals attack? Simple. MUCH SIMPLER than the ban you're proposing. MUCH MORE HUMANE.

Sure - you support guns and alcohol, so bans there "won't work". LOL
What works is what you want to work.
Reality, you'll find, is often at odds with what you think, however.

 

[Ranger68]

http://www.pijaccanada.com/English/PDF/NCAC Eng NR_PIJAC-both.pdf

NOT a pit bull - supported site.
Of course, I haven't seen ANY data or studies indicating that a breed ban is either workable or necessary.
So much for "peer review". LOL

Need more?
"Researchers cautioned the breakdown does not necessarily indicate which dogs provide the highest risk of fatal attacks because incomplete registration of dogs and mixed breeds make it hard to determine how many of each type of dog Americans own. "

 

[Garrett]

Again, you seem unconcerned about the fate of now TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOGS. Good for you.

Okay, define "disproportionate with the population". Define "bad.

Thank you! I try to do my bit! Pitbulls and rotties are less than 10% of the dog population... and cause 60% of the deaths. That is disproportionate... and *bad*.

I already have. You refuse to listen, read, or understand. Check out some of the links I've posted. If you know how. Get help if you need it. [/B]

I have read everything you have had to say in this thread, and you offer no data. You blab a lot... but do not cite any studies or meaningful stats from an outside source. If I have missed something, feel free to point it out... but every time I tell you to put up or shut up... you do neither... so come on, stop saying you did... and just show the data.

 

[Garrett]

[Sure - you support guns and alcohol, so bans there "won't work". LOL
What works is what you want to work.

I think some people need to own guns (country folk, police officers). As for alcohol, ban away... I am pretty much a non drinker. Considering alcohol killed a few friends of mine (either drinking too much... or hit by drunks) it would please me mightily... it would never happen though... measure of a wise man is often choosing your battles...

Reality, you'll find, is often at odds with what you think, however.

Totally agree here

 

[Ranger68]

http://www.avma.org/pubhlth/dogbite/dogbite.pdf

An excerpt:
"An often asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are "most dangerous"? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as "dangerous". Although this is a common concern, singling out one or two breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community's citizens."

I'm still waiting for some counter-facts here. Anything. Come on, you can do it.
NOTHING I've read indicates that a breed ban is desirable, workable, or will effectively reduce the problem.

 

[Ranger68]

Thank you! I try to do my bit! Pitbulls and rotties are less than 10% of the dog population... and cause 60% of the deaths. That is disproportionate... and *bad*.



I have read everything you have had to say in this thread, and you offer no data. You blab a lot... but do not cite any studies or meaningful stats from an outside source. If I have missed something, feel free to point it out... but every time I tell you to put up or shut up... you do neither... so come on, stop saying you did... and just show the data.

You're talking about a VERY SMALL NUMBER of deaths. I think the number of deaths from alcohol is bad, and my number's a hell of a lot larger than yours, pal. LOL

Try posting some arguments. Something. Anything. A number. Something you didn't just pull out of your ass. A web link.
Anything?
No? ...

 

[Ranger68]

I think some people need to own guns (country folk, police officers). As for alcohol, ban away... I am pretty much a non drinker. Considering alcohol killed a few friends of mine (either drinking too much... or hit by drunks) it would please me mightily... it would never happen though... measure of a wise man is often choosing your battles...



Totally agree here

Country people need to own guns?! Come on! Surely not! And, if so, f*ck 'em!

You're not a wise man. You're part of the mob.

One day, the mob will come for you.

 

[Ranger68]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

An excerpt:
"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull type dogs and Rottweilers)," read carefully here "other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates."

I guess you're going to call the CDC site one run by pit bull owners now, huh? LOL

I have yet to see any counter-facts. I have yet to see ANY INDEPENDENT STUDY FROM ANY SOURCE indicating that your course of action is reasonable or effective.

I'm waiting ........