Time to Ban Owning Pit Bulls?

[stinkubus]

Comparing a human to a dog is pretty insulting. Although it sheds a lot of light on your side of the debate. Your precious pet is more important to you than another person's safety and that is morally repugnant.

 

[metalhead]

What they are is dangerous, why does it matter if they were mistreated or put in extraordinary circumstances? Will those situations disappear rendering pit bulls safe? No and no, they're not safe even when treated well. Their nature is the result of breeding violent aggressive dogs to be violent and aggressive.

This is not what the evidence says.

In a 2014 literature review of dog bite studies, the American Veterinary Medical Association(AVMA) states that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites.[29] Controlled studies do not show pit bulls to be disproportionately dangerous. While pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified with cases involving very severe injuries or fatalities than other breeds, the review suggests this may relate to the popularity of the breed, noting that sled dogs and Siberian Huskies compose a majority of fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada.[24]

In a 2000 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which examines data from both media reports and from The Humane Society of the United States, pit bull-type dogs were identified in approximately one-third of dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1981 and 1992. However, the review notes that studies on dog bite-related fatalities which collect information by surveying news reports are subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified.[30] The AVMA has also noted fundamental problems with tracking breed in dog bite-related fatalities.[31] In a 2013 study of 256 fatalities in the United States from 2000–2009, the AVMA determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of cases.[32]

In other words, your facts are wrong. You're proposing banning them based on nothing more than a negative stereotype.

 

[Synobun]

Comparing a human to a dog is pretty insulting. Although it sheds a lot of light on your side of the debate. Your precious pet is more important to you than another person's safety and that is morally repugnant.

I don't have a pit bull. I'm just not incoherently held hostage by misplaced fear.

The goal posts keep shifting and now rest on "there's a non-zero chance of harm!" as the compelling argument for banning several breeds of dogs. My posts in response to yours are meant to convey something very simple: there's a non-zero chance of something causing someone harm in pretty much all things. That you are very certain about your inclinations doesn't negate that there's a risk, and this is in fact one of the counterarguments your side has used in this debate.

 

[Berzerker]

Except this is a universal quality found in all creatures that are capable of digesting meat and is not at all somehow unique to pit bulls. Following your logic, the only acceptable pet is a teacup poodle that has had its teeth removed so it has to use its gums to eat slurried food. Otherwise it might harm someone if you abuse them.

Teacup wont eat you alive, most animals will wait for you to die if they need food, pit bulls expedite the process.

I possess knowledge about canines that extends beyond abject fear, so I would observe the situation. There's a difference between a hostile dog and a wandering dog, and my intervention between a child and a dog is likely to depend more on the kid than the animal since children tend to do things they shouldn't.

I have years of experience dealing with aggressive dogs on paper routes in a densely populated city, abject fear disappears with experience and I have plenty of it. And that was as a kid... Actually the early morning route was when the dogs were most active, they mostly come at night, mostly... . My concern is for other people and their pets.

So what are you gonna do? Hungry dogs can wander too... The fact they got your eye already says you are concerned, right? You're already planning an intervention based on the breed and behavior of the dogs. And I'd bet you'd start hoping they aint hungry, true? I'd have a weapon in my hand and I'd be moving toward the kid. Just to let 'em know the kid's got an adult close by, you know?

 

[Synobun]

So what are you gonna do? Hungry dogs can wander too... The fact they got your eye already says you are concerned, right? You're already planning an intervention based on the breed and behavior of the dogs. And I'd bet you'd start hoping they aint hungry, true? I'd have a weapon in my hand and I'd be moving toward the kid. Just to let 'em know the kid's got an adult close by, you know?

Please don't approach kids with weaponry.

Your hypothetical day dreaming does change this situation quite a bit. Between a wandering dog, a child, and a man arming himself and approaching children, the latter is what would worry me most.

 

[Kyriakos]

Please don't approach kids with weaponry.

Your hypothetical day dreaming does change this situation quite a bit. Between a wandering dog, a child, and a man arming himself and approaching children, the latter is what would worry me most.

A human sort of has rights, in any society with some rule of law. A dog, if deemed a threat, is as good as a bear or other wild beast, surely? Let alone that dogs sort of cannot be reasoned with.
You won't be founding a city on the site of an eaten comrade either.

 

[Synobun]

A human sort of has rights, in any society with some rule of law. A dog, if deemed a threat, is as good as a bear or other wild beast, surely? Let alone that dogs sort of cannot be reasoned with.
You won't be founding a city on the site of an eaten comrade either.

All well and good until someone's definition of threat can be summarized as "merely existing". You'll note that nobody here has advocated for dogs to simply be allowed to maul people or eat hapless children alive.

 

[stinkubus]

For a non-sentient animal whose instinct is to kill it's mere existence is a threat.

 

[metalhead]

Of course, science has looked at whether that is true of pit bulls, and it isn't.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't see an issue severe enough to warrant banning a breed.

If we can breed them to be violent we can breed them to be less violent, the ban would probably be grandfathered in. But people are trying to make them violent.

Comparing a human to a dog is pretty insulting. Although it sheds a lot of light on your side of the debate. Your precious pet is more important to you than another person's safety and that is morally repugnant.

I dont even understand why someone would want a dog like that. Safety? Yeah, they'll deter criminals. But its ironic to hear people who want them for safety to accuse others of being scared. Scared is why you got the dog in the first place. Now the neighbors can be scared your weapon will kill or maul their kids or pets.

Please don't approach kids with weaponry.

Your hypothetical day dreaming does change this situation quite a bit. Between a wandering dog, a child, and a man arming himself and approaching children, the latter is what would worry me most.

You're gonna be a lot of help if the dogs attack him... I asked how you'd respond and apparently you'd be more worried about me defending the kid. You should be worried, your non-abject fear might be viewed as cowardice by the neighbors. I can just see you telling the cops how you weren't concerned by the dogs, you worried about the only adult there trying to stop their attack.

 

[Synobun]

You're gonna be a lot of help if the dogs attack him... I asked how you'd respond and apparently you'd be more worried about me defending the kid. You should be worried, your non-abject fear might be viewed as cowardice by the neighbors. I can just see you telling the cops how you weren't concerned by the dogs, you worried about the only adult there trying to stop their attack.

Of course, in this scenario, I'd be giving testimony to the cops on why an adult man rampaged through the neighbourhood chopping away at unleashed dogs.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't have a pit bull. I'm just not incoherently held hostage by misplaced fear.

The goal posts keep shifting and now rest on "there's a non-zero chance of harm!" as the compelling argument for banning several breeds of dogs. My posts in response to yours are meant to convey something very simple: there's a non-zero chance of something causing someone harm in pretty much all things. That you are very certain about your inclinations doesn't negate that there's a risk, and this is in fact one of the counterarguments your side has used in this debate.

The compelling argument is they're man eaters

What was your response to me when I approached the kid with a weapon? You were concerned... If you didn't see any dogs you might think I was about to attack the kid, right? How would you respond? You'd approach us, preferably with a weapon, just in case I was about to attack him. Wouldn't you be doing that if you saw a couple pit bulls approaching the kid? But seeing both the dogs and me reacting to them, you'd still think I was the threat? And do what exactly? Tackle me while the dogs eat the kid? Thats an even better explanation for the cops.

I think we've cursed these dogs with our ego and greed. When I see a cat or dog with a pug nose so extreme it constantly suffers from nasal problems I dont think its cute, I see the unfortunate victim of our selfish meddling. And dogs bred for fighting? Thats even lower. Course we kill and eat megatons of animals everyday, who am I to complain when they eat a few of us... I was just putting myself in the shoes of the guy who saw his wife eaten alive. I'd be really angry with the people breeding my wife's killers.

 

[Berzerker]

Of course, in this scenario, I'd be giving testimony to the cops on why an adult man rampaged through the neighbourhood chopping away at unleashed dogs.

You're complaining about moving the goalposts? This is the scenario:

So what are you gonna do? Hungry dogs can wander too... The fact they got your eye already says you are concerned, right? You're already planning an intervention based on the breed and behavior of the dogs. And I'd bet you'd start hoping they aint hungry, true? I'd have a weapon in my hand and I'd be moving toward the kid. Just to let 'em know the kid's got an adult close by, you know?

If I'm chopping any dogs its because they're attacking the kid. So what are you telling the cops about the half devoured kid? My scenario is 2 pit bulls attacking a kid, yours is a wandering dog that doesn't attack anyone. The thread is about pit bulls eating people. You moved the goalposts out of the stadium.

 

[Synobun]

If I'm chopping any dogs its because they're attacking the kid. So what are you telling the cops about the half devoured kid? My scenario is 2 pit bulls attacking a kid, yours is a wandering dog that doesn't attack anyone. The thread is about pit bulls eating people. You moved the goalposts out of the stadium.

Well, yeah, if you base your hypothetical scenario on what happens in <1% of occurrences then it stands to reason that your position will be validated. The difference between your scenario and mine is that yours is the statistical outlier while mine is more in tune with reality. It is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, *breathes*, far, far, far more likely that a wandering dog is simply wandering than it is that a wandering dog is a man-eating beast crazed with the taste of flesh.

And since you made this argument, I'd like to inform you that your scenario wasn't about 2 pit bulls attacking a child.

Tell me, if you see a couple of pit bulls running around the neighborhood, how do you react? Any concern for that small child playing in his yard? Do you maybe keep an eye on the situation? Contact the owner? Start looking for a stick or weapon in case those dogs attack that small child? Or do you ignore them?

 

[Berzerker]

This is not what the evidence says.

• 31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-s...MIyun184yn2AIVirjACh1kRwCaEAAYASAAEgL56vD_BwE

Your source admitted pit bulls cause more deaths but attributed that to their popularity. They aint that popular. So we have dueling studies...

 

[Synobun]

• 31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-s...MIyun184yn2AIVirjACh1kRwCaEAAYASAAEgL56vD_BwE

Your source admitted pit bulls cause more deaths but attributed that to their popularity. They aint that popular. So we have dueling studies...

I am very happy you posted this website. They source their figures from news reports, something that is directly addressed by the study @metalhead posted.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, yeah, if you base your hypothetical scenario on what happens in <1% of occurrences then it stands to reason that your position will be validated. The difference between your scenario and mine is that yours is the statistical outlier while mine is more in tune with reality. It is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, *breathes*, far, far, far more likely that a wandering dog is simply wandering than it is that a wandering dog is a man-eating beast crazed with the taste of flesh.

And since you made this argument, I'd like to inform you that your scenario wasn't about 2 pit bulls attacking a child.

The scenario was about being prepared in case they do attack. I'd be prepared and you'd be watching from the sidelines in non-abject fear. Or you'd be attacking me because you figured I was the threat, not the dogs.

What would you do if they attacked the kid? Is it okay for me to approach the dogs with a weapon at that point?

 

[Synobun]

What would you do if they attacked the kid? Is it okay for me to approach the dogs with a weapon at that point?

Watch in glee given how morally repugnant I am, of course.

Obviously you should intervene if someone is being attacked. That is not the zinger you think it is.

 

[Berzerker]

I am very happy you posted this website. They source their figures from news reports, something that is directly addressed by the study @metalhead posted.

The website was already posted on the 1st page. How does a 2014 study disprove a 2016 study?

 

[Synobun]

The website was already posted on the 1st page. How does a 2014 study disprove a 2016 study?

Your source not being a study, for one. That yours is using two years of more recent news stories doesn't really counteract the ever present issue of news reports not being a reliable metric for accurate information regarding dog attacks, especially when your "study" provides fear-mongering numbers and sad stories about innocent victims, pictures of their faces and all.

Tyler Trammell-Huston, 9-years old, was brutally killed by his sister's three pit bulls after she left him alone with the dogs. At the time of the attack, Tyler was staying with his half-sister, Alexandria Griffin-Heady, who hoped to "rescue" him from the foster system.

Whew, look at that scientific rigor.