Time to Ban Owning Pit Bulls?

[metatron]

It's always fun to link a block of text that then hopefully makes your case for you, but... yeah, I had already read through the laws before I even made that comparison. I interpret nothing I read there as a declaration that the ownership of swords is outlawed in Germany, so could you be a bit more precise about what part of that text block you _think_ outlaws the ownership of swords? Because the way I interpret the text is that ownership of swords is legal if you're 18+, the carrying of such a weapon is not.

That's in line with pretty much any source I found via google.

You'd want to generally look at the beginning and in the 2nd appendix. That's largely where weapons are defined.

Anyway you are right in that i was incorrect (not regarding the point though):
You can probably actually get away with owning and even walking around with something that is sharp and that you and i would agree was basically a sword.
With a prototypical sword (say roman sword) the two blades should get you into trouble.
But yes, apparently legal experts have debated to death the Pforzheim killer with his katana - i asume that's what you are refering to - and apparently that's legal now - minus the whacking-people-with-it part obviously.

So anyway. You smart me dumb. It doesn't help you though.
No matter how we slice and dice the weapons act the fact remains:
These things are tightly regulated and there is plenty of prohibition to go around, with virtually no respect being given to the "freedom" that "has value in itself" as per your post #10 in this thread.
We may disagree with this restrictive approach.
But that doesn't change that your comparison falls flat.

We can at that point go back to the US with no overprotective German weapons act to be found, and your comparison still falls flat.
For the more obvious comparison obliterates your position: Most states have harsh, categorical regulations in place regarding pet ownership in general (e.g. regarding "dangerous" animals).

There are cats that have killed babies. So let's kill all cats? Not that I'd necessarily be against that one, maybe the world is better off without cats, in fact, I think that's almost undeniable.

The point remains:
The cat wasn't purposefully engineered in the British Empire and the Second Empire for just this porpuse.
Combat dogs are meant to be dangerous and aggressive and, if need be, inflict mortal injury on other humans.
Cats aren't made to do that. Sportscars aren't made to do that. Swords were originally made to do that. Today they are made for the sake of decoration and penis compensation and are tighly regulated.
So the argument in favor of an inherently valuable right to own a dangerous, fascistoid little monster that is "actually totally nice blablabla" and expose other people to it looks ever more shaky.

It seems extremely likely that his "years of experience" are the product of passing dogs while emitting all the signals of morbid fear, which would make every unleashed dog react to him as prey. Rabbits see what rabbits see, but that doesn't really bear on the world we live in.

So, that you debate him in third person at a figurative yard's distance speaks volumes, but anyway.
Either way this attitude is shocking.
We, your oposition in this thread, as much as anyone else have a right to walk about in public, to do so giving of whatever vibe and not be forced to go out of our way because someone seized public space with their hideous, dangerous creature.

 

[metalhead]

I should have asked this before, but what was the determination for the 17.6%?

From the study front page, linked on Wikipedia:

Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies.

Design—Prospective case series.

Sample—256 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009.

Procedures—DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis.

Results—Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]), incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]), owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]), compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]). Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.

So they did the leg work, checking media, law enforcement, and animal control reports. Looks like the 17.6% means that animal control was only able to positively ID breeds in that percentage of cases. One expects that animal control professionals generally would be able to ID a pit bull, meaning that you can't actually say with any degree of certainty that pit bulls are responsible for most DBRFs. Relying solely on media reports for this data is hugely problematic.

If you wanted to put more stringent ownership requirements on certain breeds, I would think that makes sense. I also find it kind of nuts that dogs who have undergone abuse and trauma are allowed to be "rescued" instead of euthanized, especially aggressive breeds. But singling out any breed for outright banning makes little sense, and there isn't an evidentiary basis for doing so.

 

[Berzerker]

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

This was my scenario:

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?

"In case those dogs attack", that was the scenario.... You changed it to some wandering dog that doesn't attack anyone, some poor wandering dog I'm chopping at. Just showing where the goal posts were. Btw, the website linked in the thread compiles data on dog attacks. The data come from different sources, including studies I assume. I'm sure they've seen the studies cited in MHs 2014 study, I'm sure they've seen the 2014 study. They do seem to have some expertise on the subject, I see them listed quite a bit when googling dog attacks. But you're skeptical, why?

And I dont know why you think a 2014 study disproves the identification of pit bulls as the predominant killers of people in 2016. Read the stories of the victims, many were killed by dogs in the family or with friends and neighbors - not by strange dogs that couldn't be identified. Why should I dismiss their ID of the killers?

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]

Huskies dont have to compete with pit bulls up there, the fact we dont see huskies dominating the fight dog industry should speak for itself. The explanation pit bulls are used in fighting rings and are therefore more deadly is undoubtedly true, and irrelevant. How many of the victims listed on that website were killed by former fighters? I think the chicken/egg is backwards, they're chosen for fighting because they've been bred for fighting a long time. I want the practice to end. No more breeding them. These people who engage in that industry are scum, the dogs they produce are more likely to kill or maim and require euthanasia and they do it for greed and ego.

Not in yours.

But you'd support restraints on pit bulls in your neighborhood?

Fishing for something here?

Just noting the hypocrisy again

It seems extremely likely that his "years of experience" are the product of passing dogs while emitting all the signals of morbid fear, which would make every unleashed dog react to him as prey. Rabbits see what rabbits see, but that doesn't really bear on the world we live in.

I couldn't out run them, I was carrying a bag loaded with newspapers and running's a mistake anyway. And these dogs were not out just wandering around, they were defending the homestead which made them even more aggressive. I didn't quit... I began developing my pitching arm at a young age. If a dog got aggressive I'd fire a shot across his bow with a folded newspaper. I delivered papers a few years on the mean streets of a city and I've owned dogs most of my life, you guys dont need to tell me about dogs. I dont think you have more experience.

But I'd like to see how you as a 10 year old would react to the dogs I had to deal with. Hell, I'd like to see you deal with them as an adult. I'd like to see you bravely walk up to a couple pit bulls to check their tags. Nothing to it, you guys are just chicken, fearful rabbits. Tell that to the guy who saw his wife get eaten alive. If I see a couple pit bulls around my house I'm grabbing a weapon and investigating to see if they're friend or foe. My neighbor was attacked by another neighbor's dogs, thats BS. Neighbors like that are not neighbors, their thoughtless recklessness is a threat to everyone else. They're the kind of people who tell the media one of their neighbors complained about JESUS.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Speaking of Jesus, dogs, and violence: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-a-host-of-demons.505808/page-5#post-12731370

Though the OP of that thread surely has no taste at all

 

[Synobun]

But you're skeptical, why?

I did my due diligence and clicked through to their sourcing where they admit to getting the majority of their figures from media reports. If an actual study shows that media reports get breed identification wrong far more than they get it right, why would I believe figures that are from media reports? It is a faulty premise. I would only believe it if it enforced my belief, which in this scenario would be "pit bulls are evil". Since that isn't my belief I have no reason to believe something that's been disproven.

And I dont know why you think a 2014 study disproves the identification of pit bulls as the predominant killers of people in 2016. Read the stories of the victims, many were killed by dogs in the family or with friends and neighbors - not by strange dogs that couldn't be identified. Why should I dismiss their ID of the killers?

@metalhead answered this. I'm not going to rephrase his replies just so you can ignore them differently.

But I'd like to see how you as a 10 year old would react to the dogs I had to deal with. Hell, I'd like to see you deal with them as an adult. I'd like to see you bravely walk up to a couple pit bulls to check their tags. Nothing to it, you guys are just chicken, fearful rabbits. Tell that to the guy who saw his wife get eaten alive. If I see a couple pit bulls around my house I'm grabbing a weapon and investigating to see if they're friend or foe. My neighbor was attacked by another neighbor's dogs, thats BS. Neighbors like that are not neighbors, their thoughtless recklessness is a threat to everyone else. They're the kind of people who tell the media one of their neighbors complained about JESUS.

To put it lightly, this is incoherent rambling. People who own aggressive pit bulls are Christians?

Uhm, alright. Sure? Maybe? That's a weird hot take to be making. It's not relevant. It's entirely nonsensical.

Again, I live next door to one of these boogeyman dogs you're talking about. I've been around dogs my entire life since I grew up in a rural area. The most damage done to children's faces during that time were from small breeds that are notoriously untrained. An anxious chihuahua posed, and poses, far more of a risk to a child than an average pit bull. Which again circles back around to the fact that your hyperventilation about pit bulls is not unique to their "breed". The precautions and worries you lament over exist with all dogs.

This is ultimately the biggest problem with your position. Even if we were to assume that your figures were true, and that your perspective was the 'right' perspective, it would necessitate reality being far more different than it is. If you were right, there'd be significantly more maulings and man-eating pit bulls. If you were right, you wouldn't be able to have a pit bull that doesn't attack because this would go against the nature you attribute to them. Your claims do not match up with reality even if we were to take your figures and assumptions at face value. So where's the disconnect here? Do you think there's a conspiracy at work here that covers up how dangerous pit bulls are, and we're all just the hapless victims of this Canine Illuminati?

 

[Berzerker]

For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.

How many pit bulls did they identify? If 10-20 pit bulls were identified eg, and the next breed killed 2 or 3, how does that effect the 30 or 40% of differing reports? If someone IDs the dog as a pit bull and another says it was something else, do they make note of the 2 options anyway? Thats 355 dogs that killed people, what information do we have about them? I figure pit bulls/mixes top that list too.

So they did the leg work, checking media, law enforcement, and animal control reports. Looks like the 17.6% means that animal control was only able to positively ID breeds in that percentage of cases. One expects that animal control professionals generally would be able to ID a pit bull, meaning that you can't actually say with any degree of certainty that pit bulls are responsible for most DBRFs. Relying solely on media reports for this data is hugely problematic.

I'd expect professionals to ID most of the dogs, I'm surprised their success rate is so low. I suspect disagreement results mostly from the mixing in the dog. How much pit bull before the dog can be accurately identified as a pit bull mix?

If you wanted to put more stringent ownership requirements on certain breeds, I would think that makes sense. I also find it kind of nuts that dogs who have undergone abuse and trauma are allowed to be "rescued" instead of euthanized, especially aggressive breeds. But singling out any breed for outright banning makes little sense, and there isn't an evidentiary basis for doing so.

https://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

The evidence is pretty strong against them, so far I dont see any evidence pit bulls are no more deadly than other dogs. Now if that study showed German shepherds and Dobermans eg killed more people per capita, then I'd agree pit bulls shouldn't be singled out.

 

[Traitorfish]

>guns kill 30,000+ per year.
"Look , it's complicated. You can't just passing sweeping legislation and expect it to have a significant impact on public safety. You have to work with gun owners, not against them.
>dogs kill 20-30 people per year.
"Welp, time for DOG GENOCIDE."

 

[Hrothbern]

>guns kill 30,000+ per year.
"Look , it's complicated. You can't just passing sweeping legislation and expect it to have a significant impact on public safety. You have to work with gun owners, not against them.
>dogs kill 20-30 people per year.
"Welp, time for DOG GENOCIDE."

Typical human centered argument
typical remains of our classic culture up to humanism , enlightenment, up to the 50ies last century.

No integrated respect for animal life... for that you have to go back to shamanism and some stubborn remains of that up to this time.
Or the 60ies revolution, club of Rome report, Green Peace, etc.

So how about the tens of thousands of other dogs that get traumatised by the bad dogs, often also from ignorant bad owners, by their agressive behaviour

 

[Commodore]

The problem is with the breeders/owners, who train them to be fighting dogs.

Except we see owners of pitbulls who don't train them as fighting dogs still getting attacked by them. Sorry, but this is simply a naturally aggressive breed of dog that can seemingly "snap" at any given moment. No reason to keep any of them alive if you ask me.

 

[Berzerker]

I did my due diligence and clicked through to their sourcing where they admit to getting the majority of their figures from media reports. If an actual study shows that media reports get breed identification wrong far more than they get it right, why would I believe figures that are from media reports? It is a faulty premise. I would only believe it if it enforced my belief, which in this scenario would be "pit bulls are evil". Since that isn't my belief I have no reason to believe something that's been disproven.

I'm not sure how to read MHs source, but I think it claims media reports differed 30% of the time (I dont know if thats multiple media reports or what) and media reports and animal control differed 40%. But his source also says only 17% were known or confirmed identifications, so why do you interpret those numbers to mean media reports are wrong more often than right. How many pit bulls make up the 17%? How many pit bulls and/or mixes make up the possible attackers in all those other cases? If media reports differ, that doesn't mean they're both wrong.

To put it lightly, this is incoherent rambling. People who own aggressive pit bulls are Christians?

Uhm, alright. Sure? Maybe? That's a weird hot take to be making. It's not relevant. It's entirely nonsensical.

I started a thread on Christians who put up a Jesus sign and a neighbor complained, so they went to Fox news to announce how their neighbor hates Jesus. They put all their neighbors in jeopardy, not just the one who complained. Thats how I see pit bull owners, they're endangering their neighbors.

Again, I live next door to one of these boogeyman dogs you're talking about. I've been around dogs my entire life since I grew up in a rural area. The most damage done to children's faces during that time were from small breeds that are notoriously untrained. An anxious chihuahua posed, and poses, far more of a risk to a child than an average pit bull. Which again circles back around to the fact that your hyperventilation about pit bulls is not unique to their "breed". The precautions and worries you lament over exist with all dogs.

This is ultimately the biggest problem with your position. Even if we were to assume that your figures were true, and that your perspective was the 'right' perspective, it would necessitate reality being far more different than it is. If you were right, there'd be significantly more maulings and man-eating pit bulls. If you were right, you wouldn't be able to have a pit bull that doesn't attack because this would go against the nature you attribute to them. Your claims do not match up with reality even if we were to take your figures and assumptions at face value. So where's the disconnect here? Do you think there's a conspiracy at work here that covers up how dangerous pit bulls are, and we're all just the hapless victims of this Canine Illuminati?

Chihuahuas aint roaming the neighborhood eating people, tell the guy who watched his wife get eaten alive Chihuahuas are more dangerous than pit bulls.

 

[Traitorfish]

Chihuahuas aint roaming the neighborhood eating people, tell the guy who watched his wife get eaten alive Chihuahuas are more dangerous than pit bulls.

Wait, sorry, what sort of terrifying Mad Max hellscape do you live in where packs of man-eating feral dogs roam the street with impunity?

 

[innonimatu]

Packs of man-eating feral dogs roaming the street with impunity would happen in plenty of cities if all their population was made up of the kind of animal-loving fools I have met. Fortunately we also have more practical people who kill these dangerous dogs and keep the packs scared of humans. Those people, usually working under some organized municipal service that handle the routine necessary capture and elimination of these animals, are the reason such problems don't arise in most cities. Dogs gone wild can and will attack humans.

But you know that, hence the "with impunity" bit. I do sympathize with Berzerker's concern, especially if he lives someplace with ineffective municipal services. Or worse, elected officials that are "animal lovers" of the foolish kind.

 

[Berzerker]

>guns kill 30,000+ per year.
"Look , it's complicated. You can't just passing sweeping legislation and expect it to have a significant impact on public safety. You have to work with gun owners, not against them.
>dogs kill 20-30 people per year.
"Welp, time for DOG GENOCIDE."

Wouldn't it be nice if those people were alive? This is not so much about the dogs - they're the victims of a slimy industry - its about the people who breed violence into them producing even more dangerous animals. We banned machine guns for the most part, we can ban breeding killers. Neuter them... Snip snip.

Wait, sorry, what sort of terrifying Mad Max hellscape do you live in where packs of man-eating feral dogs roam the street with impunity?

And the Chihuahuas down under are venomous... The thread's about one couple's hellscape, Mad Max sounds about right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But you'd support restraints on pit bulls in your neighborhood?

Not an issue in my neighborhood. No alarmist rabbits live here.

 

[Hygro]

So we've established that pit bulls are a) not a consistent breed and b) not a breed with any innate propoesniry to attack but because pit bull owners are the kind of owners who raise dogs to be vicious we should round up and kill pit bulls and let alone the types of people who raise bad dogs.

 

[Berzerker]

Not an issue in my neighborhood. No alarmist rabbits live here.

It was an issue for the couple in the OP, she's dead... but you can still explain to her maimed hubby how he's just an alarmist rabbit.

 

[metatron]

So we've established that pit bulls are a) not a consistent breed and b) not a breed with any innate propoesniry to attack but because pit bull owners are the kind of owners who raise dogs to be vicious we should round up and kill pit bulls and let alone the types of people who raise bad dogs.

No.
1. "Pit bull" is a lay term for a set of breeds (principally the four ones i listed) and mutts close enough to those breeds.
2. These breeds do not have a unique disposition to bite. Other breeds outrank them, as has been demonstrated.
3. There is a case to be made that these breeds are particularly useful in making them threaten to bite, if you will. They are - in part - combat dogs from their inception going forward.
So while Huskies or German Shepherds may bite more, threatening behavior is arguably intrinsic to the set of breeds we call pit bulls.
As Hrothbern has elaborated in post #10 this induces a significant chilling effect for both humans and other dogs, and constitutes, as i would put it, frankly terrorising the neighborhood.
No matter if you are middle class people treating your oh-so-harmless Staffordshire well:
It is still a stressor to half the neighborhood. And with cause. It's not like the stressed adults, children and dogs were imagining things.
The oh-so-cute dog is the problem. Not the other way around.

 

[Ajidica]

Only animals ever to have bit me were a neurotic Chihuahua and a particularly bad tempered cat.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only animals ever to have bit me were a neurotic Chihuahua and a particularly bad tempered cat.

Make of that what you will.

I've been bitten by a far more substantial list...and it still doesn't include anything like a "pit bull." Fair number of chihuahuas though. Surprising no one wants to ban that vicious breed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It was an issue for the couple in the OP, she's dead... but you can still explain to her maimed hubby how he's just an alarmist rabbit.

I haven't seen any indications that he is an alarmist rabbit.