Put down the crack pipe.
And greyhounds were bred to take down extraterrestrial invaders…
Yep. Before that they were probably all tommy-guns.
You fail at logic. I never said anything about all dogs. There are certain breeds that come up time and again. They should be gone.
Your list fails because with the possible exception of deer, they involve people participating in things at their choice. Last I heard people don’t get attacked by their neighbours aeroplane, or forced to down a hotdog when out for a walk in their local park.
As noted by some other posters above. sure, other dogs definitely DO bite, especially when they’re stressed (being groomed or attended to by vets) or when harrassed by little people or when someone touches their food bowl.
It appears that the difference with ‘those of the pitbull variety’ is that ‘those of the pitbull variety’ will often ATTACK out of the blue. Not just jump in with a quick nip, they are more prone to go for the death attack, and not letting up until prised off their victim or shot.
There IS something different in the temperament of your average dog ‘of the pitbull variety’. Whilst I’m sure most are docile sweethearts who want to lick you to death, there are enough of the other kind to make the breed/s worthy of being exterminated.
How long have you been posting here? Have you never participated in one of these threads? You actually doubt the proposition? Every one of these threads is about pro-pitbull people trying to waive away the obvious.
http://dogs.petbreeds.com/stories/4046/dog-breeds-attack this is a painful site because it is a slideshow but if you endure to the end you will find that dogs that are or can be mistaken for pitbulls have a serious injury or death statistic that is absolutely appalling. I haven’t added it up but eyeballing it they kill or injure more people than all the other top 34 breeds put together.
Actually this page Fatal Dog Bite Injury Studies - Dog Bite Studies Index - DogsBite.org seems to have the same statistics set out better and you can see that if the top three breeds (or dogs that can be mistaken for them) were gone, the death and injury count would plummet.
If you look at this .pdf (http://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Annual-reports-of-dog-attacks-in-NSW-2011-12.pdf) for Australia by comparison the same pattern exists (see tables from p18). Certain breeds (or dogs that can be mistaken for that breed) totally dominate the statistics.
Statistics this strong defy attempts to explain them away, unless of course you have your head thoroughly up your (pitbull’s) ass.
Could be also that people who tend to have a pit bull seek it out because of it’s reputation, and those are the sort of people who typically don’t care to train the dogs well.
Yet you can’t provide any data that shows that “certain breeds that come up time and again”
Being attacked by dogs is rare, very very very rare.
You are just a dog hater and you want to murder them while ignoring the facts due to an insanely misplaced amount of fear.
You are, in fact, twice as likely to die by a hornet, bee or wasp sting than a dog.
Lets get a list of orgs that are against breed bans…and compare that to the rants of someone whom revels in their own ignorance, as publicly stated on here.
Or about how, while reveling in your ignorance you probably couldn’t even identify a “pit bull” if your life depended on it.
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/breed-identification-1/#sthash.5Dm0eddM.dpuf
So excuse me if I will refuse to take a rebuff in logic from someone whom has stated that they wish to remain ignorant…while spouting bullshit high and loud as fact.
Hell those visual traits don’t even connect to behaviors despite your sadistic wishful thinking.
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Multimedia-Infographics
You are making misplaced assumptions all over the place. I don’t hate dogs and have no fear of them. What’s this sadism bullshit? Did I say something about roasting the dogs over a slow fire, or are you reading things that aren’t there into my posts due to sheer and obvious hysteria?
I just don’t think that breeds (or dogs that can be mistaken for breeds) that kill and injure statistically outstanding numbers of people should exist anywhere near people who don’t want them around.
Further there is a lot of weaselling that goes on in this debate. The organisations you cite don’t say that pitbulls or dogs that can be mistaken for them are not the Begbies of the dog world: they just recognise that at a practical level identification and enforcement would make BSL difficult.
And the rest of your post is the usual nitpickery. You are like those gun owners who think that guns are safe because an GT6b (2013 model) is totally different from a GT6(b) late 2013 model because of the completely different placement of the bodnick screw and the brass as opposed to stainless steel gizmick attachment point. You hope that if you witter on long enough about the precise sub-genus of tree, no one will notice the forest.
So you do admit that you want to kill off all dogs…
And it is not nitpickery, if professionals cannot successfully judge the breed of a dog how the hell do you make the claim that any one breed is more dangerous.
You are begging the question.
And more to the point you are like the useless gun banners that ban based on looks and not function, which is far worse. You just want to pass useless laws to make you fell more comfortable, while not giving any care to solving the original problem.
So lets be clear:
- Visual ID of a dog is highly unreliable even among experts.
- Visual traits of dogs do not relate to behavior.
- Your desire to exterminate based on visual traits does not solve the problem.
Pardon? Are you reading my posts? Because at the moment I’m admiring very much your heroic attempts to beat up a tough, wily adversary made of straw.
If you want to discuss something with me, I’ll be over here. At present I feel like posting in response to you would just be intruding on your valiant and brave attack on something made of dried grass.
You do keep saying “Pitbulls, or dogs that can be mistaken for pitbulls” and has been amply demonstrated, pretty much all medium and large sized dogs can be, and are regularly mistaken for pitbulls, which means that you are referring to pretty much all medium and large dogs. This would be why it can be assumed that you are against dogs in general. If that is not the case, which dogs, that are regularly mistaken for pitbulls, do you not find threatening? German Shephards, Labs, retrievers, huskys, doberman, boxers, st. bernards, cane corsos, and countless other breeds that are not a pit are mistaken for pits. Do all those need to go? If not all, which?
You do realize that total dog related deaths last year was 34, right? Even if every one of them was a pure pit bull, it still does not reach the “statistically outstanding numbers of people” you claim.
If you are that concerned about such a small chance of injury, I would suggest lining your clothing with bubble wrap and wearing a helmet at all times, as injuries and deaths from trips and falls is orders of magnitude higher. Stay in your house, but not in bed, there are ten times the injuries and deaths related to falling out of bed than from all dog attacks. Don’t take a shower or bath, 'cuase that’s just crazy hazardous. You are slightly safer around ants and vending machines, but just barely.
I’ve seen some videos of pit bulls or dogs that are grouped in that category fighting dogs I thought were tough like German Shep.'s and Rottweilers and there does seem to be something about the pit bulls in the videos anyway, they do seem more dangerous than those other breeds. The pitbull just seems to relentlessly attack and bite down on the other dog’s snout and never lets go. In the end, all dogs are animals and by nature they are unpredictable, people that anthropomorphize animals are often dangerous, you can’t truly know what is going on in a dog’s head.
That’s why you always read those sob stories about “Pepper was so sweet he never would hurt a fly”, then he kills an infant or something. I don’t trust animals, ever, they can’t be trusted by their very nature. That’s probably why I don’t own any dogs right now because I have a three year old child in the house, and I would never leave a child unattended with a dog, especially a small child with even a small dog.
The “something about the pit bulls” is most likely that you consider them to be more vicious and aggressive, and therefore perceive them as more vicious and aggressive.
To the rest, all everything is unpredictable. You hear plenty of stories of violent criminal’s parent’s talking about how sweet and innocent their child was. Happens more often than with dogs. There are 78 Million dogs in the US, with 34 kills. There are about 320 million people in the US, with about 15,000 murders. That makes humans 100 times more likely to intentionally kill you or your child than a dog. Pitbulls are 5% of the population, so even if they were to blame for all the deaths (which has been explained to be a dubious claim enough in this thread I believe that it does not need more), humans are still 5 times as likely to kill you intentionally. And that is all before you get into a car, then they are twice again as likely to kill you. I do feel that these numbers can and should come down, but banning humans would not be a good way to go about it.
I would not leave my (hypothetical) child with a strange dog just as I would not leave it with a strange person. I would also not leave my child alone with my other small child as its only supervision, and a dog is at best a small child in ability to reason and understand.
I would be for higher requirements for people to own pets. Many people get dogs for all the wrong reasons, and don’t train them, socialize them, or treat them properly. This can lead to them becoming aggressive or hostile, though usually just miserable, stressed, or depressed. If you required people to bring their dogs in for training and testing for aggressiveness, and trained the owners on how to interact with their dog, and screened unfit owners from owning dogs, then the number of attacks would drop from the insignificant level it is now to nearly none. I would be for it largely because it would remove millions of dogs from abusive situations, and help millions more dogs that misbehave through ignorance or neglect of owners to have a better relationship with their owners. Saving a couple dozen lives a year would be a big bonus.
Well, the one death in my neighborhood (next block over) from a dog bite was from a labrador (and it is on the Wikipedia page of dog deaths). This was in the late 80s, though, when pits weren’t quite as popular as they are now. Back then, it was the dobermans that were the scary dogs, as well as rotties.
At any rate, are you okay, Leaffan? I’m asking out of genuine concern, you seem a lot more tightly wound and agitated than usual. I’ve always known you to be a chill poster, but there’s a couple threads I’ve seen you in lately where you seem to be a bit out of character. Hope all is well.
He might benefit from the calming effect of owning a dog. Might I suggest a… Nah, not gonna do it. 
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf
Pit bulls and mixes ARE disproportionately likely to hurt people. I don’t get the defensiveness over this.
You left off the “and drops the mike” part.
Cite #1
Refutation: http://blog.sfgate.com/pets/2010/09/09/pit-bulls-bad-rap-how-much-is-the-media-to-blame/
Cite #2
Hardly a n un-biased source, and while animal professionals may be biased this is equivalent to citing stormfront when discussing race. Or a birther site when debating Obama’s citizenship.
Note even the “biased” sources for the other position have lots of external cites:
The White House, Centers For Disease Control, American Bar Association, ASPCA, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants ,and the American Animal Hospital Association have all denounced such claims as unscientific.
Note that you did not address the more credible cites above which demonstrated that professionals cannot reliably name the genetic makeup of dogs, let alone deduce behaviors from them.
The media reports on pit bull attacks because of a perceived risk, people identify attacking dogs as pit bulls because of media attention. This is begging the question.
We are not “defensive” about it, you are just offering invalid cites and then resorting to ad hominem attacks.