No shit?! Brilliant conclusion, especially since the first line of the original post was, "I hate pit bulls; absolutely fucking hate 'em. " Let me guess; you’re not biased at all, right Sparky? Pit Bull owner or lover?
As for the data being invalid, you’re incorrect (yet again). The Clifton Study is widely regarded by Law Enforcement as the definitive ‘bible’ on dangerous breeds and dog bite statistics.
The Clifton Study and the CDC study are hardly the only ones out there; they’re just the only ones I had within easy reach. Out in our garage I have about three paper cases of dog bite data—by breed, geographic region, age of victim, age of animal, etc.—buried away. Admittedly, some this data is 5-6 years old.
The fact that law enforcement utilizes a discredited and imperfect tool does not make it factual data, nor does it somehow make any conclusions drawn from said data valid.
I’m no more a Pit bull lover than I am a yorkie lover.
Broad generalizations and fallacies of logic just piss me off.
And so were studies stating that Marijuana made you violent.
Yet every time I went over to my friends house in high school, their stoned asses wouldn’t move off the couch to swat a fly, much less be violent.
And, like I said before, LEO’s who use K9s will not use Pits. Not because they’re too aggressive. But because they’re not aggressive enough. Because it’s near impossible to get them to be human aggressive without abusing them.
Remember that pesky part where I already talked about K9 officers?
Nope? I’ll quote it for you.
That’s good, because I’m sure those will be equally unbiased. Let me guess: Your wife had to take the Pro-side of BSL’s, and that’s the research materials you had?
I have a question.
Did you know that black people were statistically more likely to be involved in crime, per capita than white people? Do you know why? Is it because black people are inherently more criminal? Or is it… perhaps… because of the situation in which they’re raised (poverty, namely)?
I really hate people who toss around these logical fallacies like they are actually making a point. When someone says “This guys data points to this” it isn’t a fucking appeal to authority, it’s naming the researcher, ffs. And Jettboy was obviously just pointing out that the guy is an animal lover simply so people wouldn’t say “oh he just hates dogs”. That is also not really an appeal to authority. Why not make a real point instead of randomly flipping through your “How to argue on the internet” handbook.
For example, why don’t you point out where these reports have been discredited?
Frankly, I could give two pieces of monkey shit whether or not you like my style. You’ll note I DID point out the issue with the CDC study. I’m not bothering to link to the stuff regarding the Cliffton one because another poster has already mentioned it and can be called to task. I also don’t feel like wasting MY time wading through PDFs just to make a point on the intarwebs that the OP isn’t going to accept anyway. He’s got some hysterical notion in his head, and we’ve done this thread a thousand times already. the OP’s NEVER learn anything and just keep on kicking the same dead horse over and again. It’s more fun to just be a dick and nit-pick his argumentative fallacies.
It was pointed out how the data itself was flawed;
After it’s been pointed out how it’s flawed, claiming that it’s not flawed simply because an authority figure uses it is the very definition of an Appeal to Authority.
I did make a point.
It was ignored, “Because police use the study,” which is an inherently appeal to authority fallacy.
How about we start with the way I just pointed out?
No, it was an unbiased study of reported dog bite cases in a specific region. Contrary to what you may believe, data for such a broad subject—obtained from a huge number of sources including the ASPCA, several local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, hospitals and clinics—doesn’t just show up on a piece of paper marked “pit bulls BAAAD”.
I thought we were discussing a specific type of dog; when did it become a sociology/criminal justice discussion? I’m not sure what you’re getting at…maybe pit bulls cause more serious injury and death than most other breeds because…? Dogs aren’t people. What, are most pit bulls poor? Did they have unhappy childhoods? Raised without a father figure? Equating dog bites by breed to human crime statistics is asinine and pointless.
Here’s the one statistic that makes all the difference: 23 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2008. Pit bull type dogs were responsible for 65% (15). In 2008, only one U.S. citizen over the age of 3 was killed by a breed other than a pit bull.
In the above statistic, if “pit bull” were replaced with a specific “shoe” or mouthwash", do you think the public would demand action of some type?
When you put something in a certain context, it’s likely to behave in a certain way.
“Intimidating looking dogs” (Those which are less accurately called pit bulls and pit bull types) are used by people who wish to have attack dogs. Not because they’re necessarily good at it – in fact, real Pit Bull breeders won’t sell to someone who wants to use it for that, because they don’t want to sell a dog into an abusive home, which is what is required to make a Pit Bull human aggressive.
Yes, lets drawn an arbitrary line in age.
How many over the age of 90 were killed by pit bulls, hu?
How many under the age of 3 were killed by non pit bulls?
Was the person who was killed by a “Pit bull” killed by an American Pit Bull Terrier? Was he killed by a Bull Mastiff? Was he killed by an American Staff Terrier? Was he killed by an American Bull Dog?
If you replaced “Pit Bull” with “Black Person” do you think the public would demand some type of action? :rolleyes:
Very few of which would be able to positively identify a pit bull from any other boxy-headed dog if it bit them on the posterior. I didn’t know that cops, doctors and nurses were experts in breed identification, nor that one could tell the breed of dog merely from it’s bite marks. As for the ASPCA, they are hard working long suffering people who see a lot of mixes. Any qualified vet will tell you that without a DNA test, all they can do is take a guess at a mixed breed dog. So any short muzzled, short haired mutt between 30-100 lbs is a pitbull/ pitbull mix. The numbers are skewed because the data is bad.
They’re not naturally aggressive if that’s what you mean.
They’re terrier dogs that can be trained as attack dogs and are often trained for aggressivity. The problem lies with people who don’t know how the fuck to train an attack dog. The first things you train a dog intended for violent purposes is utmost obedience. *Then *you train it how to attack - the aggressivity must be a switch on, switch off type of thing when you command it so.
When a dumbass trains an attack dog, you get a perma-aggro dog which they can’t control. It’s like waving a furry missile in everyone’s face. That is the problem, and it has nothing to do with dog breeds. I knew a German Shepherd trained like that, and he was a fucking menace - just as his owner wanted. Any badly trained dog will be a danger. Pits (and other similar dogs) only get the flakk because when some ignorant fuck wants himself some penal supplement of an attack dog, he goes for a Pit or a Rott - because popular perception has led him to believe those were killer dogs.
There are lots of dogs more muscular, hefty and potentially dangerous dogs out there. Great Danes, St. Bernard, Boxers, Pinschers, even a Labrador, yes, those family friendly Labs, can overpower any man with ease. Should we regulate them as well ?
My youngest niece is a vet; she has told me several times that she will not attempt to examine a Rottweiler unless it is muzzled and restrained—I think she means it must be wearing a harness that is being gripped by the owner. I asked if she felt the same about Pit Bulls and she bawled me out for my ignorance. Basically, she made the point that I couldn’t identify a genuine pit bull if one was sitting on my lap; I made the mistake of assuming that any good sized short haired dog that had a muscular build HAD to be a pit bull and therefore dangerous. As to the Rottweilers, she said they were, as a breed, too unpredictable and it was safest to assume they might attack at any moment.
FWIW, I think all pet owners should be responsible for ensuring their pet is confined to their own yard. It’d make for better neighbourhood relations, and nobody’d have that horrible experience of finding their animal dead or dying on the road.
I have 2 cats; they’re both confined to the yard. We’ve adapted the fence to ensure they can’t just jump/climb out and go wandering the neighbourhood. This was pretty easy as we’re on a small block, but in the event we move to a larger place I’ll be setting up a cat run that they can come and go from without having access to the neighbourhood at large.
