Pit Bulls. Again and Again and Again......

[redtail23]

Caridwen, now I’m confused about you too. You seem to be arguing for breed bans/restrictions, but the information you’re citing doesn’t support that.

Your own cite is talking about an epidemic of dog bites. It clearly says that dog fatalities are a miniscule problem, and that specific breed bans won’t solve the real problem.

@DogBiteLaw

However, the focus on death cases may leave the public with the false impression that pit bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for the dog bite epidemic. It is a much broader problem than that, involving all dogs and all dog owners. While pit bulls and Rottweilers inflict a disproportionate number of serious and even fatal injuries, the dog bite epidemic involves many different breeds, and results from many different causes. A clear distinction needs to be made between canine homicides (i.e., incidents in which dogs kill people) and the dog bite epidemic.

Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually), which cannot be said for the number of dog bites, which is too high (5 million annually) and appears to be growing higher (see statistics, above). Considering the fact that there are 65 million dogs in the United States (see above), the homicide problem is minuscule. This is not to denigrate it, but to point out that eliminating it entirely would save only 15 to 20 people, out of the 5 million who are bitten by dogs.

The confusion caused by discussing the homicides and the dog bites in the same breath has its most important ramification in the area of prevention. Some are advocating the banning of pit bulls, Rottweilers and possibly other breeds, for reasons that range from their alleged dangerousness to the fact that they are very often treated inhumanely. Those who hear about the homicides often support breed bans. (See Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans.)

However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, “Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results,” Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)

As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn’t a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn’t a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive.

(my bolding)

“In the US from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the US died from dog attacks, including 30 in California. The average number of deaths per year was 17.”

Average of seventeen deaths a year for 30 years, with approximately eleven per year possibly attributable to pit bull type dogs (ignoring the many problems with such attributions). Please note that the number of deaths has NOT gone up with the increase in pitbull numbers [“Canine inflicted homicides have remained at the same general level (15 to 20 annually)”], leading one to conclude that the specific breed is not the primary cause of dog attack fatalities. Let’s talk about swimming pools again, if you want to solve a real problem with childhood fatalities. Or motor vehicle laws and lack of appropriate restraints, or housefires, or any number of other things that kill many more people (and children!) than dogs.

Much of that site also refers to insurance industry statistics. Again, part of the problem is a change in culture. Not so long ago, the owner of a dog that bit someone would be expected to restrain and/or kill the dog (depending on the severity and circumstances of the attack), and pay for the ER visit. Today, the victim sues against the homeowner’s insurance for immediate and longterm care, plus pain and suffering.

If the people advocating breed bans would put that time and energy into advocating for better general dog control laws and/or enforcement instead, you might actually do something worthwhile.

Hey, Beadalin, I’ve been spelling it correctly since page 3, and approximately 1975.

[magellan01]

@Wile E

Guns are dangerous, too. The responsible gun owners who know how to use their guns and would keep their guns locked up are not the problem. We could ban all guns but then only the criminals have guns. The same thing goes with dangerous dogs. Perhaps requiring licensing, training, sterilization and responsible pet ownership of any dog breed would be a monumental task but it would be a hell of a lot more effective in controlling dog attacks than any breed specific legislation because again, those that don’t care about the breed or being a responsible pet owner are the ones that would still have the breeds even if it was against the law.

While I commend you on the rest of your post, I’d like to comment on this. You’re right about the gun analogy, but I take it a step further. True, any gun can be a safe tool in the right hands or a devastatingly nasty one in the wrong hands. Most of us are willing to accept that guns are dangerous things and acknowledge that misuse will result in deaths. But there are certain guns we do ban. We do because the degree of mayhem that can be unleashed when they are misused is potentially much greater. Assualt rifles, machine guns, and bazookas for example.

[Malacandra]

@redtail23

Yes, yes they were. Against dogs. Pit bulls are, in fact, very dog-aggressive.

Not against people. Pit bulls are not, in general, people-aggressive.

Bulldogs were also bred for strength, ferocity and fighting spirit. They weigh 40-50 pounds and can inflict severe damage. They were probably bred from war dogs (intended to attack people), and were used for arena contests against bears and bulls (although they even fought lions at times), as well as dogfighting. They almost died out after baiting/fighting was banned. “Hanging on” no matter what is a primary trait of bulldogs and has been for hundreds of years - it’s why they have such underbites, so they can hang on and still have their nostrils clear.

Is anyone railing about the dangers of bulldogs?

Mastiffs are huge dogs (average 160-230 pounds) that can absolutely be dangerous. They tend to be dominant personalities, yet are often shy, and must be carefully socialized or they often become unacceptably aggressive.

Is anyone screaming about the horrible mastiffs that must be eliminated?

Presa Canarios (bred from mastiffs and bulldogs) were created as guard and cattle dogs. They also must be very carefully raised and socialized, or their “protective” tendencies slide over into aggression. There’s some chance that they’ll be the next “killer breed”, because they’re evidently moving up in popularity among the “badass dog” crowd.

As has been reiterated time and again in this thread, the very same things have been said in the past about German Shepherds, Dobermans, and Rottweillers.

Are you simply going to eliminate every large breed of dog?

Brilliant post. Beautiful post. Marvellous post.

Except for the last line, inasmuch as I haven’t called for the elimination of any breed of dog whatsoever. Nice seeing you!

@jsgoddess

If you were alone in an alley and a dog was about to attack you, would you prefer that dog be a pit bull or the 200 pound Saint Bernard I used to have?

Because if you pick the pit bull, you are a stupid fucking person.

Ah, I know why you’re having trouble finding this thread worth the trouble. It’s because you can’t make up your mind whether to compare a pit bull with “another dog of similar size and build” or “another dog three to four times the size”. Hope this helps!

[Beadalin]

Sorry, redtail23. I guess I was just blinded by specimens like “sheppard.”

And just so’s this won’t be a complete drive-by:

I come down firmly on the side of a dog’s behavior being driven by its training and socialization. For example, when I was a child we had a German Shepherd named Achmed. Achmed was a police dog: he worked with his officer on duty, and lived with us the rest of the time. He was strong, willful, exceptionally intelligent and very protective of his family. He was also not properly socialized. He wanted to dominate every other dog (especially small, yappy ones) and treated all humans with suspicion until they had been “cleared” by my parents or the officer. This became a problem when the officer was injured badly enough to be taken off-duty, and K-9 dogs were not reassigned to new partners. Achmed began living with us full-time, not working, and with a family who did not have the time to make sure he was properly exercized.

All this came to a head when I was out in the yard playing. Our front yard had a 4’-tall hedge around it, and Mom would park our awesome station wagon so that the yard was blocked off. Achmed was in the yard with me when a workman came by to ask for some water. He squeezed between the hedge and the car, and Achmed went into Red Alert mode, putting himself between me and the man and growling. Mom yelled for the man to stop, which the man ignored and continued into the yard. Mom again yelled for him to stop, but the man kept coming, so Achmed knocked the man flat and broke the man’s wrist. The man sued my parents. Achmed went to live with my aunt and uncle in the country after that (not a euphemism – we visted often).

The problem with Achmed was that the training he received was specific to police work: treat all humans as suspicious until you’re told they’re OK. He was not vicious to his family or anyone in his circle (I used to ride him like a horse and take all my naps between his front paws). He never spent time with other dogs, and didn’t really know what to do with himself once his police work ended. Mom and Dad deeply regretted not handling him more appropriately.

Our next dog was a huge-ass Golden Retriever named Hobbes, smaller than Achmed but powerful and intelligent. He went to puppy classes, was introduced to all the dogs in the neighborhood, and was trained thoroughly. Same owners, two different approaches to dog-ownership, two different outcomes.

[magellan01]

@BMax

It’s the owner more than the breed.

This may very well be. I don’t know. I do maintain, as I’ve stated repeatedly, that they both play a role.

Also as I’ve stated more than once, I have not proposed banning them. Just to clarify.

[Contrapuntal]

@magellan01

This is just amazing, not to mention untrue: “impossible to identify”?!!! So I guess if I spent a week with you driving around LA and gave you $1,000 for every dog you could correctly identify (then actually check throughpapers and/or DNA) you’d wind up with $0. Okay. You’re confusing a formal designation from an authorizing body with reality.

I said ‘absent a pedigree.’ You are suggesting using a pedigree.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and looking at the worst case scenario owner-wise. The point stands. You’re free to search for another reason to ignore it.

None of this discusion has been about dogs who were trained to be vicious. There is no point addressing that red herring

No. It must be the sound of reality scratching at the lead-reinforced steel blinders you use. Let’s see, in a discussion examing the visciousness—or non-visciousness—of pit bulls I bring up an arena in which that visciousness is dialed to maximum. What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

It is a discussion about danger to humans. Maybe that is where you got off track.

Debate 101: You cannot state that someone asserted something they did not assert. It is unhelpful to the discussion, not to mention dishonest, although I don’t think you did it intentionally.

Logic 101, Chapter 2: Given A and B, stating that A is not C does not mean that B is C.

These are your words. * Wrong. Various breeds of dogs all have bad owners, yet a golden retriever is not inclined to rip someone’s throat out.*You have been contrasting goldens to pits all along. If you were not doing so there, it is very sloppy exposition.

By bad owner I mean someone who abuses a dog or tries to draw out as much of the dogs visciousness as possible, whether directed to other dogs or humans.

Well, I guess you’ll have to trot out all thos statistics about folks who have raised goldens to be as vicious as possible, and all the children they failed to attack. Start with the first task, it will be infinitely easier.

Tell me, do you think that breeds have the same baseline temperments?

Baseline? Yes. It’s called “dog.”

That a golden, other than the physical attributes, is identical to a pit bull, or that the temperment of a border collie is identical to a bull mastiff?

No

Kind of an overly sweeping statement, don’t you think? Then there’s all those headlines.

You want headlines?

Possibly. But you can not train him to be as much of a killing machiine as a pitbull similarly trained.

You continue to labor under the delusion that we are discussing dogs who have been trained to be killing machines. You yourself referred to dogs raised as family pets. This discussion simply is not about that, breed-specific legislation is not about that, and owner responsibility is not about that.

I am prejudiced toward reality. The one that is expressed in the title of this thread. And my “bias” is not reserved for pitbulls alone. As I’ve stated. I think any dog that has shown itself to account for the number and severity of attacks that pitbulls have should be treated the same.

For the fifth time. Identification of pit bulls is notoriously unreliable. The pit bull has “shown itself” to be nothing of the sort.

I don’t particularly care the degree to which it is the fault of the breed or the fault of the owner—that’s almost impossible to determine—I offered a practical solution that ignores that unknowable.

Actually it is quite simple. Any owner that follows my four guidelines will never be at fault. Actually, any owner who follows guideline #4 will never at fault. In all other cases it is the fault of the owner. It is **never **the fault of the dog. Dogs exist outside of the realm of responsibility. They are not moral creatures. Blame does not attach.

For whatever reason the combination of pitbulls and there owners have focused a spotlight on pitbulls. Let’s deal with that reality.

I agree. Proscecute the owners, and demand more reliability on the part of those focussing the spotlight. A good start would be correctly IDing the breed before making a report.

But why do so many of these knuckleheads choose pitbulls? It’s because that after applying there idea of traiing they wind up with more of an intimidating killing machine than most other breeds.

Why do knuckle heads do anything? It’s a fad. People are sheep. Pit bulls are much easier to breed and take are of than Presa Canarios. Pit bulls are not aggressive towards humans. Pit bulls look tough. I don’t know. It’s not the dog’s fault.

Precisely. But it seems that you are assuming that the behavior that is the point of this thread is the result of trainiing only. Where is the evidence of that? Right? It’s not there. So we agree that it is an unknown.

If you like, I can point you to some informative texts on canine behavior. I assure, it is not an unknown.

So what are we left with? Headlines. “Again and Again and Again”. On the other side we have people who trot out the oh-so-helpful prescient insight “It’s not the dog, it’s the owner.”

You saw the headlines, right?

Let’s try this again. You assert that “I’ts not the dog, it’s the owner”. I’ve asserted “It is the dog AND the owner”. You can still win that $10,000. Seventy-pound golden of your choice against the average 60-pound pit bull. This offer goes to dispell your claim that the breed of the dog has nothing to do with it’s abilty to inflict lethal damage, so no need to go trotting out your “we’re looking at dogs attacking people, not other dogs”.

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread? Has anyone linked to headlines about pit bulls attackiing other pit bulls? Or goldens?

[redtail23]

Beadalin, no biggie, I meant to add a smilie to that. It bugs the snot outta me, too.

My childhood GS (hah!), Gretchen (actually some longwinded show name - my mom always bought really, really good dogs), wasn’t allowed out with us when we were playing with other kids. If one of her kids screamed or yelled, she went protective and would growl and snarl (and occasionally even snap without making contact) at the other kids. She also chased out robbers at about 9 months (they didn’t realize she’d figured out how to open the back door until she came through the house after them - when we got home, she was lying in the open, jimmied front door and nothing in the house had been touched). On the other hand, she left metermen and mailmen strictly alone, as long as they went promptly about their business.

However, one GS we had in my teens (at least 110 pounds, third generation out of Germany) we had to give to the police department at about a year old because he started chasing cattle. He was able to take down grown cows by himself by grabbing an ear; he would have killed them if he’d been able to get around fast enough. Mom broke a two-by-four over his head trying to stop him; he never even slowed down. We had to keep him chained until we found a new home.

For the record, I’ve never owned a pit bull and probably won’t. I’d be able to handle one (I’ve been training my own dogs since about age 10 and have no problem being alpha to dominant-personality dogs), but I’m too damn lazy. I won’t have a Dalmation or Malamute either, because they take too much work to keep exercised. I’ve got a nice, lazy Lab/Shepherd cross (known amongst my friends as The Mellowest Dog in Existence) who loves to go in the car but actively resists walks because they’re too much work.

It’s the idea of breed specific bans that bugs me. They’re just stupid and pointless.

You know, Malacandra, I’d forgotten what an ass you can be. Although I must admit that the first 3 lines of your post were absolutely spot-on. Sorry that I confused your insistent whining about how terribly scary pitbulls are with the almost identical whinging of the breed-ban crowd. And you might remember that not only is the word “you” in English is both singular and plural, but that this interaction is happening on an international message board - you’re not the only one in the discussion and not every line of every post is directed solely to you. Even if your name was mentioned earlier. Y’all come back now, hear?

[RedFury]

@magellan01

Well, if you qualify it with “the same size and build” that pretty much merans it’s a pit bull. Mabe a smallish Rottweiler. But to answer your question: more mayhem than almost any other dog. If you were alone in and alley and a viscious 70 pound dog was about top attack you, would you prefer that dog be a pit bull or a golden retreiver?

How about this innocent-looking Dobie? No crops, spayed. Doubt she’d render that plastic chicken leg to anyone but me though

[Contrapuntal]

@RedFury

How about this innocent-looking Dobie? No crops, spayed. Doubt she’d render that plastic chicken leg to anyone but me though

I showed my Jack Russell bitch that picture and she passed out cold. Then she went and hid under the house. Dobermans are vicious bastards. People who own Dobermans are stupid. And crazy. Why won’t they think of the children?

[Contrapuntal]

(Forgot to add – Damn she’s pretty!)

[Caridwen]

Caridwen, now I’m confused about you too. You seem to be arguing for breed bans/restrictions, but the information you’re citing doesn’t support that.

Your own cite is talking about an epidemic of dog bites. It clearly says that dog fatalities are a miniscule problem, and that specific breed bans won’t solve the real problem.

I just posted the links for information purposes. As far as I could tell the sites showed no real bias. One was from the CDC and the other seemed to be from an insurance company.

To be honest, I’m really conflicted. I think some breeds have the potential to be more aggressive without proper training.

I bought a Chow not knowing much about them other than that he was cute. My ex-husband trained him but he was always a concern. He bit my sons friend that tried to sit on him, and a friend of my ex-husband that walked into the house. He was a great dog but you can’t let your guard down with a dog like that. I was luckier than my sister in that we didn’t get sued. We couldn’t board him if we went away and no one would watch him.
I don’t know if bans/restrictions would work. As people have said, another breed might take it’s place. I guess the only thing we can do is watch some of the places that do have bans in place and see how it works out. Aren’t some places in Canada doing this? At the same time I feel for the parents who lose their kids or have a child that has to grow up disfigured because of someone elses dog.

[wonky]

@Malacandra

Ah, I know why you’re having trouble finding this thread worth the trouble. It’s because you can’t make up your mind whether to compare a pit bull with “another dog of similar size and build” or “another dog three to four times the size”. Hope this helps!

Unlike people who can’t follow a conversation, I can do both! Lookie!

The idiot says that pit bulls can cause more mayhem than “almost any other dog.” He’s comparing a medium sized dog (a pit bull) to all other dogs (including a Saint). I want to know where he draws the line. Why is it “almost” any other dog? Which dogs can cause more “mayhem”? Since you’ve twittered on about how pit bulls are bred for strength, perhaps you’d care to address the rather enormous size differential? Would you rather face a 50 pound dog or a 200 pound dog?

The idiot also claimed that there was no dog of similar size and build, as if a 35-60 pound dog is rare. I put “build” in so that no one would offer some massively overweight Corgi and claim that proves anything. He then offered me the choice of a lunatic golden or a lunatic pit bull. I’d rather face a lunatic pit bull since chances are that he’s overweight instead of fit, since that’s right in the average weight for a Golden, but heavy for a pit bull.

Dogs of the same size and build can cause the same “mayhem.” I’ve said the equivalent to that repeatedly. The morons in this thread seem not to grasp it, and seem to believe that pit bulls are somehow supernatural in their abilities to harm. They aren’t. They’re just dogs. Medium sized dogs. Smaller than the average Golden Retriever. Smaller than your average German Shepherd.

See that? Multiple comparisons! Multiple sizes of dogs! It’s like juggling, only with 33% less fruit!

[wonky]

@RedFury

How about this innocent-looking Dobie? No crops, spayed. Doubt she’d render that plastic chicken leg to anyone but me though

Doggie!

I’ve only known one Dobie, a red male. Such a great dog.

I really prefer the uncropped look, too.

[magellan01]

@Contrapuntal

None of this discusion has been about dogs who were trained to be vicious. There is no point addressing that red herring

It is a discussion about danger to humans. Maybe that is where you got off track.

No, not off track. When trying to discern innate differences in dogs regarding viscious potential, it makes perfect sense to look at how viscious they can be when it is dialed up to the maximum, and that would be in actual dog fights.

@Contrapuntal

No

Ah, the less you say the more sense you make. Seriously, this seems to be the crux of the argument and we seem to agree. To recap, your “no” answer was to this:

@magellan01

That a golden, other than the physical attributes, is identical to a pit bull, or that the temperment of a border collie is identical to a bull mastiff?

So, if they have different baseline temperments, doesn’t that mean that something other than training is a contributing factor?

I’ll stop there as I think this question will move us along the most effectively.

[Contrapuntal]

@magellan01

No, not off track. When trying to discern innate differences in dogs regarding viscious potential, it makes perfect sense to look at how viscious they can be when it is dialed up to the maximum, and that would be in actual dog fights.

Just to stay on point, the thread is about “dangerous to humans,” not “vicious.” I realize that the two may overlap, but they are not interchangeable. (A good clue would be all the cites about dogs biting people and no cites about dogs biting dogs. Except for the two cases where the dogs attacked the pit bulls.)

I suspect that if you trained a pit bull to fight dogs, and trained a golden to fight dogs, the pit bull would win. Pit bulls have been bred to fight dogs. They have also been bred not to be human aggressive. You keep wanting it both ways.

Ah, the less you say the more sense you make. Seriously, this seems to be the crux of the argument and we seem to agree. To recap, your “no” answer was to this:

So, if they have different baseline temperments, doesn’t that mean that something other than training is a contributing factor?

I’ll stop there as I think this question will move us along the most effectively.

Saying that two dogs do not have identical temperaments is not the same as saying they have the same baseline temperament. I’ll stop here. When we clear this up, we can proceed.

[RedFury]

@Contrapuntal

I showed my Jack Russell bitch that picture and she passed out cold. Then she went and hid under the house. Dobermans are vicious bastards. People who own Dobermans are stupid. And crazy. Why won’t they think of the children?

Yep, no doubt we’ve both got that gansta’ thing down pat. Besides, I always knew she was going to be a mean one.

Kidding aside, tell your JR girl that I’ll get her her own plastic chicken leg – with the built-in, annoying-as-hell-whistle, too.

jgodess,

In some ways, the whole cropping issue is part of the ongoing debate. There were originally legitimate reasons (hunting, herding, and yes, fighting) why many breeds would get mutilated that way. Some countries in Europe have already banned the practice and hopefully, many others will soon follow.

Thing is, IMO, all it does it make the dogs look meaner (especially Dobies I think – something evil-looking about that cropped look). Then again, perhaps that IS the point and the attraction of the mutilation. But yeah, I do think they make great pets/companions. All of them really. I’m just weak for Dobies. And yes, reds are gorgeous as well.
Hmmm…maybe I can fit…

:::sigh:::

[Wile_E]

@Beadalin

Thank God, someone finally spelled it correctly.

I spelled it correctly! Then again, looking back at my post I see I misspelled “pinscher”, but I’m used to just saying Min Pin.

Well, at least no one mentioned “Rock Wilders”.

[Contrapuntal]

@RedFury

Yep, no doubt we’ve both got that gansta’ thing down pat. Besides, I always knew she was going to be a mean one.

Kidding aside, tell your JR girl that I’ll get her her own plastic chicken leg – with the built-in, annoying-as-hell-whistle, too.

Everytime I go to the pet store or the vet I check out the dogs available at Doberman rescue, and dream a bit. My female won’t allow another bitch in the house, and my male is getting old and doesn’t need the stress of adjusting to a new dog. But I really think a Dobie will be my next dog. I feel a connection. Maybe it’s all in my heart.

And damn that girl of yours has been a looker her whole life.

[wonky]

@RedFury

Yep, no doubt we’ve both got that gansta’ thing down pat. Besides, I always knew she was going to be a mean one.

I can’t have a dog. I can’t have a dog. I can’t have a dog.

Still, waaaant.

She’s beautiful.

[magellan01]

@jsgoddess

Why is it “almost” any other dog?

Because I’m not sure it is THE most viscious or deadly? Could you not figure that out all by yourself? Because unlike such a brilliant cunt as yourself, I admit that I do not know all the answers. I do maintain that a pit bull can inflict a much more viscious attack than a golden. I am also aware of the existence of dogs like the presas, which I’d guess cold inflict even more mayhem than the most agressive pit. I don’t know how a pit bull would do against a Saint Bernard, or how viscious a Saint can get against a human in attack mode? Maybe you do. Maybe you have all the answer crammed somewhere up your fetid maw. If so, why don’t you share them with us Oh Brilliant One.

@jsgoddess

Dogs of the same size and build can cause the same “mayhem.” I’ve said the equivalent to that repeatedly. The morons in this thread seem not to grasp it, and seem to believe that pit bulls are somehow supernatural in their abilities to harm. They aren’t. They’re just dogs. Medium sized dogs. Smaller than the average Golden Retriever. Smaller than your average German Shepherd.

Like most imbeciles, the smarter you try to sound the more you reveal your profound dumbfuckness. Case in point: You’ve “said” something in this thread and because people don’t agree with you they “seem not to grasp it”?! And are morons?!!! Really now, missy. Do you realize what a hubristic, assholish position that is? No, probably not. Please continue in your usual vein. There can be no more just punishment for such an asshole.

Now, regarding your position that the size and build of the dog are the sole determinants of the degree of “mayhem” it is able to inflict: Do you really believe that a golden or a shepherd can inflict more damage than a pit? After all, you say they are bigger, and the shepherd is quite muscular. And in the same paragraph you say "Dogs of the same size and build can cause the same “mayhem.” If so, you don’t think that musculature plays any role? How the weight is distributed? Interesting. Are you also aware that the pit bull has a larger head, mouth, and jaw muscles than either a golden or a shepherd of equal size? And most of the “mayhem” we’ve been talking about dogs inflicting is done with that apparatus? Again, interesting.

But you no doubt have been holding back a fusillade of facts and figures canine which you will now unleash and show me—show one and all—that you are not just the dumb, contentious cunt that you’ve presented yourself to be in some of your posts in this thread.

Please, by all means…