# Pit Bulls (continued) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714 "2013-10-08T19:18:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/861 "2014-01-15T18:11:34Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Ahahahaha! You crack me up. > > You still haven’t explained ‘4-5% of dog population, 60-80% of fatal dog bites’, my little porkchop. > > The only ‘valid data’ involved in this debate are on my side; you’re the one who’s entire argument appears to boil down to, ‘it’s all everyone else’s fault, because \*my \*dogs are just lovey-dovey cutie liddle doggies they’d never hurt anyone’. So where’s the valid data for [dozens of kids a year being chewed to death by Pit Bulls](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16989259&postcount=632), brimstone breath? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/862 "2014-01-15T18:14:22Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Either way, do feel free to chime in again when you have data suggesting pits account for ‘a third to half’ of all dogs in the US. Read my post a little more closely. I never said they did. My point was that **crucible** ’s assertion that public perception against pit bulls “is now, and always has been, and is increasingly, on the side of banning pit bulls” is something “I wouldn’t [make] out-of-hand.” It’s not an important point to the BSL debate, but crucibile’s blanket statement that they are becoming more unpopular is just as anecdotal and perceptual as my impression that they are, in fact, becoming more and more popular and accepted. I already said it may be location dependent, but pit bulls have become increasingly popular in Chicago. They are the second most popular breed behind Labradors, making up 5.5% of all licensed dogs in Chicago, ahead of German Shepherds. In my zip code, they’re number one, with 12.3% of registrations. They certainly have become a lot more popular than they were ten years ago. This may be specific to my location, but I wouldn’t bet the house that pits and calls for dog bans are becoming more popular. They may be in some locations, they may not be in other locations. This being the Straight Dope, I don’t think blanket statement that the public perception of pit bulls is getting worse is necessarily accurate, so I couldn’t just leave it unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/863 "2014-01-15T19:45:01Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > So where’s the valid data for [dozens of kids a year being chewed to death by Pit Bulls](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16989259&postcount=632), brimstone breath? Fine - I’ll take back ‘kids’ and say ‘dozens of the very young, or the very old’. I’m sure you’ll consider this a major victory for ‘your side’. :rolleyes: Point is, it’s the less-able to defend themselves that get chewed up. Heck, just looking back at the last 2-3 years, and assuming ever case of ‘unknown’ was \*not \*a pit, the following kids lost their lives to those ‘innocent doggies’: Levi Watson, age 4 Jah Niya White, age 2 Jordan Ryan, age 5 Samuel Zamudio, age 2 Daniel Doe, age 2 Arianna Merrbach, age 5 Nephi Selu, age 6 Beaue Rutledge, age 2 Jordyn Arndt, age 4 Tyler Jett, age 7 Monica Laminack, 21 months Daxton Borchardt, 14 months Ryan Maxwell, age 7 Isaiah Aguilar, age 2 Christian Gormanous, age 4 Jace Valdez, 23 months Kylar Johnson, 4 yrs Jazilyn Mesa, 15 months Makayla Darnell, 3 days Michael Naglee, 11 months Tyzhel McWilliams, 8 months Rayden Bruce, 3 months Tarilyn Bowles, 3 weeks Salvador Cotto, 6 months Savannah Edwards, 2 years Makayla Woodward, 5 yrs Darius Tillman, 15 days Annabelle Mitchell, 7 months Neveah Bryant, 20 months Mya Maeda, 11 days That’s what, 30 right there? Doesn’t include victims over 65. Doesn’t include the kids that got chewed up and lived, but \*scarred for life. _Since 2005, pit-type dogs have accounted for 173 of the total 251 people chewed to death. That’s 69%. \*\* Repeat after me: 4-5% of the doggie population: 60-80% of fatal dog bites._\* ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/864 "2014-01-15T20:54:05Z")
Sources, please. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/865 "2014-01-15T20:56:25Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I guess you lack the mental capacity to understand the difference between a teenager \*riding the \*ATV vs the small helpless kid attacked by the land shark. OK then how do tall trees differ? Children have been killed when trees fall over. They are helpless to defend themselves, when a neighbors tree rots out and collapses on them. They can even be killed in a secured home when one of those monsters crashes through their home. No reports of pit bulls destroying hims and killing their inhabitants. Trees are a real menace and we should do something about them. So far 5 people have been killed by falling trees this year. 23 people have died so far, this year, falling out of bed. I’m sure if we banned bed frames and allowed mattresses no thicker than 12 inches we could cut back on those deaths! 54 people die from lightning strikes each year. When the odds of being killed by lightning are greater than being killed by dogs, I have real trouble accepting this is a persistent problem that needs a drastic solution. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/866 "2014-01-15T21:09:08Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Fine - I’ll take back ‘kids’ and say ‘dozens of the very young, or the very old’. Out of what, an approximate total average of 17.3333 deaths by Pit Bull per year since 2011? Still not “dozens”. > [@](#): > > Point is, it’s the less-able to defend themselves that get chewed up. And neither the victims nor the dogs should have been in proximity in the first place. Yet somehow, in your mind, the entirety of the blame rests on the dogs. > [@](#): > > That’s what, 30 right there? That’s what, an average of 10 per year? How is that “dozens”? > [@](#): > > Since 2005, pit-type dogs have accounted for 173 of the total 251 people chewed to death. That’s 69%. 21.625 per year still isn’t “dozens”. > [@](#): > > **Repeat after me: 4-5% of the doggie population: 60-80% of fatal dog bites.** Repeat after me: “I, **DragonAsh** , have an irrational fear of anything which remotely resembles a Pit Bull.” ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/867 "2014-01-15T21:13:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Sources, please. I’m guessing the list is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States). ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/868 "2014-01-15T21:29:14Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > \*\* > Repeat after me: 4-5% of the doggie population: 60-80% of fatal dog bites.\*\* Again please provide cites in how you come by this information. American pit bull terriers is one specific breed among ‘pit bull type dogs’ it alone accounts for **5.6%** of the **Registered** dog population. The 60-80% you are using includes all ‘pit bull type dogs’ which is composed of several breeds of dogs and mixes, unregistered and registered. If you can’t understand the misrepresentation of data you are presenting I don’t think we can have a rational discussion on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/869 "2014-01-15T21:49:03Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > OK then how do tall trees differ? Children have been killed when trees fall over. They are helpless to defend themselves, when a neighbors tree rots out and collapses on them. They can even be killed in a secured home when one of those monsters crashes through their home. No reports of pit bulls destroying hims and killing their inhabitants. Trees are a real menace and we should do something about them. We need trees and we need beds. We don’t need Pit Bulls. People can always just buy a normal dog that doesn’t kill people. Your analogy would only make sense if there were one type of bed that was far more dangerous to kids than other types. One that looked cool so people bought it but it has no benefits over normal beds that are much safer. That would be a bed we should ban. Or sue out of existence. Or regulate away. Just like we should with Pits. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/870 "2014-01-15T22:13:39Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > We need trees and we need beds. We don’t need Pit Bulls. People can always just buy a normal dog that doesn’t kill people. We can arguably do just fine without trees. We certainly don’t need beds. Entire cultures get by just fine without what we in the US view as a necessity. People want these things in the same way that people want their dogs. Having them around improves their quality of life. If you want to sue the owners of dangerous dogs out of existence by all means do so. I expect you’ll need to prove their dog is actually dangerous though. Not just claim it is because it has short hair. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/871 "2014-01-15T23:47:39Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > We need trees and we need beds. We don’t need Pit Bulls. People can always just buy a normal dog that doesn’t kill people. > > Your analogy would only make sense if there were one type of bed that was far more dangerous to kids than other types. One that looked cool so people bought it but it has no benefits over normal beds that are much safer. That would be a bed we should ban. Or sue out of existence. Or regulate away. > > Just like we should with Pits. I personally am not philosophically opposed to BSL, even though I am against it. I do think the increase in dog bite deaths recently is something that needs to be taken seriously (even though I think it is a small overall risk). But, given the data and opinions from the CDC, animal control groups, the results of the Denver dog legislation, veterinary associations, the American Bar Association, etc., I am not convinced this is the best way of reducing harm. I think energy would be better spent on spay/neuter programs, enforcement of existing license/registration laws, mandatory microchipping, laws against prolonged tethering, even mandatory dog/owner training. With 6 million plus “pit bull type” dogs out there (that we know of) and growing, I don’t see legislating them away as being a viable or practical option, and that’s not getting into the issues of what is considered a “pit bull type” dog and what the legal requirements for that are. I feel similarly about gun control. I think it’s a far bigger problem than pit bulls, and is similarly prone to "accidents "and bad owners, but I don’t think it’s practical or fruitful to try to legislate that away. I’d rather spend my energy on the legal aspects of gun ownership/pit bull ownership than trying to outright ban them in an effort to reduce harm. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/872 "2014-01-15T23:48:20Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Not just claim it is because it has short hair. Now we’re getting closer to the crux of the issue, I think. The question has been asked, but not answered, a number of times in this thread: What exactly do we mean when we say “pit bull”? [ul][li]Some folks want to define the term to mean any purebred dog belonging to one of a number of specific breeds (Staffordshire Terrier, American Pitbull Terrier, etc.). [/li][li]Others would include those dogs, along with many of the mixes based on those breeds.[/li][li]Still others would define it as any dog who has any lineage that traces back to any of the ‘bully breeds’.[/li][li]And then there are those for whom “pit bull” means nothing more or less than any “big scary dog”.[/ul][/li] I am pretty sure that the first group does \*not \*account for 60-80% of fatal dog bites, but I’m almost certain that that last group does. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/873 "2014-01-16T00:22:19Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > I’m guessing the list is from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States). You mean the article with the intro that includes: > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, the reader should bear in mind that data from news investigations is generally less reliable than information from published scholarly studies, and that where specific breeds are listed, they are rarely based on conclusive proof of ancestry. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/874 "2014-01-16T00:34:31Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Again please provide cites in how you come by this information. > > American pit bull terriers is one specific breed among ‘pit bull type dogs’ it alone accounts for **5.6%** of the **Registered** dog population. > > The 60-80% you are using includes all ‘pit bull type dogs’ which is composed of several breeds of dogs and mixes, unregistered and registered. > > If you can’t understand the misrepresentation of data you are presenting I don’t think we can have a rational discussion on this issue. You’re not actually anticipating that DA is going to come and respond thoughtfully to all these bothersome details, are you? Hope not, because he works in great big messy strokes and can’t be troubled to actually respond thoughtfully to things you actually say and data you actually provide. IF he did, this would be a much more interesting debate. (To be fair, he doesn’t have a lot to work with and he has an awful lot to answer, so I understand why he would find it too daunting a task to address seriously.) As long as you brought it up, though, let me reiterate things I pointed out earlier, starting with the fact that it isn’t really meaningful to hold up “pit bulls” vs. the entire canine population, when at least half that population is not reasonably capable of killing a human being. So if we lop off the under-20-pounds half of the canine population that are almost never involved in dog bite fatalities in other than very unusual circumstances, the 5% / 69% turns into 10% (of the canine population that is remotely capable of killing human beings). Percentages are really sort of hysterical when we are talking about the kind of numbers we have here. That 69% is 173 over 8 years, an average of 21 people per year. Making it 21 killer dogs per per year. Out of 4.2 million. And of course there is the issue of what is an actual “pit bull”, as we have discussed ad nauseum and as DA just ignores. Given the sorry state of the data collection, as frequently described by various researchers, we have no reason to think that all the dogs described as “pit bulls” really were one of the breeds that it is generally agreed are being referred to by that name. More than 53% of the canine population is mixed breed. Mixed breeds that resemble the general description of a “pit bull” type dog are exploding in number, a fact confirmed by every imaginable source: shelters, rescue groups, veterinarians, anecdotal reports, licensing. Muscular, short muzzle, short hair…bingo, KILLER PIT BULL! For people who genuinely believe (for reasons they so far refuse to explain coherently) that action must be taken against millions of dogs and the people who love them in hopes of preventing 20 or so deaths per year (while showing no such concern for the many other things that are equally or far more deadly) a much more reasonable and honest and fair approach would be to ban all dogs that weigh 35 pounds or more and are not easily identifiable as a breed or breed mix that is in no way similar to any sort of bully-type, Rottweiler, GSD, Husky, Mastiff, Great Dane, \. That way you’d eliminate nearly all fatalities. Why leave out the victims of dogs that dont’ look “pit - like”, they are just as dead. DA is very fond of percentages and numbers, as well as being fond of pretending that owner behavior is not a meaningful factor, or that the behaviors identified as causing problems leading to fatalities are evenly distributed across breeds. But of course that isn’t even close to the truth. Compared to the 20-30 deaths of people, which are, of course, unfailingly reported and tracked, we have the acts of abuse, neglect and cruelty directed at dogs. According to the Humane Society: > [@](#): > > In media-reported animal cruelty cases, dogs—and pit bull-type dogs, in particular—are the most common victims of animal cruelty. Of 1,880 cruelty cases\* reported in the media in 2007: > 64.5% (1,212) involved dogs > … > Reported abuse against pit bull-type dogs appears to be on the rise: in 2000–2001, pit bull-type dogs were involved in 13% of reported dog-abuse cases; in 2007, they were involved in _ **25% of reported dog-abuse cases.** _ > \*some cases involved multiple species Wow. Only 5% of the dog population, but 25% of the abused! 1 in 20 dogs is a pit bull type, but at least 1 in 4 of the abused and neglected dogs is a pit bull type. And that’s only media reported abuse cases. Most abuse, according to THS, is never reported or recorded. It also doesn’t consider the other kinds of treatment that lead to fatalities, such as “resident” status vs. “family dog” status. Far more common with pit bull types. Chaining, being intact, etc. These things are not distributed evenly across breeds, across types, even across similarly-sized dogs. As I described in detail, based on direct knowledge and experience, the reality of DA’s favorite example, the Golden Retriever, is very different than the reality of pit bull type dogs. And finally, we return to the point I made a week ago about risk assessment, only this time with science! > [@](#): > > October 1, 2010 – For years, evidence has mounted that breed specific legislation (BSL) fails to reduce dog bite incidents. The data supporting this conclusion has come from cities and counties all over North America, and from four European countries. > > An insightful new analysis, recently published in the **Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,** explains why BSL has consistently failed to reduce dog bites. The authors, Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, and Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB, of the Center for Shelter Dogs, Animal Rescue League of Boston; and Margaret Slater, DVM, PhD, of the ASPCA, have applied one of the _ **most valuable and well- recognized tools of evidence-based medicine to this question.** _ > > Number needed to treat (called NNT) measures the effectiveness of new medicines or treatments. It asks the question: How many patients have to take the medicine or get the treatment in order for one patient to avoid a bad outcome? The fewer patients that have to be treated in order to avoid a bad outcome, the more effective scientists consider a medicine or treatment to be. > > But what if we had to treat thousands of patients to avoid even one bad outcome? Would we bother with a new medicine if the number of people we needed to treat to prevent one bad outcome, was 10,000? If we could only identify 9,900 people suffering from the disease, we could not treat enough people with the new medicine to be sure that even one of them would avoid the dreaded symptom. > > _**This is precisely the result that Patronek and his colleagues obtained when they applied this evidence- based method to estimating how many dogs a community would have to ban to prevent a single, serious dog bite. They called their mystery number the number needed to ban (NNB). Using dog bite injury data from the Centers for Disease Control, the State of Colorado, and other, smaller jurisdictions, along with guestimates of the population of various breeds or kinds of dogs, the authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community, in order to prevent even one serious dog bite. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to ban more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted breed. > To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number**_ > \*\*\*Dog bite-related fatalities are so extremely rare \*\*\*that not even a state could ban enough dogs to insure that they had prevented even one. (Consider: in Denver, Colorado, after they banned “pit bull” dogs in 1989, they had another dog bite-related fatality in the Denver area, involving another type of dog.) > > Spain, Italy, Great Britain and the Netherlands have all reported that their breed specific regulations have not produced a reduction in dog bite incidents. The Toronto Humane Society surveyed health departments throughout the province of Ontario, and reported that the breed ban enacted in 2005 had not produced a reduction in dog bites. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, after the city banned one type of dog, dog bites actually rose, just involving other types of dogs. Reports from Denver, Colorado, Miami-Dade, Florida, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Omaha, Nebraska all tell the same story. > While there is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a person than another kind of dog and BSL’s documented record is one of ineffectiveness, BSL remains a policy that some find attractive. Patronek, Marder and Slater explain why. > > “It is our belief,” they write in their conclusion, “that\*\* BSL is based largely on fear\*\*, and it has been emphasized that appeals to fear have their greatest influence when coupled with messages about the high efficacy of the proposed fear-based solution.” > The documented failures of BSL, now combined with the NNB analysis, can be marshaled to undermine such fear-based appeals. BSL proponents will be unable to show “high efficacy of the fear-based solution” or that BSL is rationally related to the public safety issues communities are typically attempting to address when implementing BSL. > The complete article can be purchased from the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association at [Use of a number-needed-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite–related injury in: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association Volume 237 Issue 7 ()](http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.237.7.788) [j. Pinkman] Science, bitch. [/j.Pinkman] ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/875 "2014-01-16T00:49:30Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > When the odds of being killed by lightning are greater than being killed by dogs, I have real trouble accepting this is a persistent problem that needs a drastic solution. It isn’t, and it doesn’t, which is just one of the many, many things that Dragon has skipped acknowledging, much less addressing, in this discussion. It’s been very disappointing that none of the anti-pitbull crowd has proven willing or able to really take up the debate honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/876 "2014-01-16T14:24:01Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > … a much more reasonable and honest and fair approach would be to ban all dogs that weigh 35 pounds or more and are not easily identifiable as a breed or breed mix that is in no way similar to any sort of bully-type, Rottweiler, GSD, Husky, Mastiff, Great Dane, \. That way you’d eliminate nearly all fatalities. Why leave out the victims of dogs that dont’ look “pit - like”, they are just as dead. This sounds good to me. Let’s do it. Any dog that’s on the list that prohibited by insurance companies would work for me. > [@](#): > > Wow. Only 5% of the dog population, but 25% of the abused! 1 in 20 dogs is a pit bull type, but at least 1 in 4 of the abused and neglected dogs is a pit bull type. So banning pits would eliminate 25% of the abused dogs out there. That’s good news, since those abused dogs are much more likely to attack humans. That’s an argument for banning Pits, not against it. Sure, the abusers might just move on to other dogs. But this would slow them down. Many might not. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/877 "2014-01-16T14:26:26Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > We can arguably do just fine without trees. :dubious: You know trees are where oxygen comes from, right? > [@](#): > > We certainly don’t need beds. Entire cultures get by just fine without what we in the US view as a necessity. Whatever. > [@](#): > > People want these things in the same way that people want their dogs. Having them around improves their quality of life. Yes, having dogs improves quality of life. Having Pit Bulls does not. You can replace a Pit with a Lab and there is no loss of quality of life. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/878 "2014-01-16T14:28:46Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > When the odds of being killed by lightning are greater than being killed by dogs, I have real trouble accepting this is a persistent problem that needs a drastic solution. We do have lighting alarms on golf courses so that golfers know to head in if there is a chance of lightening. Is this a “drastic solution”? I think it’s reasonable to take precautions to avoid being killed, even if the number of deaths is small. Same thing with Pits. It’s not drastic to tell people to just buy a normal dog instead of one bred to kill. It’s entirely reasonable and practical, even if the numbers of deaths are small. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/879 "2014-01-16T14:58:19Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > You know trees are where oxygen comes from, right? One source only. Most atmospheric oxygen comes from plankton. When attempting to sound intelligent, real science (not the pretend, hippie kind) helps more. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714/880 "2014-01-16T15:47:06Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > One source only. Most atmospheric oxygen comes from plankton. > > When attempting to sound intelligent, real science (not the pretend, hippie kind) helps more. Let’s be real clear about this: Are you in agreement with **boytyperanma** that we “can arguably do just fine without trees”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-bulls-continued/670714.md?page=45)