People with a certain mentality will always want whatever the badass dog is of the time. Right now those are Pits, remove those and that mentality will gravitate to something else. So will the bad behavior and (mis-)reporting of attacks.
Cite?
Or, the longer form question: You’re saying that pit owners are proportionally more likely to be ‘a certain mentality’ = ergo shitty owners, resulting in a shitty dog, *even if *the dog wasn’t a shitty dog to begin with. So perhaps we’re quite justified in giving the shitty owner and his shitty dog a wide, wide berth.
Secondly, please show real-life examples of dogs being involved in chewing kids to death being mis-reported / mis-identified as pits.
Thirdly, what was the ‘bad-ass’ dog *before *pits, and can you cite examples of *those dogs *being more prone to bad behavior and/or ‘mis-reporting’ in the media’?
Fourthly: I notice you say ‘so will the bad behavior’. How odd that you equate chewing a little kid to death as ‘bad behaviour’, something I’d equate to chewing on my wife’s dress shoes or something, but anyway. I find it interesting that you’re saying that there would, in fact, be an increase in ‘bad behavior’, specifically because said owners of the ‘badass dogs’ apparently tend to be of a ‘particular mentality’.
Caucasus Ovcharkas.
Already covered by others in the GD thread; rehashing everything here and going around in circles with you will accomplish nothing.
Is it not obvious that I was referring to the 20 believed to be pits out of the 34?
Higher than other breeds danger…doesn’t mean much when the overall danger is so incredibly low to begin with, and that would be the point. Of all the billions of times per year that a dog and a human come together, the number of times the dog kills the person is so incredibly rare as to be nearly non-existent. Focusing on the fatalities caused by dogs, ANY dogs, as a reason to be concerned and draft laws affect millions of dogs and millions of people in a very negative way is irrational and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes genuine danger. If you’re that afraid of dogs, then you shouldn’t own any yourself and you shouldn’t make it a habit to be around them. But making laws to keep a certain breed out of your city? Ignorant. Irrational. Foolish. Cruel. So many other things are so much more dangerous…
No, frankly it isn’t. I quoted your statement, and I am still unable to parse it. But if you’re agreeing that 20 out of 34 involved pits, then I think we have a problem.
People aren’t concerned about the overall likelihood of being the victim of a fatal dog attack, which is of course quite tiny. Sorry, but that’s just human nature. We are (collectively) unnecessarily frightened of lots of things that are actually of limited danger (like flying in an airplane), and not at all frightened of many things much more likely to kill us (like riding in a car). But people are concerned about this particular breed. And the statistics you yourself cited and seem to accept will be alarming to most people.
I am not supportive of breed bans, and I know a fair amount about animal aggression in both domestic and wild species. But the stats you cite just aren’t going to make anybody comfortable about pits. Is there another good explanation, or are pits actually involved in fatal attacks at a rate far exceeding their proportional representation in the 83 million?
In other words…you got nuthin’. Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I don’t agree with your reasoning. Whether it’s 34 or 20, the bottom line is that fear of being killed by a dog is irrational in the face of the likelihood of that happening.
No, you’re only seeing it from a constrained perspective. I agree that 34 deaths by dog is a small number, given the total numbers of dogs and people. But it is larger than the number of deaths in the Connecticut school shooting. The argument that there are huge numbers of elementary schools, millions and millions of elementary students, and days upon days upon more days where nobody gets killed doesn’t fly very far. People are still apoplectic about school massacres. And people are equally hysterical over the possibility of being killed by their neighbor’s pet.
Using your statistics, which you seem to accept, almost 60% of fatal attacks are caused by pit-type dogs. From an outside perspective, the argument goes: “If there were zero pit bulls there would be zero pit bull related attacks, thus reducing the death toll by almost 60%. So while 34 deaths is a small number, 14 is even smaller and would be preferable. The difference isn’t trivial.”
It is easy to see why breed bans look like a reasonable plan to many people. You need to somehow overcome this argument. Or you need to somehow negate those statistics. Calling them irrational (even if you’re correct) isn’t persuasive.
If you want them so badly, go re-read the GD thread. Oh, right, you were dismissive there as well. What was that you said to tom? “When come back, bring argument”?
You don’t deserve my time. Buh-bye now.
Stop changing the question, toe scum. Who’s talking about the risk of being killed by ‘any random dog’? If you hear of any four-yr olds being chewed to death by chihuahuas, let me know. We’re talking about pits - you know, the breed associated with the vast majority of ‘chewed to death’ fatalities
Imagine all 83 million dogs in the world were pits. Do you think there would be more or less dog fatalities than we have now?
LOL - hilarious. Yes, I asked the same questions in that thread, and you had the same non-existent answer. Buh-bye yourself.
83 million dogs in the world?
More or fewer.
If all dogs were pit bulls, no one would perceive pit bulls as being especially anything. Therefore the people who currently select, breed, train and treat them in a manner which leads to more of them behaving aggressively due to those people perceiving them as especially good candidates for being aggressive would not then have such a perception and would not behave that way.
Leading to fewer fatalities and aggressive incidents generally.
I don’t need to overcome irrational apoplexy and hysteria, I can’t: it is the nature of irrational apoplexy and hysteria to be immune to facts, logic, and rational argument. If unreasonable hysteria and irrational apoplexy are vulnerable to something else, I have no idea what it is.
:smack::smack::smack:
And there we have it folks, indisputable evidence of the massive contortions Pit lovers will put themselves through to defend their doggies.
I also like how Stoid apparently doesn’t realize how that conclusion means that currently, pits are apparently very likely to be selected, bred, trained and treated in a matter leading them to behave aggressively.
Gee, that almost sounds like saying that Pits are…more aggressive? More dangerous, perhaps?
‘immune to facts, logic, and rational argument’ indeed. Stick your head in the sand all you want (and pray your shitty dog doesn’t have a moment while you’re at it).
Are you brand new to this discussion? Because anyone who has been paying attention is completely aware that my argument is not that the numbers are false, it is that the conclusions being drawn are false.
I suggest you go back and acquaint yourself with the arguments you are arguing against…knowing what they actually are would undoubtedly save you a lot of time and effort.
As established in the previous thread, DragonAsh does not pay attention.
Already put that on the table myself. Don’t hold your breath.
You post your disagreement with breed bans, presumably because you wish to influence others to share your viewpoint. But you accept that the numbers are true (Post 197), and pit-type dogs cause a disproportionate share of human fatalities. And then you write off anyone who concludes that pits should be banned or specially restricted as “immune” to persuasion.
Although this forum permits it, please believe that I intend no insult. But really – what is the color of the sky in your world? No, you “don’t need to” do anything. But if you desire to influence public policy, you need to influence members of the public. Lots of them. And if most people are irrational, well, you’ve got to just deal with that. You play the cards you’re dealt. Or fold, of course.
I suggested above that these stats are a problem for opponents of breed bans. To overcome them you’ll need something more than persuasion. You’ll need more statistics. Tell me, what has happened to human fatalities by dog in communities that have instituted such bans? Not what you think should or would happen, not whether people might or might not become better or worse stewards of their dogs, but what actually does happen. Do fatalities per capita increase, decrease, or remain the same? I would think there are enough jurisdictions that have instituted bans that some data should be available.
If fatalities increase or remain the same, but with different breeds as perpetrators, you’ve got a useful counter-argument that you should press to your advantage. Stop quoting the scary statistics you offered, and provide the others showing breed bans ineffective in reducing the carnage. If fatalities decrease – well, then you’re toast. I honestly do not know what actually happens. Do you? Does anyone?
You have expanded your desire to participate… That’s great. But you don’t get to jump in now and ask to have two threads summarized for you. Well, actually you can *ask…*If you want to know more about what’s already been exhaustively covered, with links and everything, then it is time you do more than skim.