This woman thought she was capable of handling this breed of dog. She was, to her sorrow, wrong. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we make mistakes and kids die. Why take a chance with a dog breed known widely to be dangerous?
Speaking of pointless thread resurrections.
I don’t agree. There are obviously lots of people who post here who are still unconvinced that dogs are capable of killing people unexpectedly and that people’s lives are more important than those of dogs.
The occasional reminder helps keep them to their promise to make sure that every dog owner trains his animal correctly and never allows them to become dangerous. We are still waiting for results on that, by the way. The rate of deaths due to dogs seems not to have decreased except in those areas where pit bulls have been banned, so that training thing they promised doesn’t seem to be working…
OK… So you thought it was worthwhile to reply to a one year old post in a thread that has lain dormant for two months. :dubious: Whatever floats your boat, then.
There are also people who have told you “[w]hy take a chance with a dog breed known widely to be dangerous” ad nauseum. Continuing to ask such things only serves as evidence that you are barking mad.
The Google I use doesn’t find that to be true. Cite!
I know you hate Dogsbite.org, but the information they present is convincing to me.
Besides which, I’m not a pitbull hater, I’m a ‘vicious dog’ hater. I don’t really understand why dogs, in general, and specifically, those who don’t have a ‘working’ label, are allowed to be around people. I don’t think people actually think clearly about the negative aspects of dog ownership. Too many people use dogs as a substitute for human interactions. (of all sorts)
And I don’t understand string theory. I don’t want it outlawed, however.
unleashed pit bull or unleashed black hole; which presents more danger to the ordinary person?
Hello Mr. crucible.
I’ve got some sympathy for the anti-pit bull cause, but that citation sucks. It would take 25 minutes to properly dissect it, but…
It’s got about 27 reports from cities that have restricted pitbull ownership. The lead item from Sioux City reports a 37% drop in police responding to dog bites from 2007 to 2013, following a “pit bull ban.” That appears to be the best of reports.
The other reports are almost all stories about cities that experienced a reduction in pit bull bites after banning pitbulls. Unhuh. Amazing.
And there are two or three reports from several of the cities so the accumulated “evidence” looks larger than it actually is.
The most interesting story is on San Francisco --which has a spay/neuter ordinance rather than a breed ban.
[INDENT]San Francisco, California
Population 825,863 | View Ordinance
In June 2013, after a Bay Area child was killed by a family pit bull, San Francisco Animal Care and Control cited the decrease in pit bull bites and euthanasia since the adoption of a 2005 pit bull law.
After 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish was fatally mauled by his family's pit bulls, the city adopted a mandatory spay-neuter law for the breed. The reasoning was that fixed dogs tend to be calmer and better socialized.
Since then, San Francisco has impounded 14 percent fewer pit bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer - which is a "significant decrease," said Rebecca Katz, director of the city's Animal Care and Control department.
Another significant indicator, she said, is that there have been 28 pit bull bites reported in the past three years - and 1,229 bites by other breeds during the same period. In the three-year period before that, there were 45 pit bull bites and 907 incidents involving other breeds.[/INDENT]
Assuming they are equidistant, the black hole. Note: IANAPhysicist.
Because dogs in general, when properly trained and socialized, are friendly and docile around people?
cochrane, you’re better than I; you’re willing to give this inanity a respectful response. IMO it deserves nothing of the sort.
.
In fact, cochrane, dogs in general, including dogs which have not been properly trained and socialized, are friendly and harmless to people. Dogs have an innate desire to be with people, and an understanding of humans and human communication that surpasses all other animals, even apes. These are the things which make them dogs, not wolves.
There is a very simple way to avoid having to rely on and excuse biased or possibly biased sources: follow up on what they present: go to the original source that they used and keep going up the cite chain until you get to the most likely to be neutral source with the most reliable and thorough information. Easy as pie.
On the contrary, we think about and understand the negatives far better than you, who has an emotional reaction to the fact of dogs being sometimes harmful that is wildly out of proportion to the actual risk they present.
As for what “too many” people do, what would be the correct number? And what people do is get their needs met. Often dogs meet needs that people cannot meet, hallelujah for dogs!
No matter what pit bull supporters say, pit bulls do kill people way out of proportion to their numbers. Pit bulls could easily be supplanted with less dangerous dogs. We don’t have to risk them, we can simply get rid of them and replace them with decent dogs, like beagles.
Why are so many folks so smitten with dangerous dogs? with dogs with a history of violence and tragic killings? Inanity? Your frame of reference is cracked.
‘sometimes harmful’…we do put up with a lot of things that are ‘sometimes harmful’, but we try to make them less harmful, safer, more useful. Pit bulls just represent a situation where we accept risk with no good reason for it. Ask any parent whose kid has been ripped apart by pits (or any other vicious dog) whether having such dogs around is ‘worth it.’ Ask them if they think the ‘risk is acceptably small’.
Every dog breed can be properly trained and disciplined to make it a friendly, helpful pet. Even pit bulls. But no one can guarantee that every pit bull is going to be trained that way. If a beagle isn’t properly trained, it might bite you, but never will kill you, probably won’t even give you much of a scar. pit bulls don’t nip and run, the bite and hold and rip and tear and kill. do all pit bulls represent this risk? Of course not. Most will remain docile. Most. And, especially those you weren’t able to convince the owners to properly train and handle? What will you do about those? Why should society have to abide that situation?
what do you say to yourselves when you see the periodic, 2 or 3 times a month story about a kid or old person being ripped to pieces by what everyone describes as a ‘pit bull’. What excuses do you give for upholding the banner of ‘pit bulls are not dangerous’?
ahhh, a beagle man, that explains a lot.
I have a relative who has a dog care business. Very professional, very well organized, etc. etc.
she rescued a pit bull. He was a great dog, helped her walk the other dogs, never exhibited any anti-dog or anti-human behavior…until one day, out of the blue, he grabbed a customer’s smaller dog by the throat and killed it.
What did she do? she paid for the customer’s dog, and kept her pittie…because her pit bull was ‘only doing what it is in its nature to do’. Now she keeps it caged away from all the other animals and exercises and walks it by itself.
Why? I’m not about to confront a relative about their choices, but want to scream, “WHY!”