And many people who have been seriously attacked by people with guns would have had a better chance of survival if they’d had a dog.
http://www.dog-play.com/pitbull.html
From the link above I found this quote:
See…joe cool et al…see that quote and link above? That’s the link I posted way back up in this thread conceding that dog owners are mostly to blame for pitbull attacks.
See… here is the actual post itself.
I wrote:
Joe sed:
Insignificant and only? I wonder if it would still be insignificant if one of those deaths had been someone close to you?
[ul][li]grizzly bears - I don’t know where you come from, but if a grizzly bear showed up in my neighborhood we’d shoot it, and quick[]swimming pools - I’d bet most localities have rules requiring safety measures such as fences to keep children from wandering into other people’s pools[]bicycles on roadways - very few of them on the interstate that I’ve seen[]toys with small parts - read the packaging, watch the giveaways[]household chemicals - often have child-resistant packaging[/ul]In other words, we already do try to protect children against environmental hazards to a certain extent. Why is this such a bad thing? Perhaps we should send children outside without clothes - after all, we can’t predict 100% what the weather is going to be, so why bother protecting against it?[/li][quote]
If you don’t want your child to be eaten by a dog (or drown in a bucket of water, drink bleach, choke on toys, etc), teach the child to stay away from all animals it doesn’t know (or other potential hazards), and teach it what to do should it unexpectedly encounter an animal
[/quote]
Like :“Now son, if you’re walking down the street and a pit bull attacks, drop to your knees and pray for a quick death”?
missdavis102
Please read the title of the OP very carefully. I didn’t say that we’ve had enough of pitbulls… It reads and I quote:
Pitbulls…when will we have enough? By enough I meant enough deaths from maulings by pit bulldogs. Or any other kind of animal for that matter.
Folks all I am suggesting here is that if we can’t control the hundreds of thousands of dog owners in this country then we need to look at some other options. Legislative action would be my first option. And yes I stick by my one tooo many statement. One child dead from a dog bite or any other bite is one too many.
Now since this has turned into a I-like-dogs-and-you-don’t thread I believe for the first time ever I will just do the chickenshit thing and bow out. It sounds like it has been throughly covered in a previous thread anyway.
Please feel free to carry on however.
And if tabacco had been outlawed, they would have been in better shape(no second hand smoke), and stood a better chance of getting away. Maybe if abortions had been easier to get, there would’nt be so many children to get mauled. Still, if those kids had been taught to pray in school, they could possibly have gotten devine intervention. Anyway, I say we legalize marajiauna so that these people can get their aggresive dogs stoned and therefore mellow out a bit.
I work for an insurance company and we do not even consider insuring a property that has a pit bull on the premises. We rarely insure Rottweilers unless the environment where the dog will be is properly fenced and protected. If one of our insured properties has a claim as a result of their dog biting/attacking someone, their insurance will be cancelled.
Here’s some information and statistics about dog bites/attacks that I find interesting.
While dog bites aren’t as serious as dog attacks/maulings they can leave someone scarred for the rest of their life. In some cases, that can be worse than death. Especially if you’re a child and have to endure the teasing from other kids.
**
If you don’t think some sore of regulation should be mandated in regard to dog attacks, take a look at this. This happened about 15 miles away from where I live. Hits close to home for me.
Children aren’t the only ones killed by dogs. Even dogs that are described as
**
I really think pit bulls should be outlawed and I think dog owners should be held accountable when their dog bites/attacks/kills someone.
No, I don’t think you need to be chickening out quite yet, aha.
Well, first it was the dogs, now you accept that it’s the dog owners. That’s progress.
But several people have brought up the problem with that, and I think you have yet to respond to it. Even one child dead from a swimming pool means we should outlaw swimming pools? One child dead from a peanut allergy means we should outlaw peanuts? One child dead from a freak heart attack after playing soccer means we should outlaw soccer?
Where do you (personally) draw the line?
[hijack]
An appeal to emotion does not make for a logical argument - I’m sure ‘insignificant’ was meant in the statistical sense, not the literal sense.
Erm, point made.
[/hijack]
You do realize, don’t you, that not one of the four links you posted even mentions pit bulls?
Bullmastiffs are NOT pit bulls. Canary Island/mastiff crosses are NOT pit bulls. Rottweilers are NOT pit bulls (although they were the “evil dog” of the late 80s - early 90s, just after Dobermans and just before pit bulls, IIRC).
Lessee, in my memory, the infamous “dogs that MUST BE BANNED” list goes something like: mid 60s - mid 70s, German Shepherds; mid 70s - mid 80s, Dobermans; mid 80s - mid 90s, Rottweilers; mid 90s on, Pit Bulls.
Really, folks, just relax. All you need to do is wait a couple more years and pit bulls will no longer be dangerous. There will be some new fad for “evil dog breed of the decade”. At the moment, my money is on Chow Chows, but I could change my mind later.
(Although I do agree with your last statement about dog-owner accountability. For the most part, anyway.)
andros sed:
Nope nope that’s not quite correct but thanks anyway. If you read my post you will notice I said this:
Mostly being the operative word. I happen to believe that the pure ferocity of the breed plays a part in pit bull attacks. These are dogs bread for fighting and of late are used by gangs and drug pushers as guard dogs. But don’t take my word for it read it here:
http://www.bostonherald.com/bostonherald/lonw/dog10241999.htm
Pit bulls, a name commonly applied to several breeds or crossbreeds, are believed to be descended from the Staffordshire bull terrier, a breed brought from England to the United States in the late 1800s. In England, the dogs were bred to excel in combat or “pit’’ fights with other dogs.
When pit bulls and Rottweilers do attack, the results are more likely to be deadly. Between 1979 and 1996, Rottweilers and pit bulls were responsible for 89 of 164 dog-bite-related fatalities nationwide from noncrossbreeds, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
And then there is this:
http://www.tcpalm.com/stuart/opinions/23sedpit.shtml
The American pit bull terrier is a controversial breed, descended from the dogs bred from bulldogs and terriers in England in the 16th century to fight bulls for sport. Owners of the dogs say they are good with children, affectionate and loyal, but news accounts and police records show the breed is often involved in unprovoked attacks on people and other animals.
The American pit bull terrier has been specially bred for its aggression and fighting abilities. The breeding has been so successful that the English version has become a show dog, not used in fighting. Even a California organization known as BADRAP, which stands for Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls, which seeks to improve the breed’s image, admits the dogs pose special problems and need special handling.
The insurance industry may eventually have an impact on the ownership of pit bulls by charging higher premiums on homeowner insurance policies for families with such dogs. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and the Humane Society of the United States, report that between 1986 and 1996, dog bites rose from 558,000 a year to more than 800,000. During that period 300 humans were killed by dogs. Pit bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than half the attacks, according to the study released Sept. 15, 2000.
Andros no one wants to keep anyone from enjoying a pet, but the public should not have to suffer if a dog reverts to the activities for which its kind was bred. And as far as comparing swimming pools to dog bites it’s really apples and oranges. We have rules and regulations to govern swimming pool owners to minimize injury or death. Want to find me a cite with laws stating and regulating pit bull behavior? I would really enjoy reading it because I am not sure what you are bringing to this particular debate other than counter point for the sake of counter point.
You’re kidding me, right? I just got 4,000 hits from a Google on “leash laws.” In Seattle, for example, it is unlawful for any dog owner to allow his or her dog to run at large.
Er, it’s hard to have a debate without opposing viewpoints, isn’t it?
Look, I don’t care about specifics. That’s why I brought up three different situations. And honestly, I don’t care about pit bulls, or rottweilers, or mastiffs, or akitas, or poodles, or any otf the other nasty and dangerous pets out there.
I asked you a question, is all.
And I’ll ask it again.
If “only one” is your criterion, where do you draw the line? How far are you willing to go to make every person safe?
Yeah, right. Go after the owners;
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/topstory/dogfolo_20010621.htm
This little guy is quite possibly screwed up for life,if he lives. He lives (lived?) less than five miles from my house.
And what do knives and swimming pools have to do with it? Same old tactics, right?
Peace,
mangeorge
Aha,
What do you think about Rottweilers? Sure, they aren’t prone to needing their jaws broken to make them release what they’re biting, but I’ve heard many more cases of Rotties attacking than pit bulls, and they’re a more popular breed too. Do you think we should ban all potentially dangerous dogs, or just pitbulls?
Ok, I’m completely pissed, and even so I realize what an unbelievably ridiculous statement that is.
First of all, that’s asinine; any amount of scarring is better than death.
Secondly, as far as my memory goes, having scars as a kid was really cool. The more the better.
(hopefully this is lucid enough. I’m sure once I sobe up I’ll realize something incredibly stupid I just wrote. Oh well)
I’m sure that the kid from the article mangeorge linked to would disagree with you about how “cool” it is to have one’s ears bitten off…
One anecdote regarding “Its not the dogs, its the owners”:
My grandmother-in-law, a retired psychologist, tree hugger and all-around kind-to-animals type, rescued a “terrier mix” puppy from the pound. Well, “terrier mix” grew into “Pit Bull terrier” and after the damn thing bit her three times, she had it put down. It was just a vicious animal.
I am not saying the dogs previous owners loved it. Hell, they probably fed it raw horse wrapped in kids’ clothes. My point is, a kind, loving, person with (seemingly) all the tools to raise a responsible dog couldn’t do it. While the owners may be largely at fault, I believe there is a predisposition in the breed.
I am deathly afraid of what this means on the contiuum of animals (with slugs & bugs near the bottom, dogs somewhere in the middle, and humans at (near?) the top).
Why dont they do what they did here in Ireland a few years ago. Make muzzles(sp) compulsory for certain breeds and make owners responsible for the actions of their dogs. A dog with a muzzle on isn’t going to be biting anybody.
What do you mean, “same old tactics”? It’s a valid question, that no one has decided to address yet. Your position is “even one dog attack it too many”. Fine, but children are maimed and die in other ways. As I see it, the question of “knives and swimming pools” is an attempt to get to the logical conclusion of your viewpoint. If one death by dog is too many, than by that logic one death by knife is too many, as is one death by swimming pool. Is that correct? If it’s not, why not? Where do you draw the line? In what situation is one death not sufficient cause for legislation, or a broad sweeping ban? You dismiss the question but fail to address the underlying concern.
Oh fercryinoutloud, lighten up. That was halfway in jest. The main point was that scarring is never worse than death.
(but yeah, as a child, I would have gotten so much respect if I’d lost an ear. I’m not saying losing an ear is fun, enjoyable, or desireable, but damn if it wouldn’t have made me the kid with the really neat scar. As it was I had to settle for eight staples in the head. Sigh.)
Yes, I realize my links don’t mention pit bulls. I was trying to show that it’s not just pit bulls that attack/kill and stating my opinion about banning pit bulls.
**
I don’t think it’s a ridiculous statement at all. Sure, maybe scarring is better than death, that was a little over the top, but the scars are a constant reminder of what happened and are a permanent fixture on your body that people are always going to notice and make comments about. I know a little girl who was attacked by a pit bull when she was 2 years old and she has scars all over her face, neck, arms, legs… everywhere on her body. She’s 12 years old now and she’s incredibly self conscience about them. She’s been teased about them and everyone always says things like, “Oh. What happened to your face? It looks awful.” How do you think that makes her feel? I’m sure that she doesn’t think those scars are “really cool” and I’m positive that she doesn’t want anymore.