This site http://freespace.virgin.net/kain.greatwhitesite/GRAPHICS/INFO/info.html says that the average adult human male can exert 220 kg/square centimetre with his mouth. If my math is right, that’s about 3120 lbs of pressure per square inch.
Granted, our teeth are shaped differently than a dog, but I did chomp through someone’s arm in a fight when I was a kid.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tominator2 *
**
**
My point exactly - you can’t predict any unforseen event. Therefore, take reasonable precautions for all (or most) contingencies. Trying to outlaw an entire breed of dog because of a few widely (over?)reported tragic incidents strikes me as roughly analogous to living in a temperate climate where occasional but very rare freak snowstorms occur, and sending your kid out every day in a long underwear, sweatpants, jeans, turtleneck, wool sweater, parka, boots, scarf, and knitted hat because some other kid once got caught out in a snowstorm and it could happen again. Sure, it could happen again, but it’s not likely, and the action goes way beyond any reasonable precaution. Reasonable action would be to check the Weather Channel or something, see what’s likely to occur, and dress for that.
Any breed of anything that has a mouth and is in contact with people could potentially bite someone. As others have pointed out, the ‘evil dog breed of the moment’ has moved from one to another over the years, and the overall problem of dogs mauling people is statistically quite small.
No, of course not. That’s callous and flippant, and comes across as irresponsable parenting. Parents are supposed to (IMO) teach children about the world, and prepare them to cope in a reasonable way with whatever they come across.
Try something like, "Kid, strange animals are sometimes dangerous. Just because the neighbor’s dog looks friendly through the fence, and acts friendly with the neighbor, it may not be so friendly to you because it doesn’t know you. You never can tell when an animal might not be as friendly as it looks. If the neighbor is outside with the dog and you want to pet it, ask him if you can, and if it is friendly. If he says okay, then go ahead and pet the dog. If the neigbor’s not outside, don’t even go close to the fence. Even though the dog is someone’s pet, he’s not your pet and he may bite you if his owner isn’t around.
"Wild animals can be more dangerous than tame ones. Wild animals don’t get taken to the vet to get shots, and they are often afraid of people. Never approach a wild animal, and if one approaches you, keep your eye on it but move away from it. Usually, wild animals only approach people if they’re sick, or injured, and that is dangerous for humans. They could bite you, which would hurt and could make you sick.
“If a stray animal or a wild animal comes up to you, leave it alone. If it looks dangerous, call for help and move away from it. You need to keep your eye on it, though, so don’t turn around and run. When you run, lots of animals will instinctively chase you.”
When a kid understands all that (yes I know it’s a lot), only then does he need to be allowed to roam without parental supervision. To allow kids to run around the neighborhood without knowing “animals can bite” is inexcusable ignorance.
In Cleveland and Ohio, owners of pit bulls are required to have a 6 foot high fence if the dogs are out, the dogs must be muzzled while being taken for walks.
The other day, I was in court while the case of pit bullsfatally injuring a Golden Retriever puppy. A little girl who was a cancer patient, had been playing with the puppy.
The owner of the pitbull had to agree to have the two dogs
euthanized, and other penalties were levied by the judge.
In this case, the law was ok, but the idiotic owner who loves her dog’s life more than the lives of the little kids in the neighborhood, is at fault.
berdollos
A) If the case is about a pit-bull who killed a golden retriever, who cares if a girl was playing with the GR at the time? Is it just an attempt to tug at the ol-heart strings and “think about the children”, or is there actually some relevance here that I missed?
B) As though A weren’t enough, you have to throw in “cancer patient”. Again, who cares? What difference does it make if the puppy was killed out in the yard by itself or in the presence of a little girl? How is this different from happening in the presence of a little girl with cancer?
In my opinion, this is where the term “bleedin’ heart” comes from…providing unimportant facts that are intended to stimulate an emotional response.
I’m wondering, how do either of these facts apply to the case? How do they relate to the question of pitbull legislation? Why do you care about these facts given the stated case matter?
Some responses:
So you do acknowledge that it’s the owner’s responsibility to train and confine the dog properly, yet still you want to legislate the dog? That’s stupid.
I’m just waiting to see you write that you want only common-sense legislation, and to close the dog-show loophole. You’ve used every other bullshit argument that the gun control people use, and this thread has even stooped to the “but what about the children???” argument. sheesh.
Any needless death is unfortunate. But even if all 238 deaths (over 10 years, mind you) were memebers of my family, I would be completely traumatized, but that still would not justify enacting new laws outlawing a breed of animal. Thanks, mattk. You’re exactly right.
To be honest, I think I might support laws licensing dog owners**. Not just the breeds that it’s currently in vogue to hate, but all dogs. And I don’t mean paying an administrative fee for a tag around your dog’s neck. I mean demonstrating fitness to care for an animal and raise it responsibly. Timid, mousey people have no business owning any kind of dog, let alone a strong breed like a Doberman, Rottweilier, or Pit Bull. Dogs are pack animals, and a dog will not obey unless you (the owner) demonstrate to him (or her) that you ARE the dominant one. Especially breeds like the Rottweiler will keep pushing boundaries with their owners, to see if they can become the dominant animal in the household. Ever since my dog was a puppy, I would occasionally take a piece of meat out of his mouth while he’s eating, just to test and enforce his obedience. He snapped at me the first couple times, but a swat on the butt each time fixed that. Now, he sits and watches me. He waits patiently until I hand it back to him, then continues eating.
A large part of the problem is that people think rowdy behavior is cute in a puppy, so they let it go, and let the puppy do whatever it wants. After a year or so, when they have a full grown animal running wild, they don’t know how to deal with it. Behavior you don’t want in a full-grown dog should be eliminated in a puppy. When it’s fully grown, it’s too late to start trying to train.
**[sub]This is totally in contrast to my position on gun licensing and registration. The reason for the difference is that a gun is an inanimate piece of metal. A tool, and nothing more. A dog is a living, intelligent animal, and when you take one as a pet, he offers unconditional loyalty and utter dependence on you. In return, you take on complete responsibility for his welfare and care. On the other hand, I feel no accountability towards my guns, any more than I do towards a screwdriver or hammer.[/sup]
Small in what sense? Is it that there aren’t many “pit bulls” around (but attacks are common) or that most pit bulls are tame? If it’s the former, then planning for an attack is a reasonable contingency.
But that is about the best way to prepare a child for an attack by a vicious dog. Unlike a swimming pool, there is nothing a child can do once a dog decides it wants to bite.
There is a very real chance that a rock might fall out of the sky and smash your house. Why don’t you run and hide in a hole in the ground? Or move to China? Why is it so hard to understand that what “would have” or “could have” happened is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. All that matters is what DID happen.
No, the fact that this little girl is a cancer patient is only a tool to elicit a teary-eyed emotional response. One of the standard logical fallacies, but in this case I think it’s more of an intentional intellectual dishonesty than a logical error, because the case has no real merit otherwise.
Tell me…Would you be as outraged if it had been two poodles that killed the retriever, instead of two pit bulls?
What if two Golden Retrievers killed a Pit Bull?
How about if, instead of playing with a poor, cancer-ridden little girl, the poor Pit Bull was playing frisbee with its healthy 22-year-old male owner in the park?
Face it. All that’s relevant is this:
[list=1][li]Two loose dogs killed another dog.[/li][li]Was the Retriever properly restrained in a fenced yard, or running loose in an open yard? If the latter, then the “victims” are equally in violation of dog restraint laws.[/li]Nothing. There is no third thing, is that clear? Nothing else you described bears any relevance to what happened.
What difference does “what might have been” make? Really, I don’t understand. They might have, but apparently did not. I don’t understand why this is an issue.
**
I’ll submit to your interpretation of the “peace-of-mind” aspect re: her presence, but should the fact that she is a cancer patient really have any significance in the event, even in light of the civil court and damages? Would the “damages” to her peace of mind really be any different if she weren’t a cancer patient?
Finally, while it’s an interesting anecdote, I still don’t see a relation between this story and pit-bulls in general and the statistical insignificance of attacks. Though, I’m not sure you meant to establish a relationship between the two.
Berdellos said,
But the dogs didn’t. In another thread from a year or so ago (the last time I looked into a ‘ban dogs’ type thread), someone pointed out that pit bulls have a higher dog-dog agression level, but a lower dog-human aggression level. No I don’t know who said it, and no, I’m not searching for the thread in the middle of the day. You’ll have to take my word on it until I can do a search and post it (maybe tonight if we’re lucky), or someone who knows what thread I mean posts a link.
Again, the circumstances of a bystander are of little relevance to the event itself. And for what it’s worth, I’ve known of several incidents where larger dogs killed smaller dogs. In one, 2 dalmations killed a small dog (a miniature Chihuahua) in the presence of its emotionally unstable owner, who was unable to work for a week following her dog’s death. No charges were pressed and no public outcry was raised to ban dalmations.
What I’m trying to say here is that death happens, and happens irrespective of the consequence to any bystanders. In my opinion, any civil damages awarded should be based entirely on the replacement value of property destroyed and maybe, maybe some standard pain and suffering money thrown in, and no more than would apply if the girl did not have cancer. But I bet it wouldn’t have made it to court at all had any so-called “loveable” breed been involved.
Again, wanting to destoy something because it scares you is about as ignorant as you can possibly get.
I also have to admit that making the same typo because I cut and pasted this from the first time I posted it is pretty ignorant too. Thx me!
…destroy…
Boy, are those weasely words. “As many as one-third . . . may be”? Yeah, but then again, they may not. I suppose as many as 7/8 may be, but then again, they may not. And what does “related to dog attacks” mean? Is that like when MADD describes an incident in which a sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian as a “motor vehicle accident involving alcohol”?
I cannot conceive of a single case in which I would prefer for me, or my child, to be dead rather than scarred.
Sadly, yes, but it so happens that the children happen to be about the right height for their head to be in line with the dogs’ mouths. In addition, although breed-banners don’t like to admit it, a lot of small children have not been taught to not approach strange dogs. to not pull their tails, to not tease them, etc. I’d be willing to put a few bucks on the proposition that a lot of those dog attacks are provoked.
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. **
[/QUOTE]
According to this link:
Seems to me the real problem is children. Whether it’s dog attacks or swimming pool drownings or baseball injuries or accidental poisoning, children are generally involved. If we just outlaw the children, we can solve all these problems in one stroke.
[/quote]
**Small in the sense that over 10 years, 238 people died as a result of dog bites, from all breeds. This according to the link to the CDC provided by Joe_Cool about 17 posts down from the top of the first page. Te US population is now around 290,000,000 people, so the total dog bite victims over 10 years amount to 0.00008% of the population. This is hardly a staggering problem that is going to bring our nation to its knees without immediate legislative or vigilante attention. Statistically speaking, more people probably died from eating undercooked meat in the same time. **
[/quote]
You make it sound like dogs are roaming the street in gangs frothing at the mouth and looking for babies to maul. I contend that is not the case. In the ‘unknown animals’ speech I offered in the post you quote from, I briefly addressed the fact that kids, when approached by an animal, need to move away from it, and if necessary call for help. Dogs, even pit bulls, are not vicious automatons pre-programmed to lunge immediately at anything that crosses their paths and looks like easy pickings. A dog will read signals from other creatures around it, and adjust its behavior accordingly. If you act like prey, sure, any dog may bite you - that’s why you have to teach your kids not to act like prey.
PLEASE NOTE: I’m not saying in any way that children deserve to be mauled by dogs. I’m simply advocating more responsability should go to the parents for the safety of their child. It’s easy to say a vicious dog bit my baby, and blame the dog or the dog’s owner. But parents are the ones ultimately responsable for the safety of their children; letting little Susie out to roam the neighborhood without basic knowledge of safety invites her to fall prey to something. That something can come in many forms: a bite from a dog, falling in the creek, struck by car, lured in by neighborhood pervert, eating a poison mushroom, etc. Other people’s dogs should be treated as just another something you need to warn your kids about.
pldennison, I hate to nitpick, but how is the banning of pit bulls going to limit the number of attacks by rottweillers or bull mastifs?
D’Oh!
Please change this: Te US population is now around 290,000,000 people, so the total dog bite victims over 10 years amount to 0.00008% of the population.
to this: The US population is now around 290,000,000 people, so the total dog bite fatalities over 10 years amount to 0.00008% of the population.
missdavis, I accidentally left in extraneous material from Rachelle’s post that I quoted, so that question actually should be for her. Everything after the words " . . . are provoked" shouldn’t be there.
They do that? Madd relates such an incident as a reason to prosecute drunk drivers? Show me.
I’ll explain my statement, “same old tactics”;
It seems that every time someone expresses concern about anything dangerous, a lot of people try to dilute the importance of that thing by calling up the dangers of as many other unrelated things as possible.
Dogs are not kitchen knives, are not swimming pools, are not guns, are not freakin’ raw meat.
Putting a muzzle on a dog will not protect a kid from drowning. Or from samonella. So what? It would most likely protect the kid from dog bite.
The OP is concerned about dog attacks, and offers a somewhat extreme solution.
How about some more reasonable ideas?
Peace,
mangeorge
Here’s an idea: how about people stop shreaking and shrilling about the newest danger d’jour? More media attention != actual problem.
Identify individual cases and solve those. There is no reason to villify an entire group of anything for extremely rare occurances.
While the site above is incorrect in its units (kg per square centimeter is not pressure, as kg is not force), if we convert it to N/cm[sup]2[/sup], we then find that their figure of 220 “kg” per cm[sup]2[/sup] is about:
1 cm[sup]2[/sup] = 0.0001 m[sup]2[/sup]
220 kg * 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup] = 2158.2 N of force.
2158.2 N / 0.0001 m[sup]2[/sup] = 3130 psi - basically, just like Barbarian said already.
So, given this…can someone tell me please why the number of “1500 lbs of pressure per square inch” from the jaws of the Pit Bull is significant in any way?