If you’d ever actually demonstrate a higher risk of attacks from a properly trained and breed-standard pit bull, I might buy that line of reasoning. No one on this thread has yet done so, including you.
Holy crap, a whole hundred and fifty total fatalities? Stop the fucking presses.
Drop-side cribs were “banned” mostly due to INJURY, not death–and the injury count was in the five figures yearly. Also, they were not banned, but the sale and manufacture of new ones was prohibited–which is analogous, in my view, to regulating breeders of unpapered dogs more heavily, which many pit bull advocates and dog advocates in general have advocated (in this thread, even).
The United States banned windows blinds and tylenol? That’s news to me, and to the bottle of Children’s Tylenol on my shelf next to the adult version in the non-childproof bottle, which is also suspiciously unbanned, and to the multiple sets of window blinds in this and literally every other residence I’ve ever lived in. I think you need a fact check, son.
The fact that the vast majority of people are terrible at risk analysis, and that big corporations are more sensitive to public opinion than objective risk analysis, does not impact MY risk analysis. Chrysler is making a legal and business decision rather than one based on the objective risks involved in the flaw–if I had one of the affected Jeeps, I might not even bother having it fixed if it’d have to be in the shop more than a day or so, that’s how low the increased risk is. Driving ten extra miles a day is more risky than that fuel tank.
Fact checks:
Window Blinds -
the Maryland legislature banned corded blinds in child care facilities and foster homes in October 2011
cite:
Tylenol -
“Newsweek’s October 1982 issue stated that some state health departments actually banned all forms of Tylenol products”
cite:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/tylenol_murders/index.html
Fact check much?
“Maryland” is not “the USA”, and a ban in some facilities is not a “ban” in the colloquial sense.
“Some states” are not “the USA”, and can you tell me if any of those bans are still in force? They are not, because this was a temporary ban due to a specific incident of product tampering.
Ironically, another massive overreaction to a relatively minor threat.
Yeah, I do. Distort sources much?
Here’s what you said:
And you offer up a few locations temporarily banning Tylenol over 20 years ago as proof that that “The United States of America HAS (implication ban still in place) banned” and ONE state bans blinds specifically in foster homes wtihout even having the balls to cop to your distortion, instead snarking?
For shame on you, sir, for shame.
Yegads, no wonder you are so freaked out about pitbulls! If you can turn one state’s foster homes into the whole country, your gift for distortion, exaggeration and overreaction is beyond anything I’ve ever encountered. It must be terribly stressful to be you, cougar, truly.
Not all window blinds are banned, just one “breed”.
In fact, this one breed of window blinds is banned in all of the USA:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Products: Horizontal and Vertical Blinds and Cellular Shades
Units: About 15,400 (horizontal), 16,400 (vertical), 800 (Cellular Shades)
Manufacturer: Vertical Land Inc., of Panama City Beach, Fla.
cite:
This ban is nationwide, and it is still in effect.
Yet pit bulls killed many, many times more children.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Imagine the lives saved, if the above law applied to pit bulls. You can not even resale these blinds on Craigslist.
Actually, Tylenol was recalled in all 50 states:
"FDA pressed the 125-year-old company to start voluntary recalls "
“The FDA lacks the authority to order mandatory recalls outright, but it could threaten court action against pharmaceutical firms if voluntary recalls were not launched.”
“The FDA closed down the most problematic Tylenol plant, in Fort Washington, Pa., and company officials are unable to say when it may reopen.”
“They don’t tell us anything except there’s a recall and to take the products off the shelves,” said Rite Aid’s Jones
Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Jodie Wertheim released this statement via email: “You may have noticed that some of our Tylenol and other McNeil products have been hard to find. We are in the process of returning to market certain products that were impacted by recalls.”
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/05/4538335/recalls-keep-tylenol-other-products.html#storylink=cpy
Also, please take a remedial course in the English language.
Your claim:
“The United States of America HAS (implication ban still in place) banned”
“Has” does not mandate a current status. It may or it may not. It can mean that an event “has” occurred at some point in time. It may or may not indicate current status.
Cite, from unc.edu:
http://www.unc.edu/~eoslavic/projects/bombsites/
title: “Protesting Cartography or Places the United States has Bombed”
Clearly, the USA is not currently bombing these places. The USA has bombed them in the past.
another example with cite:
“The United States has raised its debt ceiling many times before the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011.”
This does not imply that the USA has currently raised its debt ceiling, only that it has in the past.
I stand by my claim that one type of window blinds were banned in all of the USA, and are still banned, and can not even be resold, in the USA.
I also stand by my claim that the USA has banned (or forced the recall) of Tylenol.
Yet the sum of both fatal’s from Tylenol and window blinds are just a fraction of the carnage caused by pit bulls.
I believe most of the SDMB readers comprehend this, and can read thru the rhetoric.
Played a game of lawn darts with your pit bulls nearby, lately?
No?
Maybe that’s because the USA banned lawn darts in all 50 states, after just two deaths.
Interesting to note, the maker of the lawn darts, initially got a relief on the pending ban, by claiming to educate the public that they were only to be used by responsible adults, and labeled and marketed them as such.
The deaths continued, until an engineer had his own daughter killed by one. He finally had them banned all together.
But that same engineer has to tolerate a pit bull in his neighbors yard, just like the parents of the 12 yr old boy in critical condition today in Indy, when their neighbors pit bull jumped the fence…and the dozens and dozens of similar neighbors who have lost family members lives due to a neighbors choice in pets.
Lawn Dart fatalities = 2, then banned nationwide
Pit Bull fatalities - 368, or 30 a year (16 so far in 2013) - banned in 600 USA cites and all US Army and Marine bases, as well as 10 USAF bases. Banned in dozens of nations. Declared viscous in Maryland.
Why can people own a pitbull, but they can’t own monkey here in North America ? In other parts of the world monkeys are ubiquitous without any serious danger to people.
Monkeys are cute too.
don’t just single out monkeys.
Snakes, for example. Despite the Humane Society being against bans on pit bulls, they don’t want people to own boa constrictors and 3 other types of snakes, while other less dangerous types of snakes are just fine:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57360863/giant-snake-imports-banned-in-u.s/
and, the HSUS cites, as their reason, the fact that 12 people have been killed by boa’s since 1990;
never mind that pit bulls killed 16 in the first half of 2013.
and the US banned pythons last year:
“Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a U.S. ban on four species of pythons”
In fact, the USA, and the HSUS, can be breed specific. And they can base this BSL on fewer than one fatality per year.
As the facts keep pointing to breed specific legislation has no positive effect on the number of dog attacks, I’d imagine the number of lives saved would be 0. Instead another breed would become popular among the subset of people that do not train or care for their dogs properly where a majority of the problem animals come from.
Cougar58 You have Failed even one single time to provide evidence that pit bulls are in any way shape or form more dangerous than any other random dog of a similar size. You have been pointed to many links demonstrating why you are wrong, you have been pointed to Confirmatoin Bias at least once.
Stop Posting about Pit Bull Attacks for a couple hours and do some reading. You might actually learn something today for a change.
Most owners of “pit bulls” do not infact know one way or the other if their dogs are actually pit bulls, this has clearly been demonstrated in this thread.
Media bias is clearly at work in making pit bulls out to be uber bad dog of the decade.
Confirmation bias, specifically your confirmation bias, is kicking your ass up and down the street and you are totally unaware of this. It’s embarrassing, please do a little reading before you post yet another story about a dog claimed with no backing evidence whatsoever to be a pit bull attack.
Not true. I cited many links to that effect; such as the “Annals of Surgery” authored by 9 doctors, and similar from surgeons in hospitals in KY and MD, as well as Animal People, and Dr Beck of Purdue. Also the New Zealand SPCA.
And, the fact that by far, most insurance agencies (Farmers was the latest) - who hire degreed actuaries that do nothing but study risk - will not insure homes or apartments with pit bulls. And the entire state of Maryland that still declares pit bulls viscous by default. PETA is also anti pit bull.
600 cities, and virtually all US Army and Marine bases have fires Sgt Stubby and banned pit bulls. I cited many cities whose managers not only noticed a drop in serious - key word “serious” bites and fatals - they also noted a drop in gang activity. And I cited a study that showed pit bull owners were more likely to be sociopaths.
And even your post above - complaining about weekly fatal pit maulings, or daily pit maulings that were only stopped by police point blank multiple gun shots. Or maybe that virtually all livestock fatal canine attacks were by pit bulls.
Where is your link to a golden that went beserk, and the family had to call 911 and the police had to shoot the dog multiple times to save the family? Wheres the golden that killed a Llama, pig, cow, or a horse? Do you have any idea how many of each have been killed by pit bulls recently?
or don’t
Try googling pit bull attacks …many of them are from well trained homes. But that begs the question not everyone knows how to train their dogs, doesn’t mean they abuse them, so why would anyone choose that breed with children.?
:)
or do…for the 3rd time
US National Library of Medicine
“more severe bites and injuries were observed in attacks from the pit-bull and Rottweiler breeds”
5 year study of dog bites at Philadelphia hospital
" Records of all patients who were evaluated for dog bite injuries between April of 2001 and December of 2005 were reviewed"
“The most common breeds included pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent)”
Read the above line again. Pits scored more than half of the bites, and 2nd place went to Rotts, with less than 10%. Pits score 5 times higher than the #2 dog, the Rott.
Annals of Surgery, April 2011
“Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs”
Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group
“We postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls.”
"Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).
Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites."
American Association of Plastic Surgeons, 10 year study:
“The Province of Ontario, Canada has banned Pit Bulls since 2004, as
have several American cities. We describe the scope of the problem, preventative guidelines, and outline why
organizational advocacy in plastic surgery should be directed towards a national prohibition of dangerous dogs.”
Kentucky MEdical Examiner study:
Prove it.
Because properly trained pit bulls from reputable breeders are exceptionally good family dogs. It’s been true for decades, and it doesn’t stop being true just because pit bulls are currently the tough guy dog of choice.
“Pit bulls are different; they’re like wild animals,” says Alan Beck, director for the Center for the Human Animal Bond at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN. “They’re not suited for an urban environment. I believe we should open our eyes and take a realistic approach to pit bulls.”
Dr beck is renowned for his decades of groundbreaking research on using animals in therapeutic settings, such as nursing homes. He’s the co-author of “Between Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship” (Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN, 1996; $29.95).
Dr. Beck directed the animal programs for the New York City Department of Health for five years and then directed the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society and the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine for a decade.
He testified on the side of the city of Denver, when they banned pit bulls.
“This breed alone is a risk of serious public health factors,” Beck said. “We are keeping them alive against their own best interests.”
“If these dogs were carrying an actual disease, people would advocate euthanizing them,” Beck said. “This breed itself is not natural.”
And as I said before–this statistic tells you NOTHING about the relative danger of the two dog breeds without knowing their relative prevalence in the area served by Philly Children’s Hospital. That’s Statistics 101 stuff.*
Given I LIVE in the area served by said hospital, it would be totally in line with my observations that 50%+ of the dogs capable of inflicting a bite that merited hospitalization would be pit bulls–I’d say four out of five dogs I see on a daily basis in my neighborhood and my commute through west Philadelphia are in fact pit bull or pit mixes based on phenotype (which is, apparently, just fine and dandy with you for breed identification.)
- I reach into my sock drawer, and I pull out 5 black socks and 1 white sock. Are black socks easier to grab than white socks? Is there more data I might need to assess that?