Man Wins Fight With Vicious Pit Bull

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256
And how common are pit bulls as opposed to bears? How often do people come on contact with pit bulls VS bears. How many non-zoo bears are kept in suburbs or inner cities?
Lets look at your figures:
For pit bulls- 104 deaths : 25 years = 4.16 deaths per year
For bears - 102 deaths : 107 years = 0.95 deaths per year

So the ratio of deaths caused by pit bulls VS bears is 4.36:1 per year. I'm willing to bet the contact rate of humans between pit bulls VS bears is somewhere around 1:100+ per year. An animal which has +100x more contact with humans causes 4.36x more deaths. Hmmm.......

Like I said before, in 1900 there was a great deal more contact. For non-city dwellers there is contact up to this day. I've lived next door to a pit bull that bit my mother. I lived in Colorado and had a black bear come and go through the trash every night. I used to walk home late at night in Colorado. Number of pit bull attacks for me = 1. Number of bear attacks for me = 0.

Yes but those statistics take into account the entire country. Not just your state. I've never seen a bear outside a zoo. The only member of my family that has was my father when he was stationed in Alaska. Granted the bear population is probably high in Colorado. Its drastically lower in many other states. And even though contact still exists it is no where near the magnitude of pit bull contact.

Believe it or not, bears (even grizzly bears) used to be common throughout almost the entire nation. Black bears are still common throughout the northeast, an area were you'd think bears would be rare.

See in bold

Haha, which is why I said that pit bulls have killed more people in the last 25 years than bears (combined) have killed in the last 107. It was meant to illustrate a point about the wild nature of dogs. Domestic, but wild. As in, not always predictable.

you still don't understand the problem with these numbers? your trying to compare numbers of attacks between 2 species, in which case one of the species most likely is in contact with humans 100x more than the other...does this make sense yet?

are you a fan of physics too? I bet you think the plane can't take off....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Oh I see...becuase it supports my argument then it's invalid. Whereas the numbers that you misrrepresent to support yoiur argument are perfectly valid. Gotcha

You're one for the recordbooks, my friend

Same . I'd say the problem with your article is that it has no numbers. Unlike the numbers I posted from here. It has number of attacks by proportion and number of pit bulls by proportion. Exactly the numbers you need to make your argument . I guess you skipped that article. Gotcha .

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix?but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn?t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

^ small example, excerpted from article. I guess it's the 2="two" thing you're having a problem with? Did/do you have difficulty with word problems in math class?

Btw, nice title to that article you linked! Once again you support my argument of media fear-mongering.

Disclaimer for those that may have been attacked by pit bulls: I can understand the fear and hatred you may have for this breed. And such would be more rational than the fear I have for Rottweilers (several instances of being chased, barked at, threatened by Rottweilers when I was very small.) I have always had this fear, but when looking at numbers, I don't find those fears to be rational. ALl the pit bulls I have know/encountered, where actually quite docile and skiddish. It really does have to do with personal experience.

The argument I am making (BigD still doesn't get it), is that the threat of pit bulls being greater than any other breed is statistically innacurate. I wouldn't want a pit bull myself, I'm not exactly defending pit bulls; just the mis-srepresentation of them. As BigD pointed out earlier, "I imagine that the owners of those dogs [that attacked] were normal people that never had an issue with their dog before" (paraphrasing). Well, there's a difference between "assuming" what you want to know and looking at the facts. In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

Banning an entire breed (in which case, bans that have been enacted are usually written such that almost any dog can be included, a pit bull being a very generic term), is irrational when the source of the problem is irresponsible, even criminal owners who should have never been allowed to own one in the first place.

Again, only a year ago I thought just as BigD and all of the other alarmists do on this issue. However, after approaching the numbers statistically and considering the debate rationally, I can no longer support the idea of an irrational breed-wide ban.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Oh I see...becuase it supports my argument then it's invalid. Whereas the numbers that you misrrepresent to support yoiur argument are perfectly valid. Gotcha

You're one for the recordbooks, my friend

Same . I'd say the problem with your article is that it has no numbers. Unlike the numbers I posted from here. It has number of attacks by proportion and number of pit bulls by proportion. Exactly the numbers you need to make your argument . I guess you skipped that article. Gotcha .

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix?but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn?t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

^ small example, excerpted from article. I guess it's the 2="two" thing you're having a problem with? Did/do you have difficulty with word problems in math class?

Btw, nice title to that article you linked! Once again you support my argument of media fear-mongering.

Disclaimer for those that may have been attacked by pit bulls: I can understand the fear and hatred you may have for this breed. And such would be more rational than the fear I have for Rottweilers (several instances of being chased, barked at, threatened by Rottweilers when I was very small.) I have always had this fear, but when looking at numbers, I don't find those fears to be rational. ALl the pit bulls I have know/encountered, where actually quite docile and skiddish. It really does have to do with personal experience.

The argument I am making (BigD still doesn't get it), is that the threat of pit bulls being greater than any other breed is statistically innacurate. I wouldn't want a pit bull myself, I'm not exactly defending pit bulls; just the mis-srepresentation of them. As BigD pointed out earlier, "I imagine that the owners of those dogs [that attacked] were normal people that never had an issue with their dog before" (paraphrasing). Well, there's a difference between "assuming" what you want to know and looking at the facts. In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

Banning an entire breed (in which case, bans that have been enacted are usually written such that almost any dog can be included, a pit bull being a very generic term), is irrational when the source of the problem is irresponsible, even criminal owners who should have never been allowed to own one in the first place.

See, you make statements that have no statistical backing. In the wide majority of cases dogs are reflecting their owners? Evidence please.

Besides, I already showed that pit bulls caused more deaths between 1979 and 1998 than any other dog. Here A fact checked article clearly states that pit bulls are the #1 killer. Maybe you had a problem reading period. You're only real argument would be that there were far more pit bulls than any other dog. Well, per capita stats are hard to find but I was able to find this. Well, here's what is says about per capita stats (from the New York Department of Health)

New York City, with a million dogs, conforms to these national trends. In 1997, the Department of Health reported 7,075 dog bites in the city and some 1,000 complaints about frightening dogs. Gotham police and other authorities had to round up 892 biting dogs in 1997, 200 more than the year before. Of these, 294?33 percent?were pit bulls or pit-bull mixes, though they make up only an estimated 15 percent of the city's dogs.

Was this in some way unclear? Pit bulls and pit mixes comprise 33% of biting dogs but represent only 15% of the city's dog population. Those are real numbers. Wow. That doesn't look good for your per capita argument. Do I have to explain this any further?

I also like the quote you posted. Perhaps you didn't read the last line:

When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

I don't see any declaration of fact there, do you? I see someone who said something without having any information to back it up. The author clearly didn't think they could, otherwise they would have stated as such.

But I find your insults amusing. Could you please post quantitative evidence that shows that pit bull attacks are most strongly correlated with owner behavior? We can really start to debate when you start adding some quantitative data. I would expect as much from someone who works with statistics all day .

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256
And how common are pit bulls as opposed to bears? How often do people come on contact with pit bulls VS bears. How many non-zoo bears are kept in suburbs or inner cities?
Lets look at your figures:
For pit bulls- 104 deaths : 25 years = 4.16 deaths per year
For bears - 102 deaths : 107 years = 0.95 deaths per year

So the ratio of deaths caused by pit bulls VS bears is 4.36:1 per year. I'm willing to bet the contact rate of humans between pit bulls VS bears is somewhere around 1:100+ per year. An animal which has +100x more contact with humans causes 4.36x more deaths. Hmmm.......

Like I said before, in 1900 there was a great deal more contact. For non-city dwellers there is contact up to this day. I've lived next door to a pit bull that bit my mother. I lived in Colorado and had a black bear come and go through the trash every night. I used to walk home late at night in Colorado. Number of pit bull attacks for me = 1. Number of bear attacks for me = 0.

Yes but those statistics take into account the entire country. Not just your state. I've never seen a bear outside a zoo. The only member of my family that has was my father when he was stationed in Alaska. Granted the bear population is probably high in Colorado. Its drastically lower in many other states. And even though contact still exists it is no where near the magnitude of pit bull contact.

Believe it or not, bears (even grizzly bears) used to be common throughout almost the entire nation. Black bears are still common throughout the northeast, an area were you'd think bears would be rare.

See in bold

Haha, which is why I said that pit bulls have killed more people in the last 25 years than bears (combined) have killed in the last 107. It was meant to illustrate a point about the wild nature of dogs. Domestic, but wild. As in, not always predictable.

you still don't understand the problem with these numbers? your trying to compare numbers of attacks between 2 species, in which case one of the species most likely is in contact with humans 100x more than the other...does this make sense yet?

are you a fan of physics too? I bet you think the plane can't take off....

Yes, which is why dogs kill far more people. The point was too illustrate that dogs do kill people at levels comparable to other wild animals. It's dismissing the whole "the owner has complete control" myth. We should be comparing pit bulls to other dogs. When we do, we find that pit bulls killed the most between 1979-1998.

The plane does take off . And I do like physics, maybe we can discuss?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01
And how long did the Grizzly Man spend in close proximity to dozens of grizzly bears before he was eaten? Maybe that means I should keep grizzly bears in my back yard. Would you be ok with that?

Sorry.. a comparison between a potentially dangerous 90 pound animal and a potentially dangerous 400 pound animal is a bad comparison. A bear can inflict injury and kill even if its not meaning to.

Really?

According to this study, pit bulls caused 104 fatalities in the US (pure pitballs, not muts) since 1982.

You know how many Americans have been killed since 1900 both brown and black bears combined (including grizzly bears)?

Here

About 102. That's since 1900. That's brown and black bears. If anything, it would seem that bears are less dangerous. But maybe you're right, pit bulls don't accidently kill people, they do so on purpose, and they do it more often than bears who do it either by purpose or accident.

Swimming pools kill more people every year than pit bulls and bears have in the last 50 years.

I guess that means they must be banned.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: eleison
With all the talk of bears.. I want one!!!! My bear would absolutely own all pit bull.. Muuahhahaa...

I have a video of a very small bear fighting 2 pit bulls. The bear absolutely destroys them.

 

[Q]

Quick! Someone grab that man a beer!

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: BigDH01
And how long did the Grizzly Man spend in close proximity to dozens of grizzly bears before he was eaten? Maybe that means I should keep grizzly bears in my back yard. Would you be ok with that?

Sorry.. a comparison between a potentially dangerous 90 pound animal and a potentially dangerous 400 pound animal is a bad comparison. A bear can inflict injury and kill even if its not meaning to.

Really?

According to this study, pit bulls caused 104 fatalities in the US (pure pitballs, not muts) since 1982.

You know how many Americans have been killed since 1900 both brown and black bears combined (including grizzly bears)?

Here

About 102. That's since 1900. That's brown and black bears. If anything, it would seem that bears are less dangerous. But maybe you're right, pit bulls don't accidently kill people, they do so on purpose, and they do it more often than bears who do it either by purpose or accident.

Swimming pools kill more people every year than pit bulls and bears have in the last 50 years.

I guess that means they must be banned.

Haha, I wasn't arguing that pit bulls are dangerous in the overall scheme of things. I was saying that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. You have presented a slippery slope argument.

 

[Ulfwald]

People moved in down the street from us, they had 2 Pit bulls, now they have 1. A cop was walking his dog, off duty but still packing, the male pit charged their Irish setter, and the cop dropped to one knee, drew down and dropped the pit with 2 shots. The people had been moved in all of 2 hours. 5 mins later our neighborhood was swarming with cops. the people were cited, and the cop was basically thrown a party.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

are you a fan of physics too? I bet you think the plane can't take off....

That all depends on how many pit bulls are on it. Load it up with enough dogs and it won't take off regardless of if it's on a treadmill or not.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Oh I see...becuase it supports my argument then it's invalid. Whereas the numbers that you misrrepresent to support yoiur argument are perfectly valid. Gotcha

You're one for the recordbooks, my friend

Same . I'd say the problem with your article is that it has no numbers. Unlike the numbers I posted from here. It has number of attacks by proportion and number of pit bulls by proportion. Exactly the numbers you need to make your argument . I guess you skipped that article. Gotcha .

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix?but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn?t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

^ small example, excerpted from article. I guess it's the 2="two" thing you're having a problem with? Did/do you have difficulty with word problems in math class?

Btw, nice title to that article you linked! Once again you support my argument of media fear-mongering.

Disclaimer for those that may have been attacked by pit bulls: I can understand the fear and hatred you may have for this breed. And such would be more rational than the fear I have for Rottweilers (several instances of being chased, barked at, threatened by Rottweilers when I was very small.) I have always had this fear, but when looking at numbers, I don't find those fears to be rational. ALl the pit bulls I have know/encountered, where actually quite docile and skiddish. It really does have to do with personal experience.

The argument I am making (BigD still doesn't get it), is that the threat of pit bulls being greater than any other breed is statistically innacurate. I wouldn't want a pit bull myself, I'm not exactly defending pit bulls; just the mis-srepresentation of them. As BigD pointed out earlier, "I imagine that the owners of those dogs [that attacked] were normal people that never had an issue with their dog before" (paraphrasing). Well, there's a difference between "assuming" what you want to know and looking at the facts. In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

Banning an entire breed (in which case, bans that have been enacted are usually written such that almost any dog can be included, a pit bull being a very generic term), is irrational when the source of the problem is irresponsible, even criminal owners who should have never been allowed to own one in the first place.

See, you make statements that have no statistical backing. In the wide majority of cases dogs are reflecting their owners? Evidence please.

Besides, I already showed that pit bulls caused more deaths between 1979 and 1998 than any other dog. Here A fact checked article clearly states that pit bulls are the #1 killer. Maybe you had a problem reading period. You're only real argument would be that there were far more pit bulls than any other dog. Well, per capita stats are hard to find but I was able to find this. Well, here's what is says about per capita stats (from the New York Department of Health)

New York City, with a million dogs, conforms to these national trends. In 1997, the Department of Health reported 7,075 dog bites in the city and some 1,000 complaints about frightening dogs. Gotham police and other authorities had to round up 892 biting dogs in 1997, 200 more than the year before. Of these, 294?33 percent?were pit bulls or pit-bull mixes, though they make up only an estimated 15 percent of the city's dogs.

Was this in some way unclear? Pit bulls and pit mixes comprise 33% of biting dogs but represent only 15% of the city's dog population. Those are real numbers. Wow. That doesn't look good for your per capita argument. Do I have to explain this any further?

I also like the quote you posted. Perhaps you didn't read the last line:

When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

I don't see any declaration of fact there, do you? I see someone who said something without having any information to back it up. The author clearly didn't think they could, otherwise they would have stated as such.

But I find your insults amusing. Could you please post quantitative evidence that shows that pit bull attacks are most strongly correlated with owner behavior? We can really start to debate when you start adding some quantitative data. I would expect as much from someone who works with statistics all day .

Yet, you choose to use no statistical analysis when you claim to. The data is there, in front of your face, if you'll read it. I shouldn't have to post every piece for you. You have refused to address the real meaning behind your numbers. You say More pit bulls have attacked people between the years you have chosen for your sample. Fine, the bare numbers say that; yet they don't point to what is really going on. This is where analysis comes into play. You have shown me nothing, where I have shown you professionals who argue that the relevant data involves the attacks per breed based on the total numbers of that breed. You have yet to address this issue. I don't mean to insult you, but I have to question your abliity to debate when you blatantly refuse to address my arguemtn by simply reposting the initial argument you have made, even after I have discounted it.

The records of owners involved in these attacks are there for you to read. You ask for quantifiable data; the closes you can get is something akin to a survey. Look at the owners' personal records and their history with the dog in question. These can't be hard numbers, you must realize that. But you can't say there is no relatedness between an aggressive individual, the documented (again, public record) ways in which they mistreat and ecourage their dogs to be aggressive, and the chance those dogs will attack humans. Just because the stories you choose to post involve one family "who never expected their wonderful pit bull to attack," does not mean those instances are the majority and does not exclude the selective nature of the media when it chooses to report such stories.

Your 33% of biting dogs comprised of bit bulls represents only 15% of total dogs IN NO WAY hurts my argument. Why? Because that number is from 1997. 1 year. This is my argument, which you still can not refute. I'm talking about year-by-year. Statistics are funny that way. Give me another year where 10% of the dogs are pit bulls and they only represent 7% of all biting dogs. Hey, what is the possibility that the 1997 spike is related to a police crackdown on an illegal fighting ring, and a large number of fighting dogs were released into rescue shelters? Pretty good, I'd say. Sure, that's speculation, but I'm putting more thought into it than you are. Statisticians and others who use numbers (I'm a geneticist), only use numbers because they represent something. Without the background, then the numbers are meaningless. I'm the only one asking the questions here... The fact remains, that statistical significance is removed after a year-by-year analysis. (It is there, I wouldn't have posted otherwise). What this means, is that for a year like 1997, there is a year where Rottweilers represent 20-40% of attacks among all breeds but only 15% of the total breeds.

I don't understand why you choose to ignore the facts as presented to you. These numbers are in the article, in front of your face. The opinoins of prefessionals, based on their experience and their numbers, are there. You leave me little choice in questioning your cognitive ability when you display an ability to read something that is so clearly stated.
Your response to reading these things (I must assume that you haven't) is that "thsoe numbers aren't there."

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: eleison
With all the talk of bears.. I want one!!!! My bear would absolutely own all pit bull.. Muuahhahaa...

I have a video of a very small bear fighting 2 pit bulls. The bear absolutely destroys them.

Of course you know you have to post this now.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: eleison
With all the talk of bears.. I want one!!!! My bear would absolutely own all pit bull.. Muuahhahaa...

I have a video of a very small bear fighting 2 pit bulls. The bear absolutely destroys them.

Of course you know you have to post this now.

Text

 

[zinfamous]

Say....I found within your own article the "missing" details about irresponsible dog owners representing the majority of aggressive dog attacks. In brief:

According to CACC official Kyle Burkhart, "more than 50 percent of the dogs are pit bulls or pit-bull mixes?a huge percentage." That works out to 40 or so pit bulls a day, most of which have to be put down because of their aggressiveness. Waiting in the CACC's lobby, I got a firsthand look at the pit bull as a standard-issue accessory to underclass life: toughs in baggy pants and stocking caps paraded in and out continuously, negotiating to get their impounded dogs back or to adopt new ones.

Three distinct classes of irresponsible?or, more accurately, abusive?owners are the source of the CACC's flood of pit bulls. First are the drug dealers, who use pit bulls, or pit-bull crosses, as particularly vicious sentinels. New York City cops had to shoot 83 dogs to death in 1997, most of them pit bulls guarding drug stashes. Burkhart showed me a few such sentinels in the center's dangerous-dog ward. Lunging against their metal cages, these pit bulls were the most ferocious animals I'd ever seen: pure animal fury. "This one would bite my head off if he had the chance," Burkhart said of one Schwarzenegger-muscled dog, brought in from a police raid on a crack house. Intimidated, I kept as far from the cages as I could. "Some of the pit bulls coming in will actually have their vocal cords removed in order to surprise someone lurking around a crack house," Burkhart noted.

Dog-fighting rings also fill the CACC with abused animals. "Sometimes a raid on a dog- fighting ring brings us 20 or 30 pit bulls at a time," Burkhart tells me. The rings, moving clandestinely throughout the state, stage battles between pit bulls, sometimes to the death, as cheering spectators wager on the outcome. The dogs the CACC receives from the raids will often be missing ears or will bear deep scars from their battles. Manhattan Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe isn't surprised at the savagery: "We regularly find dead pit bulls in the parks; on one occasion, we found eight pit-bull carcasses dumped in Riverside Park. They'd been killed fighting other dogs."

It's an unsavory crowd that participates, whether as trainer or spectator, in the blood sport, says ASPCA humane-law-enforcement officer George Watford. "The trainers preparing a pit bull for a fight throw a rope over a branch with a bag tied at the end; inside the bag will be a live cat," Watford explains. "You'll see a dog hanging from the bag, and it'll be a cat he's killing inside it, giving the pit bull the taste for blood." The spectators are just as bad, Watford says: "When we raid a ring, not only will there be shotgun-armed lookouts, but we'll search people and find drugs and weapons, and we'll always find people wanted for rape, murder, robbery charges."

Finally, the CACC gets pit bulls owned by teenagers and gang members?"young punks," Watford calls them?who raise the dogs to intimidate. "It's a macho thing," Watford says. "These punks will get into the typical park scenario, a `my dog is tougher than your dog' thing, in which they let the dogs fight." I recalled a Bronx mother screaming at two teen lowlifes fighting pit bulls in the park in front of our apartment building. The teens, sporting military fatigues and shaved heads, ignored her and went on with their barbarous fun. Typically, these teens lose interest in their brutalized?and usually unneutered?dogs and let them loose, swamping the city with stray pit bulls.

You're not gonna find hard numbers for somehitng like this, but you will have police reports. And bringing in large numbers of dogs from these sources, 20-30 animals at a time, certainly counts for a significant portion of the pit bulls represented in the yearly census.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Oh I see...becuase it supports my argument then it's invalid. Whereas the numbers that you misrrepresent to support yoiur argument are perfectly valid. Gotcha

You're one for the recordbooks, my friend

Same . I'd say the problem with your article is that it has no numbers. Unlike the numbers I posted from here. It has number of attacks by proportion and number of pit bulls by proportion. Exactly the numbers you need to make your argument . I guess you skipped that article. Gotcha .

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix?but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn?t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

^ small example, excerpted from article. I guess it's the 2="two" thing you're having a problem with? Did/do you have difficulty with word problems in math class?

Btw, nice title to that article you linked! Once again you support my argument of media fear-mongering.

Disclaimer for those that may have been attacked by pit bulls: I can understand the fear and hatred you may have for this breed. And such would be more rational than the fear I have for Rottweilers (several instances of being chased, barked at, threatened by Rottweilers when I was very small.) I have always had this fear, but when looking at numbers, I don't find those fears to be rational. ALl the pit bulls I have know/encountered, where actually quite docile and skiddish. It really does have to do with personal experience.

The argument I am making (BigD still doesn't get it), is that the threat of pit bulls being greater than any other breed is statistically innacurate. I wouldn't want a pit bull myself, I'm not exactly defending pit bulls; just the mis-srepresentation of them. As BigD pointed out earlier, "I imagine that the owners of those dogs [that attacked] were normal people that never had an issue with their dog before" (paraphrasing). Well, there's a difference between "assuming" what you want to know and looking at the facts. In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

Banning an entire breed (in which case, bans that have been enacted are usually written such that almost any dog can be included, a pit bull being a very generic term), is irrational when the source of the problem is irresponsible, even criminal owners who should have never been allowed to own one in the first place.

See, you make statements that have no statistical backing. In the wide majority of cases dogs are reflecting their owners? Evidence please.

Besides, I already showed that pit bulls caused more deaths between 1979 and 1998 than any other dog. Here A fact checked article clearly states that pit bulls are the #1 killer. Maybe you had a problem reading period. You're only real argument would be that there were far more pit bulls than any other dog. Well, per capita stats are hard to find but I was able to find this. Well, here's what is says about per capita stats (from the New York Department of Health)

New York City, with a million dogs, conforms to these national trends. In 1997, the Department of Health reported 7,075 dog bites in the city and some 1,000 complaints about frightening dogs. Gotham police and other authorities had to round up 892 biting dogs in 1997, 200 more than the year before. Of these, 294?33 percent?were pit bulls or pit-bull mixes, though they make up only an estimated 15 percent of the city's dogs.

Was this in some way unclear? Pit bulls and pit mixes comprise 33% of biting dogs but represent only 15% of the city's dog population. Those are real numbers. Wow. That doesn't look good for your per capita argument. Do I have to explain this any further?

I also like the quote you posted. Perhaps you didn't read the last line:

When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

I don't see any declaration of fact there, do you? I see someone who said something without having any information to back it up. The author clearly didn't think they could, otherwise they would have stated as such.

But I find your insults amusing. Could you please post quantitative evidence that shows that pit bull attacks are most strongly correlated with owner behavior? We can really start to debate when you start adding some quantitative data. I would expect as much from someone who works with statistics all day .

Yet, you choose to use no statistical analysis when you claim to. The data is there, in front of your face, if you'll read it. I shouldn't have to post every piece for you. You have refused to address the real meaning behind your numbers. You say More pit bulls have attacked people between the years you have chosen for your sample. Fine, the bare numbers say that; yet they don't point to what is really going on. This is where analysis comes into play. You have shown me nothing, where I have shown you professionals who argue that the relevant data involves the attacks per breed based on the total numbers of that breed. You have yet to address this issue. I don't mean to insult you, but I have to question your abliity to debate when you blatantly refuse to address my arguemtn by simply reposting the initial argument you have made, even after I have discounted it.

The records of owners involved in these attacks are there for you to read. You ask for quantifiable data; the closes you can get is something akin to a survey. Look at the owners' personal records and their history with the dog in question. These can't be hard numbers, you must realize that. But you can't say there is no relatedness between an aggressive individual, the documented (again, public record) ways in which they mistreat and ecourage their dogs to be aggressive, and the chance those dogs will attack humans. Just because the stories you choose to post involve one family "who never expected their wonderful pit bull to attack," does not mean those instances are the majority and does not exclude the selective nature of the media when it chooses to report such stories.

Your 33% of biting dogs comprised of bit bulls represents only 15% of total dogs IN NO WAY hurts my argument. Why? Because that number is from 1997. 1 year. This is my argument, which you still can not refute. I'm talking about year-by-year. Statistics are funny that way. Give me another year where 10% of the dogs are pit bulls and they only represent 7% of all biting dogs. Hey, what is the possibility that the 1997 spike is related to a police crackdown on an illegal fighting ring, and a large number of fighting dogs were released into rescue shelters? Pretty good, I'd say. Sure, that's speculation, but I'm putting more thought into it than you are. Statisticians and others who use numbers (I'm a geneticist), only use numbers because they represent something. Without the background, then the numbers are meaningless. I'm the only one asking the questions here... The fact remains, that statistical significance is removed after a year-by-year analysis. (It is there, I wouldn't have posted otherwise). What this means, is that for a year like 1997, there is a year where Rottweilers represent 20-40% of attacks among all breeds but only 15% of the total breeds.

I don't understand why you choose to ignore the facts as presented to you. These numbers are in the article, in front of your face. The opinoins of prefessionals, based on their experience and their numbers, are there. You leave me little choice in questioning your cognitive ability when you display an ability to read something that is so clearly stated.
Your response to reading these things (I must assume that you haven't) is that "thsoe numbers aren't there."

Listen man, I'm tired of this. You have not discounted anything or presented anything new of your own. I've posted several pages, several studies, etc. Your only evidence has been one editorial article where the author basically states nothing and gives no real numbers. I've already posted what your professional has said.... his opinion. He doesn't even claim his own opinion has fact. Those numbers "aren't there" as I've said.

I've never said that the owner has no bearing on the dog, but you've made the outrageous claim that the vast majority of pit bull attacks occur because of the owner. Yet, you've given NO evidence of this. Your EVIDENCE is an opinion piece that includes a study that DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE PIT BULLS.

I'm sure that abused dogs do account for a significant portion, but that's not YOUR CLAIM. Your claim is as follows:

In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

You see, you can't make a statement like this without some sort of evidence. It's not a "significant portion" it's a "wide majority." Give me one number you've brought to the table that involves pit bulls. I surely can't believe you work with statistics everday because you'd know that your evidence, one expert's qualitative opinion, is no evidence at all.

I posted a direct refutal from the New York City Department of Health. It doesn't get any more obvious than that. And yes, the earlier articles I posted about individual cases were anecdotal. As is the quote you grabbed from my research. But the facts still remain. Pit bulls were the deadliest dog from 1979-1998 and, at least in New York, they were responsible for a disproportionate number of biting dogs considering their overall proportion of the population. That is in direct contradiction to your article's author. Only, I gave stats from the Department of Health, and you gave someone's opinion, which even he didn't pass as fact.

Face it man, the argument is tired. You obviously won't change your mind and I won't change mind. Even in the opinion article YOU POSTED, the author doesn't try to use the per capita attack rate. Why? THE AUTHOR DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. Your opinion piece from the New Yorker hardly qualifies as the end-all be-all of this debate. I've posted several articles and studies that provided real AND quantitative information. As someone who works with statistics, you should appreciate this.

This is over. You've posted one OPINION piece which is the entire crux of your argument. The only numbers provided in your article are from a study that DIDN'T EVEN INVOLVE PIT BULLS. It's nothing. I've already provided information from the New York City Department of Health that directly contradicts your argument. Game over. I spend my days in academia and I'm tired of trying to reason with arrogance.

There is no more discussing this with you.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: TheNinja
I'm an animal lover and blame attacks on the owners. HOWEVER, after reading so many stories I just don't think Pit Bulls should be bred anymore. They are just too dangerous when they attack. There are hundreds of other breeds to choose from if you want a pet, why do you have to have a pit bull anyway? Just to prove that you can handle it or to look cool? Serious, choose a lab or a shepherd instead.

We had a Shepard/chow mix and it was always aggressive to strangers, had to lock it in
a bedroom when someone came over. We now have a 16 month old pit and she loves
people, they are not even considered good guard dogs for this fact alone. Ever seen a pit
bull in a cop video?? that's why. Pit bulls were originally bred to control cattle and fight
other dogs in a ring, a sick demented sport if you ask me. Anyway when a pit showed
human aggression it was put down on the spot, owners of the dogs fighting didn't want
to get bit handling them during fights. Since my dog is still young i take no chances with
her, a choke collar and leash at all times and a muzzle if around strangers. We walk her
around (with muzzle) and encourage people to pet her, sometimes a dog (any breed)
will get aggressive if frightened so were trying to keep her socialized as to NOT fear
people. If she gets to 5 yrs and doesn't human aggression I MIGHT take off her muzzle
outside. The problem with all large breeds is if they do attack the damage potential is
much higher. I once delivered a TV to a woman who had a basset hound that took a lunge
at me ,a frigging basset hound!!!!!!

 

[Captante]

Theres no winning this arguement ... a few breeders & pit owners will defend the breed to to the bitter end & to a small degree they have a point, however I've been attacked by dogs 4 times in my life & all 4 were pits or a pit bull mix of some type & between all the people I know about 30 have aggressive pit-bull stories & maybe 5 have stories involving ALL (and there are quite a few) other potentially large and aggressive breeds. This isn't just a coincidence .... the last time one of these dogs attacked my Sheperd, the formerly "gentle family pet" jumped through a glass door & ran across the street to do it ... if I had a smaller dog that couldn't defend itself it would have been killled instantly & if the dogs owner hadn't shown up very quickly my dog & I would have been injured, plus I would have had to most likely kill the pit bull too ... wheres the good part in this story, the fact that I got lucky?

A lot of the "ban the pit-bull" hype is just that ... hype ... however thanks to the people who have now made the situation what it is, I would support a ban on Pit-Bull ownership without a license somthing akin to a "concealed-carry" for a handgun... in other words you'll need to prove you can handle the potentially deadly weapon you own before you get to own it.

Theres another thing no one talks about much with these dogs ... ever notice how trained attack dogs used by law enforcement or even as guard dogs are NEVER pits? Rottys, Dobermans, German Sheperds plus some other breeds but never pits. Thats because these breeds while potentially dangerous are much easier to train to attack and MUCH more importantly stop attacking instantly on a one-word command from a trainer. Comparing one of then to a breed that was bred over a similar time period specifically to kill other animals in fights is just moronic.... meth dealers love them & train them to attack for the same reason to PD would ever touch them... they are nearly impossible to control once they get going.

Again its too bad idiots had to go & ruin a decent breed of dog for pet ownership, (although how a pit-fighting dog ever became a good choice as a pet seems like quite a stretch!) but these days for the most part that IS the case & the animals will unfortunately pay the price.

 

[IGBT]

What difference does it make if 9/10 bull dog attacks (and you'll need to source this)come from dogs who's owner has already been repramanded? That just means the dog has attacked multiple times. Maybe the owner couldn't handle it, maybe the owner thought the dog was rehabilitated, who knows, but it still shows the same dog is not afraid to attack humans multiple times. If anything, this shows the species violent tendancies. What about the first time the pit bull attacked, was it always the owner's fault?

..you need to realize the huge litigation hazard these dogs are. You could easly end up loosing your home and savings from a single attack if you own one of these dogs. Jurys frequently have NO sympathy for pitbull owners and hold them fully responsible often awarding damages above and byond the actuall financial impact of said attack. Lawyers love pitbull cases. They know a jury has no sympathy for them.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Oh I see...becuase it supports my argument then it's invalid. Whereas the numbers that you misrrepresent to support yoiur argument are perfectly valid. Gotcha

You're one for the recordbooks, my friend

Same . I'd say the problem with your article is that it has no numbers. Unlike the numbers I posted from here. It has number of attacks by proportion and number of pit bulls by proportion. Exactly the numbers you need to make your argument . I guess you skipped that article. Gotcha .

Does the notion of a pit-bull menace rest on a stable or an unstable generalization? The best data we have on breed dangerousness are fatal dog bites, which serve as a useful indicator of just how much havoc certain kinds of dogs are causing. Between the late nineteen-seventies and the late nineteen-nineties, more than twenty-five breeds were involved in fatal attacks in the United States. Pit-bull breeds led the pack, but the variability from year to year is considerable. For instance, in the period from 1981 to 1982 fatalities were caused by five pit bulls, three mixed breeds, two St. Bernards, two German-shepherd mixes, a pure-bred German shepherd, a husky type, a Doberman, a Chow Chow, a Great Dane, a wolf-dog hybrid, a husky mix, and a pit-bull mix?but no Rottweilers. In 1995 and 1996, the list included ten Rottweilers, four pit bulls, two German shepherds, two huskies, two Chow Chows, two wolf-dog hybrids, two shepherd mixes, a Rottweiler mix, a mixed breed, a Chow Chow mix, and a Great Dane. The kinds of dogs that kill people change over time, because the popularity of certain breeds changes over time. The one thing that doesn?t change is the total number of the people killed by dogs. When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

^ small example, excerpted from article. I guess it's the 2="two" thing you're having a problem with? Did/do you have difficulty with word problems in math class?

Btw, nice title to that article you linked! Once again you support my argument of media fear-mongering.

Disclaimer for those that may have been attacked by pit bulls: I can understand the fear and hatred you may have for this breed. And such would be more rational than the fear I have for Rottweilers (several instances of being chased, barked at, threatened by Rottweilers when I was very small.) I have always had this fear, but when looking at numbers, I don't find those fears to be rational. ALl the pit bulls I have know/encountered, where actually quite docile and skiddish. It really does have to do with personal experience.

The argument I am making (BigD still doesn't get it), is that the threat of pit bulls being greater than any other breed is statistically innacurate. I wouldn't want a pit bull myself, I'm not exactly defending pit bulls; just the mis-srepresentation of them. As BigD pointed out earlier, "I imagine that the owners of those dogs [that attacked] were normal people that never had an issue with their dog before" (paraphrasing). Well, there's a difference between "assuming" what you want to know and looking at the facts. In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

Banning an entire breed (in which case, bans that have been enacted are usually written such that almost any dog can be included, a pit bull being a very generic term), is irrational when the source of the problem is irresponsible, even criminal owners who should have never been allowed to own one in the first place.

See, you make statements that have no statistical backing. In the wide majority of cases dogs are reflecting their owners? Evidence please.

Besides, I already showed that pit bulls caused more deaths between 1979 and 1998 than any other dog. Here A fact checked article clearly states that pit bulls are the #1 killer. Maybe you had a problem reading period. You're only real argument would be that there were far more pit bulls than any other dog. Well, per capita stats are hard to find but I was able to find this. Well, here's what is says about per capita stats (from the New York Department of Health)

New York City, with a million dogs, conforms to these national trends. In 1997, the Department of Health reported 7,075 dog bites in the city and some 1,000 complaints about frightening dogs. Gotham police and other authorities had to round up 892 biting dogs in 1997, 200 more than the year before. Of these, 294?33 percent?were pit bulls or pit-bull mixes, though they make up only an estimated 15 percent of the city's dogs.

Was this in some way unclear? Pit bulls and pit mixes comprise 33% of biting dogs but represent only 15% of the city's dog population. Those are real numbers. Wow. That doesn't look good for your per capita argument. Do I have to explain this any further?

I also like the quote you posted. Perhaps you didn't read the last line:

When we have more problems with pit bulls, it?s not necessarily a sign that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. It could just be a sign that pit bulls have become more numerous.

I don't see any declaration of fact there, do you? I see someone who said something without having any information to back it up. The author clearly didn't think they could, otherwise they would have stated as such.

But I find your insults amusing. Could you please post quantitative evidence that shows that pit bull attacks are most strongly correlated with owner behavior? We can really start to debate when you start adding some quantitative data. I would expect as much from someone who works with statistics all day .

Yet, you choose to use no statistical analysis when you claim to. The data is there, in front of your face, if you'll read it. I shouldn't have to post every piece for you. You have refused to address the real meaning behind your numbers. You say More pit bulls have attacked people between the years you have chosen for your sample. Fine, the bare numbers say that; yet they don't point to what is really going on. This is where analysis comes into play. You have shown me nothing, where I have shown you professionals who argue that the relevant data involves the attacks per breed based on the total numbers of that breed. You have yet to address this issue. I don't mean to insult you, but I have to question your abliity to debate when you blatantly refuse to address my arguemtn by simply reposting the initial argument you have made, even after I have discounted it.

The records of owners involved in these attacks are there for you to read. You ask for quantifiable data; the closes you can get is something akin to a survey. Look at the owners' personal records and their history with the dog in question. These can't be hard numbers, you must realize that. But you can't say there is no relatedness between an aggressive individual, the documented (again, public record) ways in which they mistreat and ecourage their dogs to be aggressive, and the chance those dogs will attack humans. Just because the stories you choose to post involve one family "who never expected their wonderful pit bull to attack," does not mean those instances are the majority and does not exclude the selective nature of the media when it chooses to report such stories.

Your 33% of biting dogs comprised of bit bulls represents only 15% of total dogs IN NO WAY hurts my argument. Why? Because that number is from 1997. 1 year. This is my argument, which you still can not refute. I'm talking about year-by-year. Statistics are funny that way. Give me another year where 10% of the dogs are pit bulls and they only represent 7% of all biting dogs. Hey, what is the possibility that the 1997 spike is related to a police crackdown on an illegal fighting ring, and a large number of fighting dogs were released into rescue shelters? Pretty good, I'd say. Sure, that's speculation, but I'm putting more thought into it than you are. Statisticians and others who use numbers (I'm a geneticist), only use numbers because they represent something. Without the background, then the numbers are meaningless. I'm the only one asking the questions here... The fact remains, that statistical significance is removed after a year-by-year analysis. (It is there, I wouldn't have posted otherwise). What this means, is that for a year like 1997, there is a year where Rottweilers represent 20-40% of attacks among all breeds but only 15% of the total breeds.

I don't understand why you choose to ignore the facts as presented to you. These numbers are in the article, in front of your face. The opinoins of prefessionals, based on their experience and their numbers, are there. You leave me little choice in questioning your cognitive ability when you display an ability to read something that is so clearly stated.
Your response to reading these things (I must assume that you haven't) is that "thsoe numbers aren't there."

Listen man, I'm tired of this. You have not discounted anything or presented anything new of your own. I've posted several pages, several studies, etc. Your only evidence has been one editorial article where the author basically states nothing and gives no real numbers. I've already posted what your professional has said.... his opinion. He doesn't even claim his own opinion has fact. Those numbers "aren't there" as I've said.

I've never said that the owner has no bearing on the dog, but you've made the outrageous claim that the vast majority of pit bull attacks occur because of the owner. Yet, you've given NO evidence of this. Your EVIDENCE is an opinion piece that includes a study that DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE PIT BULLS.

I'm sure that abused dogs do account for a significant portion, but that's not YOUR CLAIM. Your claim is as follows:

In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

You see, you can't make a statement like this without some sort of evidence. It's not a "significant portion" it's a "wide majority." Give me one number you've brought to the table that involves pit bulls. I surely can't believe you work with statistics everday because you'd know that your evidence, one expert's qualitative opinion, is no evidence at all.

I posted a direct refutal from the New York City Department of Health. It doesn't get any more obvious than that. And yes, the earlier articles I posted about individual cases were anecdotal. As is the quote you grabbed from my research. But the facts still remain. Pit bulls were the deadliest dog from 1979-1998 and, at least in New York, they were responsible for a disproportionate number of biting dogs considering their overall proportion of the population. That is in direct contradiction to your article's author. Only, I gave stats from the Department of Health, and you gave someone's opinion, which even he didn't pass as fact.

Face it man, the argument is tired. You obviously won't change your mind and I won't change mind. Even in the opinion article YOU POSTED, the author doesn't try to use the per capita attack rate. Why? THE AUTHOR DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. Your opinion piece from the New Yorker hardly qualifies as the end-all be-all of this debate. I've posted several articles and studies that provided real AND quantitative information. As someone who works with statistics, you should appreciate this.

This is over. You've posted one OPINION piece which is the entire crux of your argument. The only numbers provided in your article are from a study that DIDN'T EVEN INVOLVE PIT BULLS. It's nothing. I've already provided information from the New York City Department of Health that directly contradicts your argument. Game over. I spend my days in academia and I'm tired of trying to reason with arrogance.

There is no more discussing this with you.

nor have you addressed my argument. everyhting "new" that you post is nothing more than a rehashing of your original numbers. The "sympathy" stories citing specific examples of attacks do NOTHING to add to your numbers; as they are essentially part of the same numbers.

The opinion piece is based on numbers. If you've ever read journalism, you'd realize this. ...I guess you're not aware of who Malcolm Gladwell is, eh? The article is based, as good journalism is, on several experts' opinions. They are cited for your pleasure. The article reflects, and uses, the same New York City DOH numbers you use. This article is not meant for a journal article for department officials, it's meant to be read by layman. Why don't you trust the fact-checking that comes with publishing pieces like this? Just because it doesn't put all of the dry numbers there for you to see, it makes it no less relevant. Numbers are included, even more are cited, and several experts offer their interpretation of these numbers (again, the same numbers you use)

I was also able to use your article(s) to prove my point. If you read to the end of the fear article you linked (The city one), you'll find that the author uses your numbers at the beginning, to eventually come to the same conclusion that I have....interesting...

Yes, neither of us will ever be convinced otherwise. Hopefully, before you get to college, you'll aquire the ability to address conflicting topics in a debate, and properly dissect numbers.

I don't think I'm being arrogant, but it is frustrating when someone refuses to address the argument I make about their own points, rather than repeat the very same numbers they used initially, wtihout addressing my qualification of those numbers.

Perhaps I haven't been very clear in my argument, and for that, I humbly apologize

We should be commended though...this is the internet, and we've come this far without accusing either person of being a Nazi

EDIT: typos, clarity

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I've never said that the owner has no bearing on the dog, but you've made the outrageous claim that the vast majority of pit bull attacks occur because of the owner. Yet, you've given NO evidence of this. Your EVIDENCE is an opinion piece that includes a study that DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE PIT BULLS.

I'm sure that abused dogs do account for a significant portion, but that's not YOUR CLAIM. Your claim is as follows:

In the wide majority of cases, the owners of such dogs are indeed reflecting their own aggressiveness, lawless character onto their dogs, with little regard for those around them.

You see, you can't make a statement like this without some sort of evidence. It's not a "significant portion" it's a "wide majority." Give me one number you've brought to the table that involves pit bulls. I surely can't believe you work with statistics everday because you'd know that your evidence, one expert's qualitative opinion, is no evidence at all.

again, further support for my argument is found in the "poetic" article you used to support your claims. see, I even posted the excerpt from your link a few posts back (immediately before your post that I am now quoting), as it seems that you have a curious habit of picking pieces of data, and parts of arguments that you aggree with, and quote them out of context. (one thing seems clear, your grasp of numbers and ability to cite sources out of context would guarantee a lofty position in the current Administration )

You quote me and say that it is different from my argument. I see nothing in that quote that contradicts my claim.

I think I see the problem here...when you look for evidence, you pull numbers, and quote out of context. You assume that someone won't go into your article and throw it back at you. You pull "hard" numbers, and even when those numbers have been published in arguments that contradict your own, you still choose to interpret them in your own way. Here, I'll again quote from teh CITY article that you linked. This is the author's conclusion based on the numebrs that you use:

What should New York City do about its dangerous dogs? One possibility: ban the pit bull, as England has done. Unfortunately, thanks to the 1997 state law nixing breed- specific legislation, such a ban would entail a difficult battle for state permission. And if the city bans the pit bull, what's to stop thugs from shifting to other breeds that can be made into weapons, such as the Canary dog or the Dogo Argentino? Outlawing them all would be an extremely divisive policy......

The city's best course would be to require the owners of all dogs weighing more than 40 pounds to keep them muzzled in public, as Germany does with potentially aggressive breeds. A muzzle law is not unduly harsh to the dogs. As for its impact on owners: sure, it might diminish the thrill a tough gets as he parades his pit bull down a crowded sidewalk and nervous pedestrians give him a wide berth. And that would be all to the good.

As Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton discovered when they prosecuted nuisance crimes like public urination or public drinking and helped restore civic order, Gotham can do a lot of good simply by enforcing laws already on the books, as Parks Commissioner Stern is doing with the leash law. New York makes little effort, for example, to ensure that its dogs are licensed, though the law requires it. The Canadian city of Calgary, which had a problem with dangerous dogs in the eighties, halved aggressive incidents through strict licensing enforcement: it let officials keep computerized records of complaints against individual dogs and impound them or require them to wear a muzzle if they posed a clear threat to the public. Eighty percent of Calgary's 100,000 dogs now have licenses; 90 percent of New York's 1 million dogs don't. The city should step up licensing enforcement.

These measures would strike a prudent balance between the enjoyments of pet owners and the city's responsibility to protect its citizens and keep its public spaces from going to the dogs.

I have bolded the solution concerning responsible dog ownership. I think background checks should be involved as well (Sure, these type of people will always find underground sources for such dogs, but so will people who want to buy assault rifles--stray bullets being far mroe dangerous to children than dog attacks...but that's another argument), but it should limit the spread of such ill-bred animals.

This is the crux of my argument, that I intially made, before we got involved in this b1tch fest Gl to you, sir.

EDIT: for further pwnage

 

[BUTCH1]

Wow, you guys sure got lungs! Anyway even if you banned pits outright those seeking a
"mean" dog would simply go to another breed, a rot or Shepard. In my neighborhood
I have seen 3 types of people who own large dogs #1 like my self knows that even if the
dog seems friendly, take all precautions anyway. #2 Knows the dog could be dangerous
but is too lazy/aloof to give a damm. #3 Hey look at my badass dog! it's mean as heck,
just the way I like 'em. Case in point a few months ago I went to the mini-mart at lunch
and a guy with a pit and a rot in the back of his truck backs his truck into the spot right
in front of the door so the dogs could bark and snarl at everyone who passed by, I told him
to his face he was an a$$hole for doing that!..

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: BUTCH1
Wow, you guys sure got lungs! Anyway even if you banned pits outright those seeking a
"mean" dog would simply go to another breed, a rot or Shepard. In my neighborhood
I have seen 3 types of people who own large dogs #1 like my self knows that even if the
dog seems friendly, take all precautions anyway. #2 Knows the dog could be dangerous
but is too lazy/aloof to give a damm. #3 Hey look at my badass dog! it's mean as heck,
just the way I like 'em. Case in point a few months ago I went to the mini-mart at lunch
and a guy with a pit and a rot in the back of his truck backs his truck into the spot right
in front of the door so the dogs could bark and snarl at everyone who passed by, I told him
to his face he was an a$$hole for doing that!..

..and no doubt he'll make some lawyer and client very happy when a life long judgement is hung around his neck. Atleast he'll have plenty of dog meat to eat.

 

[munisgtm]

fvcking tough guy ...

 

[krunchykrome]

Awesome. He should have choked the owner of the dog afterwards.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: MBrown
Its not the dog. Its the owner + breeder.

So I could take an alligator egg, raise the baby from the time it hatched, and it'd be perfectly safe as a pet?
How about a tiger's kitten?

Perfect comparison. Nothing like comparing apples to kiwi fruit. :roll:

I don't believe in a bad breed, just bad owners. I own a Pit Bull and I've NEVER seen an aggressive action from her. I would rather this dude have strangled the owner instead of the dog.

There's no such thing as a bad dog, just poorly trained owners.

A poor trained owner results in a bad dog. What do you call a dog that frees itself and attacks somebody without provocation?

I love all dogs, including pitbulls, but i think they should be banned. There's way too many people out there who are irresponsible. Perhaps for certain breeds, there should be licensing requirements.