Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[iNow]

Since I live in a country where these dogs are banned I haven't had any dealings with them.

Ah. Pretty much as I figured. Thank you for your honesty.

 

I am curoius now who has given you the information which has formed your worldview on these animals, and why you take the input from that person/organization/group as more valid than everyone here who has, in fact, interacted with these animals (many of whom on numerous occastions).

 

Do you have any insight you can offer on this? What makes the data from those who call them useless monsters any more "correct" in your mind than all others who recognize they are just another life form on earth subject to the inputs of the environment around them?

[seriously]

My 2 cents worth...

 

Ban them.

 

I haven't encountered any, off the leash, pitbulls. So I voted 0. But the obvious thing that sticks in my mind is that Pitbulls are physically powerful dogs, capable of killing and causing severe injury. I would not risk a 'friendly' or unfriendly encounter if I could help it. I would gladly risk a possible savage encounter with a fox terrier, but not one with a pitbull. Size does matter. The owners generally seem to be irresponsible and nervous types, in my encounters (about 15 to 20 encounters). There has been much talk of banning them in many states of australia, generally due to irresponsible owners that are attracted to the breed. They'd make good lion dogs. But suburbia is not the place for them.

 

Dogs I have been attacked by -

1x bull terrier

1x blue healer (the most serious)

1x fox terrier (bit my foot and I gave it a reflex 4 meter kick)

1x Rottweiler (I escaped physical harm, it just snapped at me as close as it could possibly get without contact, it was on a leash, I was very lucky here).

 

And I've been aggessively chased and snapped at by countless other unidentifiable breeds that all love to chase bike riders.

 

Lets see.. so you've been attacked by 4 dogs in your life.. you would think that would tell you something. Your a moron and clearly insecure with yourself and dogs sense that. Your a moron to want to ban what is one of the sweetest dogs i have ever owned.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd like to find a dog that can sense morons and warn me about them. It would make life a lot easier.

[truckrazy]

Since I live in a country where these dogs are banned I haven't had any dealings with them.

 

Truckrazy, last time I checked most dogs act pretty much the way they are taught to so there's nothing special about pitbulls.

 

so then why would you have to train them to be good dogs?? as someone has said in a previous post...

 

cap'n most dogs can sense if a person is a good one or a bad one. I know my dogs can. I base who I trust on how my dogs act towards them

[John Cuthber]

I base my ideas on two pieces of evidence.

1 is that 66 people were killed by pitbulls and this represents a large fraction of the deaths from dog attacks in comparison to the number of pitbulls versus the number of other dogs. This was put forward here some time ago and hasn't been challenged. Pitbulls are not one third of the dogs, but they cause a third of the deaths.

 

The second piece of evidence is the one that's missing and that I keep asking for.

If there were something special about this particular breed that would offset the fact that it tends (more than other dogs) to kill people I would be happy to see it.

In the absense of such a "saving grace" I don't see why we should permit these dangerous animals to walk the streets.

 

I have repeatedly asked the people who interact with these dogs what's better about them than other breeds and all I get is that some individual thinks his dog is cute/ trustworthy/ inteligent /whatever.

So what? All pet owners think that about their pets. If fate had given them a poodle rather than a pitbull they would probably have formed the same attachments to that.

 

There is clearly something special about pitbulls- they (as oposed to other dogs) kill more than their fair share of people. I see this as a problem

What can pitbulls (as oposed to other dogs) do to make up for this problem?

 

I'm also intrigued by the people whose dogs can spot undesirables. It's interesting to see from the death toll how many of these are elderly or children. Isn't it more likely that the dogs can spot an easy target? If a human behaved that way it would be called bullying.

 

 

BTW, would dishonesty have any place in a scientific forum?

[iNow]

Your logic is fine. They cause more deaths, as a percentage, than other breeds. I'll concede this point, since it's really the only one you have.

 

The dogs usefulness is subjective, and is not relevant. You also can't tell me that my pinky finger is useless as justification to cut it off, just as you cannot decide for me what use a pit bull is over other breeds (note also, I've not owned a pit bull myself, but I've lived with one and interacted with several).

 

Your framing of the issue on percentage of attacks loses sight of the issue of frequency and scope of the problem. There have probably been... let's spitball a number here... I'll go conservative... 250,000 pit bulls owned in the last 20 years (again, I find that number very conservative, but for the sake of argument, let's use it).

 

You argue that 33% reported deaths by dog attack were pit bulls (but your indentification of the type of dog is also in question). Let's just assume that they all were, in fact, pit bulls.

 

I argue that out of 250,000 dogs, 66 deaths means that (as a HIGH estimate), only 0.0264% of all pit bulls have been involved in a lethal attack.

 

Zero point zero two six percent.

 

 

When considering a ban, the question is not "is this type of dog (which itself is not well identified) responsible for more deaths than other types of dogs?"

 

No.

 

That's not the correct question to be asking.

 

 

The question is, when you view this type of dog itself, what percentage are involved in lethal or violent occurances and what percentage are not. Do the majority of dogs of this type attack others, or do the majority not attack others?

 

Last I checked, my very conservative estimate of 0.026% is hardly even a data blip, let alone a majority.

 

 

 

To your honesty comment, no... dishonesty has zero place in a scientific forum, but strangely, we see it often.

 

Cheers.

[truckrazy]

okay, not sure how to do the milti quote thing. but i have a question for you John. These dogs that most likely you and many other people call pit bulls are not just pit bulls, but some are just bullybreeds or dogs that have similar traits as a pit bull. Those dogs are not pit bulls, there is a difference for people who know these dogs well. so statistically speaking, there is no hard evidence showing that these dogs are in fact true pit bulls, is there? if so, then show me, please.

 

As far a the something special, i guess you haven't read my previous post. These dogs are used in law enforcement in some areas and also as public service animals. also, I have a poodle and three pit bulls. They are all very special to me. So tell me, what is so special about a chihuahua, or a lab, or a retriever, or a poodle??

 

And as far as the dishonesty comment, was that aimed at me? if so what are you saying I am being dishonest about, and show me the "honest" answer.

 

one more thing I have to add. I added pictures to my post showing children with dogs, these children have obviously not been attacked by a pit bull, otherwise you would not see pictures of children with these dogs. There are also pictures of the elderly with these dogs, and they are not being attacked. I have added just below that pictures of dogs that have been abused. Dogs have instincts just like human beings. Imagine this for a second. You have some stranger walk up to you, or even your best friend, and al of a sudden they start yelling and cussing and beating you up. What would you do? Would you not fight back? A lot of the cases you see on the news and hear about are in fact a dog just trying to survive. But many people value a human life over an animal. A human life that may have very well been very abusive to an animal. And an animal that has the traits of wanting to do nothing but please their owner, and feel safe and loved.

 

John, do you have a dog?

[iNow]

And as far as the dishonesty comment, was that aimed at me? if so what are you saying I am being dishonest about, and show me the "honest" answer.

I believe John was responding to me, where I thanked him for his honesty.

[John Cuthber]

"I believe John was responding to me, where I thanked him for his honesty."

I was.

 

BTW, Small children, who form a sadly large fraction of the victims of dogs, not just pitbulls, are not really in a position to pick a fight with a big dog and the dog could generally run away faster. The same goes for the elderly.

 

I don't care how many occasions there are where a dog didn't attack; I'm only concerened about the occasions where they did.

 

 

The question is not "do we ban all dogs?" but "do we ban a type of dog that seems to cause more than its share of human deaths?"

 

There are instances of drugs (IIRC oral chloramphenicol) being taken off the market or being restricted to the treatment of specific diseases because of side effects that happen at the "1 in ten thousand " level. These are drugs with clear therapeutic uses but a hundredth of a percent is considered too much. On the other hand, there are drugs that still get used even though the risk of death is considerably greater than that. Those drugs are still used because they provide a benefit that no other drug can.

 

If I put forward the sugestion that your pinky finger got banned you could point out

firstly that it isn't in the habit of killing people and secondly that it has a unique benefit- specificly it's the only one you can clean your ear out with.

There are no analogous claims that you could make for pitbulls.

 

Imagine a world where these dogs had never been bred. Most of those 66 people would still be alive. Who would have suffered?

( People would have used other dogs as guard dogs and pets)

 

There are roughly 6 billion people in the world.

About 3000 of them were killed in the September 11 attacks.

That's about 0.00005% of the population.

Would you like to write that off as a statistical blip?

Sometimes a small percentage is still too big.

[iNow]

I don't care how many occasions there are where a dog didn't attack; I'm only concerened about the occasions where they did.

As evidenced by the fact that the rational argument has failed on you.

 

 

The question is not "do we ban all dogs?" but "do we ban a type of dog that seems to cause more than its share of human deaths?"

As demonstrated above, the numbers simply don't bear out this position.

 

And, I'm not even going to touch the non-sequitur, emotionally laden, and completely unrelated issue of the 9/11 attacks. If that's what your argument has come to, then truly you must see the lack of merit in your position.

[John Cuthber]

Ho Hum,

The dog didn't attack at 12 Noon. It didn't attack at one pm. It diodn't attack at half past twelve. It didn't attack at quarter past. It didn't attack at 7.5 mins past. It didn't attack at 3.75 mins past....

Since there are an infinite number of occasions when the dog didn't attack I think it's not rational to rational to count them.

Have fun counting them if you insist, but don't say I have lost rationallity.

 

"As demonstrated above, the numbers simply don't bear out this position"

If we accept that a third of the deaths are due to pitbulls (which is what the numbers show) and that they are not a third of the dog population (which seems very reasonable)then the numbers do support the fact that they are responsible for more than their fair share of deaths.

 

I used the 9/11 data because it's well known and gives rise to a very small percentage.

It's emotionally charged because people died. You were the one who said a small percentasge of dead people was a blip. I pointed out that it isn't.

 

I'd still like to know who would have suffered if these dogs had never been bred and how that suffering compares with 66 dead people.

[iNow]

I'd still like to know who would have suffered if these dogs had never been bred and how that suffering compares with 66 dead people.

 

Do you think I'm out of line suggesting that this is, again, not relevant? They HAVE been bred, they DO exist, and you're trying to arbitrarily restrict personal freedoms using an incredibly weak argument.

[Solarcat]

Cuthber you don't have a dog in this fight(pun intended) so I really don't understand why you keep posting in this thread. Have you ever watched The Dog Whisperer? Have you seen Cesar Milan's pack of dogs? Half of them are German Shepherds, Rottweilers and Pit Bulls...and they all get along. Have you ever watched It's Me or the Dog? Your countrywoman Victoria Stillwell shows how to handle problem dogs of all breeds including pit bulls.

[truckrazy]

John...I asked a question earlier I believe abouthow many of these dogs are actually verified as pit bulls. I still have not recieved a backed up answer. Actually I have asked quite a few answers that I have not recieved answers to. Can I ask you a question. How much do you actually know about the breed? and I'm not talking about hear say.

[UsaForever]

Well in my now 40yrs around American PitBull Terriers and my 9yrs as a American PitBull and American Staffordshire Rescue Ive only been bitten by 1 dog and it happened to be a German Shepard.

In the last 9yrs ive had 254 dogs and out of that, 9 of them had to be Euthanized, 1 for people aggression "owner use to beat and mace dog"

4 for animal "Livestock"aggression "attacking goats" and other 4 to make room for new Rescues. Now that does sound wrong but i do belive i would rather have some Euthanized than to goto bad owners and give others chances. If i had the option to choose my Death my vet would do it, He uses

Anesthesia to make the dog sleep then he gives the euthanasia solution that stops all functions.

Now all that said i have recived dogs from owners who are moving and cant take there pet with them "but the will take there children"

Animal Control who picks up Loose dogs.

The Court who removes pets from owners.

Breeders who thought they were going to make money on selling them.

on all situations i evaluate the dog to see if they can be worked with and adopted out, In some situations i will not take them.

 

In the month of November in a town there were 5 dog attacks

4 attacks were of other breeds "non PitBulls" they made the local news for 1 day.

1 attack involved a pitbull and it ran for 1 week and in 232 newspapers in the US and was on CNN.

Does this show that its the Media "fire" for PitBulls since it makes News.

The majority of PitBull attacks are from mixed bred PitBulls. it doesnt matter what the PitBull is bred with it is always a Pit Mix.

Lets actually look at how long the American PitBull has been around????

over the last 10-17 yrs you hear about them all the time and in most cases its the worthless people who own them.

Sooooo the dogs have been here since the Late 1890's right at 100 yrs and no problems until recent.

Does that kinda show its the way the people have become and how life has changed?

 

Ho Hum,

I'd still like to know who would have suffered if these dogs had never been bred and how that suffering compares with 66 dead people.

 

Can we not also say that about colors of people??

Ok Humans are Human and pets are just animals!!!

Guess what most all animals still have more brains then there Human partner.

I would much rather see those certain Humans who own these American Pit Bulls be Euthanized and also most of there gene pool. For there disrespect of the dog and for the Macho image they think they need to prove by making these dogs people aggressive

[truckrazy]

ah someone else who has experience around these dogs. interesting that someone else can see my point. welcome to the debate.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's special about pit bulls (apart from the death toll).

 

People are more afraid of them, hence they make better guard dogs. This may be the same reason that they may be proportionately more aggressive, as dogs will sense fear and become aggressive (try running away from a dog, odds are it will chase you). If that is the case, then whatever breed replaces them as the scary dog will also replace them on the aggression list. I'm sure that there are many other reasons, including emotional reasons which are hard to quantify.

 

Also as stated there is a question as the whether the statistics apply to "pit bulls" or to "dogs identified by people who saw the attack as big scary pit bulls".

[John Cuthber]

"Can we not also say that about colors of people??"

No, because people were not "bred". Feel free to actually answer the question rather than setting up a strawman.

 

"I asked a question earlier I believe abouthow many of these dogs are actually verified as pit bulls. I still have not recieved a backed up answer."

This point was already discussed: post number 162 etc.

I grant that the answer is that we don't really know, but it's the best data we have. Again, feel free to find some better data.

 

You will probably want to do the same with the data that says that roughly a third of fatalities are due to pitbulls.

Again I'd be quite happy to see it.

 

For the moment however we can only use the data we have; I'd like to use that data to try to answer a question asked earlier

 

"How about you quantize how much "more likely" a person is to wind up with a death on their hands if they buy the pit bull, eh? Are we talking 90% more likely, or 0.00002% more likely? "

Well, if pitbulls are responsible for a third of the fatalities and are a third of the canine population then the answer to that question is "not at all more likely". On the other hand if that third of deaths turns out to be due to a tiny minority of dogs then the answer might be a hundred times more likely.

What we need is some estimate of the fraction of dogs in that population are pitbulls.

Personally I have no idea; I've never worried particularly about dogs on the other side of the atlantic.

On the other hand I can find data from a group who care deeply about them.

 

This site gives data on the most popular breeds

http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm

Unfortunately, it doesn't give numbers- just a ranking.

On the other hand I have found some of their older data refered to here

http://www.submityourarticle.com/articles/Carol-Stack-1293/dog-breeds-8440.php

Well, even the ranking data tells us something. If a breed is 5th on the list I don't see how it can be more than a fifth of the population (and it's probably much less).

The astute will have spotted that there are no pitbulls on the list and it gives the top 156 breeds which sugests that pitbulls (at least so far as that site is representative) constitute less than 1 dog in 156 in the US. That rather crude data would sugest that pitbulls are at least 50 times more likely to cause a death ( 1 in 159 of the population but 1 in 3 of the deaths).

 

However, the valid point has been made about misidentification of breeds.

Lets assume that several breeds got lumped together.

Say that these people think any of these is a pitbull.

Boxers 6th

Bulldogs 10th place

Rottweilers 15th

Doberman Pinschers 21st

Mastiffs 28th

That site gives a total of about half a million dogs, of which the boxer is the only one on my (admitedly fairly arbitrary) set of "dogs that get mistaken for pitbulls". There were 37,268 boxers ie about 7%. All the other 4 must be less than that, in fact they must be less than the 10th dog with just 24,144 representatives so they must each be less than 4.7%.

At most these 5 breeds represent about a quarter (26%) of all the dogs registered.

So we know that the third or so of deaths are atributed to a breed that is roughly a quarter of the dogs.

 

In reallity that figure is gonig to be an overestimate because the less common breeds won't all be 4.7% and, probably more importantly, those percentages are % of the dogs in the top 10. They will be a smaller percentage of "all dogs".

So what we have is some data that shows that pitbulls are more than about 27% more likely to kill someone than other dogs.

 

Once more, if you want to find better data plesase do. On the other hand, please don't argue with the numbers unless you have some better data. This is meant to be a scientific site.

 

 

 

Now another point, some people have asked things like whether or no t I have a dog. I would have thought thte answer was obvious from what I posted a page or two back; I don't.

I'm also not sure it matters very much. Believe it or not I'm not actually biased against pitbulls as such. Here's one last try at an analogy before I give up.

 

Imagine you saw this advert (it doesn't much matter what the product is)

 

"New! Bloggs and co's new "thingy"! Statistically shown to be at least 26%* more likely to kill an innocent bystrander than any competitor's comparable product!"

(* some estimates say it's 50 times more likely!)

 

Now, I don't know aboout you, but not only would I not buy the product, I'd wonder why the authorities hadn't banned it and prosecuted the seller for negligence, stupidity or reckless endangerment.

 

In my judgement, that would be a defective product- too dangerous to market.

 

(before you write about how some cars, bikes, whatever are a zillion times more dangerous than others I'd like to point out that they won't meet the criterion of being a comparable product.)

[SkepticLance]

John

 

You have my full support in your arguments. I have just come back from an overseas business trip, and could not take time for internet forums. My apologies for leaving you on your own to face the barrage over the past few days.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that John's arguments are the only overall rational arguments on this subject over the past few days. Pit bulls accounted for 37% of all human deaths caused by dog attack over 20 years in the USA. To argue that the brand might have been misidentified is simply another way of denying data. And that is most unscientific. These statistics were gathered by people who knew what they were doing.

 

To argue that pit bulls might be 37% of the dog population and thus normal in aggression has just been shot down in flames by John.

 

To argue that : "I have a pit bull and it is loving and gentle, and therefore pit bulls are OK" is exactly the same argument as saying, "I have smoked for 20 years and have not got lung cancer. Thus tobacco smoke does not cause lung cancer." Can you (I don't mean iNow, who has agreed on this point) not see the logical fallacy in the 'loving and gentle' argument?

 

The only solid data offered is that pit bulls are responsible for 37% of all dog attack deaths. Most, by the way, were children, not adults, being killed. Britain gathered its own data and the British government found it convincing enough to ban the breed. New Zealand has come very close to a total ban on the breed after gathering its own data, and it is only a few pusillanimous politicians that stopped that happening.

 

The only valid arguments FOR allowing pit bulls are the argument for liberty, and the argument that 66 deaths in 20 years is insignificant.

 

I disagree with both propositions, but these are subjective judgements, and cannot be shown right or wrong scientifically. I also think that the main driving force of the pro-pit bull faction in this debate is pure emotion - people who cannot face reality through the haze of emotional attachment to a dog.

[iNow]

There is no doubt in my mind that John's arguments are the only overall rational arguments on this subject over the past few days.

 

<...>

 

I also think that the main driving force of the pro-pit bull faction in this debate is pure emotion - people who cannot face reality through the haze of emotional attachment to a dog.

 

You are quite a biased fellow with your cranium fully lodged in your colon, aren't you? Clearly my presentation back at post #256 was a hazy bunch of emotional and irrational handwaving due to my attachment.

 

Thank you, kind sir, for pointing this plainly obvious fact out to me and the other readers of this thread.

 

Golly... I can't believe I've been so misled this entire time. The thrust of your argument has changed my ways. You are, quite simply, amazing.

 

The only valid arguments FOR allowing pit bulls are the argument for liberty.

Yeah, I know. That's almost as weak as basing an argument on a mispresentation of the numbers which are truly important for such a decision.

 

 

Gosh... two one hundreths of one percent. How have we collectively let such a scourge reign free for so long?

 

 

Now... AFTER this post... You can accuse me of being emotional. Until now, however, all of your assertions toward that end have been patently false.

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for your support SkepticLance, I wondered if you had been eaten by a poodle.

 

It has been pointed out that these dogs do exist so the argument about "who would have suffered if we hadn't bred them?" is irrelevant.

I contend that we made a mistake and we can rectify it. If we neutered them all today the problem wouldnt be with us long. Humanity changes its mind quite a lot. We abolished slavery and accept that it was a mistake. At least one country has decided that pitbulls, while perhaps not a mistake in their day, are not longer appropriate.

As for iNow's last post...

 

"Yeah, I know. That's almost as weak as basing an argument on a mispresentation of the numbers which are truly important for such a decision.

 

 

Gosh... two one hundreths of one percent."

Actually, as I pointed out, the number which you originally asked for is somewhere between about 1.25 and 50.

You asked this "How about you quantize how much "more likely" a person is to wind up with a death on their hands if they buy the pit bull, eh? Are we talking 90% more likely, or 0.00002% more likely? "

In those terms the answer seems to be somewhere between 25% more likely and 5000%

It represents the extent to which pitbulls are more likely to kill people than other dogs are.

What was that about misrepresenting numbers?

 

Oh yes, I'm still waiting for the answer to the question about what's special about this breed apart from the death toll?

I know that lots of people think that their pitbull is the best dog in the world, but I could probably find people who said that about spaniels, beagles or whatever so it's not an argument for pitbulls.

Now, I'm not going to speculate on people's motivation or the reasons for their stance on this matter.

I'm just going to point out that this is a scientific site so arguments should be accompanied by some sort of supporting data rather than ad hom attacks.

[iNow]

It represents the extent to which pitbulls are more likely to kill people than other dogs are.

 

The larger point, of course, being that all dogs collectively kill very few people overall, so trying to ban the one type that seems to kill a little more than the others (by percentage) is odd.

 

Dogs don't kill very many people, and yet you've chosen to focus on one specific dog type and try to ban that as if it's some great public health threat.

 

It really just makes no sense to me, nor does your repeated need to have us tell you why these dogs are special. I just can't comprehend how that even begins to become relevant, nor how banning one type of dog is supposed to be such a good thing considering the vast assymmetry between dogs that are friendly and ones that cause problems.

 

Further, your entire argument leaves out conditioning and environmental stimuli.

 

I truly am baffled as to how anybody could argue in favor of a ban when the numbers are so insignificant, and the benefit of ban so lacking.

[John Cuthber]

"The larger point, of course, being that all dogs collectively kill very few people overall, so trying to ban the one type that seems to kill a little more than the others (by percentage) is odd. "

 

So, if faced with this advert

"New! Bloggs and co's new "thingy"! Statistically shown to be at least 26%* more likely to kill an innocent bystrander than any competitor's comparable product!"

(* some estimates say it's 50 times more likely!)"

 

you might buy the product?

Oh, and BTW, 50 fold more likely to kill someone isn't a little. Remember to include both ends of the range of estimates (or come up your own based on better data).

 

I grant the absolute death rates are very small, but why make them bigger than they need to be?

Choosing another breed of dog drops the likelihood of having a death on your hands. I presume you don't want that. The only reason to choose the most dangerous breed would be if there were something special about it. If, for example, it could fly or make tea I might see why people would want to take the additional risk, but there's nothing in particular going for it and a nasty set of deaths against. That's why I keep asking for a "saving grace". If there is one, let me know.

 

I know I have missed environment and conditioning out of this; I can't see how to include it and I don't see any evidence that it would make much difference. Sure, I accept that a poorly treated dog is more likely to cause trouble, but is there evidence that pitbulls are more likely to be poorly treated than other dogs? At least part of their breeding would have led to them being agressive* so it seems reasonable to atribute the excess deaths to that rather than a possible, but hypothetical set of environmental conditions.

 

The benefit of the ban is most of 66 people and I don't see that as "lacking".

 

* They were originally bred as bulldogs for which agression isn't a useful trait any more than it would be in sheepdogs. Courage might have been a more desirable atribute. However, once people started betting on dog fights involving these animals the "winners" would be chosen as breeding stock rather than the losers. That's pretty strong selection pressure.

[iNow]

I grant the absolute death rates are very small, but why make them bigger than they need to be?

Choosing another breed of dog drops the likelihood of having a death on your hands.

That's just it, John. It's about choice, and you're trying to remove the choice from others due to your own subjective preferences. You even admit that the absolute death rates are small, I can't see how this gives you the required justification to remove choices from others.

 

 

The only reason to choose the most dangerous breed would be if there were something special about it.

No, there are countless reasons, actually, but regardless of what those reasons are, you CANNOT decide for ME. Also, "most dangerous" is some interesting rhetoric considering we are talking about 3 deaths per year.

 

 

If, for example, it could fly or make tea I might see why people would want to take the additional risk, but there's nothing in particular going for it and a nasty set of deaths against.

 

Again... Just because YOU cannot see their value does NOT mean they are without value. However, again... value is subjective in this case, and has no relevance. It's fine that you don't see the value in this type of dog. I'm good with that. All that needs to happen is you don't buy a dog of this type. However, the moment you try to prevent others from doing it you're going to have to make a much better case.

 

You are misframing the question.

 

Sure... they kill more than other dogs (we think, because as you've conceded yourself the identification of type is itself in question).

 

The question though is, as a percentage of the type itself, how many are dangerous? We're talking millions of dogs here and 3 deaths per year. That's pretty damned safe. I know more people who die of peanut butter than pit bull attacks annually.

 

It just doesn't follow that you want to ban this dog based on the data alone, and I guess you're either deathly afraid of them or a victim of propaganda.

 

 

That's why I keep asking for a "saving grace". If there is one, let me know.

Not relevant. You're trying to take away a freedom. The onus is on you to prove that they have no "saving grace," not on us to give examples of some.

 

 

I know I have missed environment and conditioning out of this; I can't see how to include it

Another weakness in your argument. This is what baffles me. You admit that you're missing important information, and you admit that nurture plays a role, yet you soldier on as if it's somehow not meaningful.

 

 

...and I don't see any evidence that it would make much difference.

Then just open your eyes, or start a new thread on learning theory and conditioning. It's of the UTMOST importance.

 

 

 

The benefit of the ban is most of 66 people and I don't see that as "lacking".

Each one of us kills more people than that every day with the cancers caused by the exhaust of our cars. If you were truly looking out for "the people," you'd focus on other issues with greater impact.

 

You are prejudiced against the dog, and you can't see it nor recognize it from what I can tell by your posts here.

 

 

 

Your numbers are weak.

You are misframing the question.

Your subjective interpretation of their worth is nonrelevant.

You are trying to remove a freedom.

 

You need to do better than 3 deaths per year as your basis.

[truckrazy]

I have been trying to give evidence that these dogs are as violent as they are made to be. I have posted pictures of dogs with children and I can post many more. That is evidence. That is proof. I have seen pictures of dogs attacked by "pitbulls". When I saw a picture of the dog, it was actually a boxer. I have also posted pictures of what people have done to these dogs. I guess that was missed or considered irrelevent. If you have never actually been around these dogs and interacted with them, you cannot pass judgement. You only hear what people on the news hear, and we know how reliable the stories on the news can be. Pieces of information are missing, or made up to make it out to be something that is not the whole truth. The pictures I have posted of what people have done to these dogs are mild pictures. I have extremely heartwrenching and gut twisting pictures and videos of what people have done to these dogs. You also have not taken into consideration, or missed the fact that any living breathing mammal fights for their own life. Yes there may have been people killed by these dogs, but there is always missing information. Such as an owner that has gotten by killed by this breed, but what is not mentioned is generally the fact that this person was taunting the dog and even possibly abusing it. My dogs are very sweet dogs and would never attack anyone without a reason. I have heard a situation come up where someone threw stones the size of a baseball at a pitbull. the dog retalliated, then the guy beat the dog with a 2X4. Those are the things that the news does not report. And the fact that the dog was on a chain. I will show you some things that people do to these dogs because they are so "vicious". Yet when you look at the pictures and videos, think about this. If this dog is so vicious, then how did they catch the dog to do this to it.