Pit Bulls?

[Chiki]

Check the wiki article for more details on pit bull attacks. I don't think criminals are involved in any of them.

What's wrong with unprovoked attacks? Animals can act randomly sometimes for strange reasons. See Travis the chimpanzee. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_(chimpanzee)

Pit bulls are just naturally vicious so they do more unprovoked attacks.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Chiki

[BANRYU]

But it doesn't make any sense to say that 'pit bulls are so vicious that of course they're gonna attack people'.

Where's the recorded history of pit bull attacks from the first half of the 1900s when they were still a fairly prominent dog breed in America? Nothing I've found in the course of my research suggests that pit bull attacks being so commonplace is a historically-consistent thing-- it's a recent thing. How do you explain that? The breed just suddenly DECIDED to be mean and unpredictable?

As for the wiki entries, one of the citations on the wiki page leads to an article by Jeffrey Sacks, who states that 157 pitbull dog bite-related deaths occurred in 11 years (EDIT: 40% of which were pit bulls). Not to say that each life isn't a precious thing or to downplay the travesty of these incidents, but that doesn't seem like a whole lot when you consider it-- that's only about 14 a year. Maybe that's a lot for dogs in general, but it's hardly what I'd call a country-wide epidemic, you know?

EDIT: Actually, I'm wrong-- 204 dog bite-related deaths ocurred in 11 years, 42% of which were pits. That's even less. (Like, approximately 7/year) Furthermore, 37% of the pitbull incidents involved strays according to the article (seems only natural, and a stray pit bull is admittedly a pretty scary thing). He also mentions that problems with identifying the breeds on these attacks is attributable to certain owners not licensing or registering their dogs-- HMMM. I WONDER WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE THESE COULD BE~ (No but in all seriousness some of them are probably poor people or something, but I think it's pretty undeniable that certain... illicit individuals would be sufficiently motivated not to register/license their animals if you didn't get my drift. That HAS to account for some of this, although I suppose I have no way to directly prove it.)

Incidentally, what I find interesting is Sacks' recommended countermeasures for combating this, and I quote: "To prevent such deaths, we recommend stronger animal control laws, public education regarding dog bites, and more responsible dog ownership." Maybe by 'animal control laws' he DOES mean banning, but I'm not reading that as his intent here.

He DOES add that infants should not be left alone with pit bulls but I still have some doubts about this due to the breed's reputation as a nanny dog. I'll see what I can find to quantify it, though.

As for this, it cites no sources for its information and thus I'm reluctant to believe it.

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU

[Chiki]

It has an easy explanation. Dog attacks were poorly recorded back then-no Internet, etc.

I don't think they'll always attack people. But it's still in their nature to attack more often than other dogs do. That's just empirical fact.

I think life, even one life, is worth far more than the ability to own pit bulls.

[BANRYU]

It has an easy explanation. Dog attacks were poorly recorded back then-no Internet, etc.

No internet =/= no statistics.

Besides, it's not as though dog attacks aren't poorly recorded now-- I mentioned earlier in the thread that I found evidence to suggest that the bulk of dog bite attacks from other breeds go unrecorded.

I don't think they'll always attack people. But it's still in their nature to attack more often than other dogs do. That's just empirical fact.

I think... I think you better check your empirical facts...

I'd say it's an empirical fact that pits are more likely to attack other dogs than other breeds are, that at least has been proven... but even pits bred for dogfighting and blood sport are still friendly with people...

I think life, even one life, is worth far more than the ability to own pit bulls.

Well that's a very lovely idealistic thought. But it's very naive. Does that mean we should outlaw drinking too, because people can die from consumption of that? Or (insert other things people accidentally die of here bcuz I don't have time right now)?

Stupid people (or hell even normal people accidentally) will always be at risk of death in one way or another. It's a fact of life. A better solution for risk of death is education.

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU

[jiodi]

I mean, we've engineered every dog that exists pretty much so I would not be surprised at all if pit bulls were originally bred for power and viciousness.

Oh right, yeah, they were! The original hunting versions of pit bulls were just bred for sniffin out game and having that extra power. Pit bulls in the US were bred from them for use in all kinds of animal cruelty games up to dog fighting.

But these dogs aren't wolves. They are more loyal than "randomly vicious" so we really need to make sure people who own pit bulls are responsible pet owners. I mean we expect people to own a license to drive a car and own a gun (LOLOLOLOLJKWENTTOTHEGUNSHOW), it should be a matter of policy to ensure the citizens who want to own something big and tough and scary like a pit bull actually know how to handle one.

Also, if you aren't leashing your pit bull and you are anywhere outside of your own property that's dumb.

Edited April 17, 2014 by jiodi

[BANRYU]

Agreed, Jiodi. You're right about their history, but early pit bull breeders-- even ones that bred them for blood sport-- reportedly prided themselves on the dogs being friendly with humans. People who plan to own a pit bull just need to take a little extra care and responsibility over other dog owners.

Thank you for bringing some sensibility (back) to this thread though.

[Chiki]

I didn't say "no statistics." I meant "less statistics." No one is going to deny this.

You're changing the subject again; this is the second time, compared to when you brought up criminals the first time. I'm not talking about other dogs. I'm talking about people. I already showed proof for that.

What we outlaw depends on the innate characteristics of that thing. Alcohol isn't necessarily bad, but pit bulls will always have a high chance of killing others regardless of how well they're trained, unfortunately.

Also, guns should be banned, period.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Chiki

[jiodi]

Alcohol is literally just poison. If guns and pit bulls should be banned then alcohol and ski lifts and bridges and cars and motorcycles and ... you know what fuck it just ban people. Might as well turn that slippery slope into a cliff and get it over with.

[Chiki]

Alcohol is literally just poison. If guns and pit bulls should be banned then alcohol and ski lifts and bridges and cars and motorcycles and ... you know what fuck it just ban people. Might as well turn that slippery slope into a cliff and get it over with.

Why ban cars? They don't provide the convenience pit bulls and guns do.

Why ban alcohol? Even water is poison if you drink too much of it.

[euklyd]

Water won't make you significantly more likely to take someone else out with you.

I can't really source this because I'm not interested in digging through radio archives just to support a single sentence, but a point was made by whatever expert they had on that historically, it was other breeds that were seen as "naturally vicious" and favored by dog owners who wanted to own a ~dangerous dog~. One of them was the german shepherd, and I can't remember the one that had the spot before.

If you tell a shitty owner that they can't own pit bulls, they'll find a different dog that could serve the same purpose and that would likely be just as vicious.

Also something about pit bulls being increasingly popular among young single women or something and not generally having problems there, but that's less relevant.

EDIT: might've been rottweiler or doberman?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Euklyd

[Chiki]

Why do you guys assume shitty owners are criminals? We're talking about the average people here too.

[Esau of Isaac]

I mean, the raw stats might say pit bulls attack unprovoked more than other dogs, but how does the ratio of shit-ass dog owners stack up to it? If you take a pool of responsible dog trainers and check the amount of unprovoked attacks does that change the statistics at all?

Also considering the difference between a pit bull's ability to do damage and a smaller dog's it's hard to use these statistics on dog nature when I doubt people are reporting that a Bichone Frise or a Poodle attacked them.

There's no way to really qualify what constitutes a responsible owner, and even if we did it's a bit presumptuous to assume that irresponsible dog owners somehow beeline towards pitbulls. All things equal, it would make sense that there would be an even distribution, right? If people want any dog they should be reponsible, but if my Morkie randomly goes into a frothing death rage and attacks someone they or I will be able to easily fend it off. You try tangoing with a pitbull sometime. About the only dog I'd want to fight less than that is a mastiff. Only difference is a mastiff isn't predisposed --as has been repeatedly pointed out regardless of emotional arguments to the contrary-- towards violent attack.

I think that many larger dogs shouldn't be in public or around people without proper safety precautions. In my mind keeping an animal you can't personally physically control is irresponsible regardless of how nice to animals you are.

[BANRYU]

Because I don't have much time to reply to anybody or any of the admittedly good points on either side of the argument, particularly the one opposite mine, I'll have to settle instead for a brief and possibly pretentious lesson on global culture.

Here are 10 things most Americans don't know about America. I know most of us here in SF are reasonably intelligent individuals so they probably don't completely apply to us, but #7 is the thing I'd like to draw attention to here.

'In the US, security trumps everything, even liberty. We're paranoid.'

It is of my opinion that it is this mindset of paranoia, the American culture of fear, that contributes to all this business about pit bulls (among many other things). I certainly can't quantify it or prove it, but that's what I think.

[Nobody]

Because I don't have much time to reply to anybody or any of the admittedly good points on either side of the argument, particularly the one opposite mine, I'll have to settle instead for a brief and possibly pretentious lesson on global culture.

Here are 10 things most Americans don't know about America. I know most of us here in SF are reasonably intelligent individuals so they probably don't completely apply to us, but #7 is the thing I'd like to draw attention to here.

'In the US, security trumps everything, even liberty. We're paranoid.'

It is of my opinion that it is this mindset of paranoia, the American culture of fear, that contributes to all this business about pit bulls (among many other things). I certainly can't quantify it or prove it, but that's what I think.

Seriously... That article sounds like some kind of sensationalist post from buzzfeed. What's even the point of it? And some of those aren't even true, or aren't exclusive to americans. Like points number 5 and 6. It's a fact the US offers its citizens better quality of life than most countries in the world.

Yeah, paranoia is widespread, but there ARE legit reasons to at least try to regulate (not ban, IMO) pitbulls, to make sure their owners know how to create these dogs. An irresponsible person with a dog that strong is dangerous.

Oh, the "paranoia" with pit bulls is hardly something exclusively american.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not american, and that's a hot topic here in my country as well.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Nobody

[Chiki]

Because I don't have much time to reply to anybody or any of the admittedly good points on either side of the argument, particularly the one opposite mine, I'll have to settle instead for a brief and possibly pretentious lesson on global culture.

Here are 10 things most Americans don't know about America. I know most of us here in SF are reasonably intelligent individuals so they probably don't completely apply to us, but #7 is the thing I'd like to draw attention to here.

'In the US, security trumps everything, even liberty. We're paranoid.'

It is of my opinion that it is this mindset of paranoia, the American culture of fear, that contributes to all this business about pit bulls (among many other things). I certainly can't quantify it or prove it, but that's what I think.

No, it's empirical evidence in favor of it. Pit bulls are responsible for most fatalities.

[dondon151]

just from that article, 1. is false and 6. is mostly false

[LuxSpes]

No, it's empirical evidence in favor of it. Pit bulls are responsible for most fatalities.

That's a short-sighted way to look at it.

Dog behavior is highly affected by how they were brought up.

So looking at the profile of the dog owner would be more important than looking at the breed itself.

This article, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences ''revealed vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners. Vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy. Study results suggest that vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.''

The American Humane Society have gathered data concerning bites and have determined that ''approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered''. And even that can be traced back to the owner since it is his decision to neuter his dog or not.

The statistics shows that the owner seems to have a significant impact on the behavior of the dog. The fact that pitbulls are involved in most fatal attacks could be linked more to the preference that bad owners have for the breed than the breed itself.

And as Banryu said, even if you banned the Pitbull, these owners would just move to the next powerful breed of dog.

So banning Pitbulls would not get rid of the root of the problem, it would just move it to another breed.

[dondon151]

So banning Pitbulls would not get rid of the root of the problem, it would just move it to another breed.

this is, like, not a legitimate argument. banning guns would not get rid of the root of the problem of violence; people would just use knives instead. or illicit guns.

i'm not going to throw in my lot on this argument since i can't be bothered to go over the evidence, but you'd be hard-pressed to say with a straight face that removing the common factor behind a certain event is not going to affect the prevalence of that event.

[LuxSpes]

this is, like, not a legitimate argument. banning guns would not get rid of the root of the problem of violence; people would just use knives instead. or illicit guns.

i'm not going to throw in my lot on this argument since i can't be bothered to go over the evidence, but you'd be hard-pressed to say with a straight face that removing the common factor behind a certain event is not going to affect the prevalence of that event.

I'm pretty sure that even with Pit Bulls banned, bad owners would just move to Rottweilers or German Shepherds that can be just as dangerous as Pit bulls if they're raised to be aggressive.

The problem with comparing this situation to guns is that a knife is not as deadly as a gun. Banning guns would reduce the total number of extremely deadly incident since it's easier to kill people with a gun than with a knife and guns in general would be harder to acquire.

In this case, banning the Pit Bulls would reduce the number of fatal incidents related to Pit Bulls, but the number of attacks made by Rottweilers and/or German Shepherds could very well rise to match the number of Pit Bulls attack since bad owners will be able to move to an alternative to Pit Bulls that can just as dangerous if not properly raised and socialized.

[Chiki]

So banning Pitbulls would not get rid of the root of the problem, it would just move it to another breed.

Other breeds aren't as innately dangerous and as physically powerful as pit bulls. Pit bulls have a particularly dangerous combo of the two.

Similarly, knives aren't anywhere near as dangerous as guns.

Rottweilers or German Shepherds that can be just as dangerous as Pit bulls if they're raised to be aggressive.

What is with you people bringing up criminals and raising dogs to be aggressive? That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about pit bulls being sold to the average person who can't train dogs too well. Regardless of how pit bulls are raised, and sometimes they are raised decently well by the average person, they still have a far greater innate tendency to kill.

Here's an interesting fact: pit bulls were bred to fight.

Pit bulls have been bred to behave differently during a fight. They may not give warning before becoming aggressive, and they’re less likely to back down when clashing with an opponent. When provoked, they may become aggressive more readily than another breed might. Sometimes they don’t inhibit their bites, so they may cause injury more often than other dogs.

Why should we have dangerous dogs like these out on the streets?

I'd personally get a golden retriever for myself. I don't want an innately vicious dog like a pit bull, but golden retrievers were bred to be gentle and loyal.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Chiki

[eclipse]

Why do you guys assume shitty owners are criminals? We're talking about the average people here too.

Bad owners can be anything from well-meaning but ignorant to paired with a dog whose personality doesn't mesh with theirs to outright "didn't connect the dots" - none of these are necessarily criminal.

I think dog ownership should be based on environment (for example, I'm not getting a border collie if I live in a cramped apartment), preference, and the dog's personality/history. An abused chihuahua will probably be more of a pain to handle than an Akita who has no history of aggressiveness/mistreatment. Can't really comment on pit bulls, as I haven't had a chance to interact with one yet.

[Refa]

Bad owners can be anything from well-meaning but ignorant to paired with a dog whose personality doesn't mesh with theirs to outright "didn't connect the dots" - none of these are necessarily criminal.

I may be wrong here, but isn't that what Chiki is saying? That shitty owners aren't just criminals but average people too?

[eclipse]

I may be wrong here, but isn't that what Chiki is saying? That shitty owners aren't just criminals but average people too?

Sort of. Criminals don't have to be bad owners (but can be), and people with good intentions don't have to be good owners (but can be). . .so not much different than, say, parents.

[Esau of Isaac]

That's a short-sighted way to look at it.

Dog behavior is highly affected by how they were brought up.

So looking at the profile of the dog owner would be more important than looking at the breed itself.

This article, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences ''revealed vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners. Vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy. Study results suggest that vicious dog ownership may be a simple marker of broader social deviance.''

The American Humane Society have gathered data concerning bites and have determined that ''approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered''. And even that can be traced back to the owner since it is his decision to neuter his dog or not.

The statistics shows that the owner seems to have a significant impact on the behavior of the dog. The fact that pitbulls are involved in most fatal attacks could be linked more to the preference that bad owners have for the breed than the breed itself.

And as Banryu said, even if you banned the Pitbull, these owners would just move to the next powerful breed of dog.

So banning Pitbulls would not get rid of the root of the problem, it would just move it to another breed.

The fact that people mistreat dogs doesn't change that pitbulls specifically are at higher risk to be aggressive. Note that other dog breeds that would be similarly raised for combat or physical activities such as German shepherds, rottweilers, and mastiffs don't have any similar statistics with regard to bites and fatalities.

The pure speculation given as some kind of apologist stance throughout this topic is staggering. I don't understand how the same people who so often remark about the different funny and positive characteristics of breeds of dog will so staunchly ignore that any among them could be naturally aggressive or otherwise negative. Shih Tzus are brachycephalic. Poodles are hypoallergenic. And pitbulls are prone to aggressiveness.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[BANRYU]

There are other things you're all saying that I'd also like to address at some point, but I remain quite busy and somewhat pressed for time so I'll just address things that I can respond quickly to for now.

Other breeds aren't as innately dangerous and as physically powerful as pit bulls. Pit bulls have a particularly dangerous combo of the two.

I'd personally get a golden retriever for myself. I don't want an innately vicious dog like a pit bull, but golden retrievers were bred to be gentle and loyal.

I would just like to point out that one of these statements is accurate and factual, but the other is quite clearly biased and overly opinionated.

While it's true to say that pit bulls are powerful animals and can be legitimately dangerous under the wrong circumstances, I have no intention of denying that, but saying that all pit bulls have vicious temperaments by nature is unfair (for reasons I've stated earlier with sources, and have no intention of stating or quoting them again; if they're being ignored, it just means this argument isn't worth my time). It might sound weird to say this, but it is literally straight-up racism.

It's not like Goldens can't be mean at times, either. Obviously they're not as substantial a threat purely on physical basis, but my golden retriever had moments where she could be quite ill-tempered.

(Also I realize I haven't completely addressed some issues in my rebuttals either, so at the risk of looking like a hypocrite until then, I will do my best to address things I've circumvented or ignored previously when I have time.)

I may be wrong here, but isn't that what Chiki is saying? That shitty owners aren't just criminals but average people too?

Not unless I missed it somewhere? He mostly seems insistent that all pit bulls are vile-tempered and aggressive by nature (which is literally and provably not true for all members of the breed, or even a majority), which sort of refutes that we're all on the same page here. Though I wish it weren't so.

I'm sure we CAN all agree with that, at the very least? ('that' being the thing quoted from Refa)

(For the record I know I've been throwing the criminality card around a lot OTL eclipse did a good job of summing up other potential problem owners)

The fact that people mistreat dogs doesn't change that pitbulls specifically are at higher risk to be aggressive. Note that other dog breeds that would be similarly raised for combat or physical activities such as German shepherds, rottweilers, and mastiffs don't have any similar statistics with regard to bites and fatalities.

This is actually not true. One of the links I posted on one of the previous pages gave statistics for dog bite fatalities in the mid-late 20th century, and German shepherds, rottweilers, and great danes are all cited as having a higher rate of bite fatalities before the 80s.

This gives me reason to suspect that widespread awareness for these things might be kind of a fad. Granted, the pit bull one HAS been lasting quite awhile, so maybe I'm full of shit (as a lot of people seem to be thinking anyway). I certainly can't prove the fad theory, but thing about other dogs having bite fatality stats IS true.

EDIT: I just want to ask one more thing regarding the attempts to refute my claim about paranoia being a factor (not the cause or anything mind you, just a factor) in this whole thing....

Have any of you guys SEEN a pit bull kill someone? If not, then attack? If not, then have you personally witnessed any such aggressive behavior? Or even if not that, witnessed it recorded on video or in a documentary or anything of the like?

As I think I mentioned earlier, I live in an area that I recently realized is populated by a surprisingly large number of pit bull owners. If there were cases of aggression that led to serious violence and injury, chances are good I would have heard of it, at least in my area (my mother is one of the pitbull-paranoid crowd and keeps very up to date on the kind of stupid panicky rumors that the news likes to spread).

I realize that 'seeing is believing' is a highly naive perspective to take with an issue like this, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps the cases of pit bull violence are not as widespread as some of you may be thinking they are.

So much for keeping it brief ugh

Edited April 18, 2014 by BANRYU