Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The real bummer is when someone who didn't even make the choice to own a statistically-more-lethal-than-others breed of dog gets eaten by a dog from down the street.

sebster wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:I understand the people in question were Pit Bull advocates...but there is now way in hell I would want a Pit bull if I was planning on starting a family, regardless of the fact that the guy left his pregnant wife alone in a house with two Pits...that's just a stupid thing to do, if you ask me its as much the owner's fault as it is the dog's

What?

fething seriously, what?

There's a dog breed that represents such a specific danger to people that part of responsible ownership means never leaving it in the house with your wife, else her death by mauling is your fault... and people are still arguing in favour of keeping this dog as a pet.

This is just fething ridiculous.

Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.

sebster wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:Adding on to that is the fact both animals were allowed to sleep in the same bed as a pregnant woman...a Pit Bull is simply not an animal that you can easily keep indoors in closed spaces, and especially not near pregnant women and children...don't get me wrong some of them can be family dogs but a family owns a pit Bull at its own risk.

That said, for every horror story there are ten happy endings...happily ever after doesn't sell news, a Pit Bull killing a pregnant woman while she slept does...example:

"Come on, buy a pitbull. There's only a one in eleven chance your pregnant wife will be mauled to death."

Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.

WARORK93 wrote:Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.

You missed my point. If you acknowledge this breed is enough of a danger that they shouldn't be around people looking to start a family, then that's a serious problem with the breed.

When there are hundreds of other breeds available, why not just get one of those breeds?

Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.

I was just making fun of your figure, for every tragedy there's ten happy stories. I'd hope it's a lot better than one in eleven people not getting mauled by their dog.

Meanwhile, you cannot remove the risk of getting mauled entirely, no matter how well you raise the dog. You can do everything right, and there remains a chance the dog will freak out and return to it's breeding.

Medium of Death wrote:

Kragura wrote:Everyone seems to agree that pit bulls are breed to be aggressive, but no-one who says that defines what aggressive means. pits bulls have been (as all terriers have been) breed to have higher dog on dog aggression than most other dogs (much like a German shepherd mind you) however high dog on dog aggression says nothing about dog on human aggression. we all know that pit bulls are primarily used nowadays as fighting dogs, in a role such as that dog on human aggression is highly frowned upon, What do you think happens to the dog that goes around biting spectators or it owner? it gets culled pretty quickly. so dog on human aggression has actually been breed out of the species over time, the average pit bulls genetic temperament is pretty much the same as other terriers.

Proof?

In fact, I would say the evidence currently out there is completely contrary to your baseless statement.

What evidence world that be exactly? what do you want for proof, a statistical study conducted by the university of whatever on dogs breed in the exact same environment? I wish one existed but I can't find one. any evidence you may have of pit bulls is only evidence in the current context that pit bulls live in.

What you could do is look at the large number of kennel clubs, breeders associations and dog trainers who say exactly what I have. hell you could even bother read the Wikipedia page.

"The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]
The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9] American Pit Bull Terriers generally have a lot of energy and benefit from exercise and stimulation to channel their energy properly and avoid becoming frustrated, bored, or destructive."

Kragura wrote:"The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]
The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9] American Pit Bull Terriers generally have a lot of energy and benefit from exercise and stimulation to channel their energy properly and avoid becoming frustrated, bored, or destructive."

The point that others are making quite clearly, and I'm frankly baffled that it isn't sinking in, is that all dogs are capable of biting or otherwise acting out.

Some breeds are much more likely to kill someone when they do so. So yes, Golden retrievers have a statistically poorer temperament (according to wiki) but of the dogs that are likely to kill someone certain breeds stand out. Behold, the study that doesn't exist.

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

Specifically:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

Look at that. All source cited and everything.

sebster wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.

You missed my point. If you acknowledge this breed is enough of a danger that they shouldn't be around people looking to start a family, then that's a serious problem with the breed.

When there are hundreds of other breeds available, why not just get one of those breeds?

exactly.

sebster wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.

I was just making fun of your figure, for every tragedy there's ten happy stories. I'd hope it's a lot better than one in eleven people not getting mauled by their dog.

Meanwhile, you cannot remove the risk of getting mauled entirely, no matter how well you raise the dog. You can do everything right, and there remains a chance the dog will freak out and return to it's breeding.

exactly.

The point that others are making quite clearly, and I'm frankly baffled that it isn't sinking in, is that all dogs are capable of biting or otherwise acting out.

Some breeds are much more likely to kill someone when they do so. So yes, Golden retrievers have a statistically poorer temperament (according to wiki) but of the dogs that are likely to kill someone certain breeds stand out. Behold, the study that doesn't exist.

Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why. MY point is that it has nothing to do with there breeding, they're not the biggest or scariest dogs out there, there just the one most subjected to terrible conditions.

And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.

Kragura wrote:Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why.

Because they are a large, strong, and aggressive breed. There. Now you know. Also, they don't bite more people, they kill more people. That's the distinction that I think you're missing.

Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.

That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.

The numbers are what they are.

Kragura wrote:hell you could even bother read the Wikipedia page.

Meet my friends. The warning tags:

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2010)

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2011)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (April 2011)

I'd also check the discussion and archive. Wikipedia is never good evidence, but sometimes its not even good reference

Kragura wrote:
Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why. MY point is that it has nothing to do with there breeding...

Wat?

These are dogs that were bred in order to fight, and kill, one another. Of course its important, just as the breeding of a Pom is important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.

That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.

The numbers are what they are.

It could be, but it would cost a lot of money, and be unimportant.

The given, in this case, is "dog owners" and the variable is "dog type" the dog type "pit bull" produces more deaths than any other dog type. Case closed.

Monster Rain wrote:Look at that. All source cited and everything.

dogma wrote:It could be, but it would cost a lot of money, and be unimportant.

Fair enough.

Still, I think a study of every breed of dog in statistically significant numbers under controlled conditions is at the very least improbable.

I just looked at the Story Proper... If I were that dude, I would be pissed!

No way is he going to get another chick that hot to date him.

Tragic.

Monster Rain wrote:
Still, I think a study of every breed of dog in statistically significant numbers under controlled conditions is at the very least improbable.

Yep. Too few people die by dog, per anum, and too much money would be required.

dogma wrote:

Kragura wrote:
Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why. MY point is that it has nothing to do with there breeding...

Wat?

These are dogs that were bred in order to fight, and kill, one another. Of course its important, just as the breeding of a Pom is important.

Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
I'd also check the discussion and archive. Wikipedia is never good evidence, but sometimes its not even good reference

I wasn't so much quoting wikipedia for factual accuracy, rather to make a point.

Kragura wrote:
Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.

Yet they kill humans more than any other breed in America.

As has been said, the numbers don't lie. However, people often do, especially to themselves.

Kragura wrote:I wasn't so much quoting wikipedia for factual accuracy, rather to make a point.

No point is made citing potentially inaccurate information.

Kragura wrote:Proof?

The opening story. Unless you're going to begin to invent a story in which that dog was mistreated or trained to fight.

WARORK93 wrote:exactly.

Oh, okay. I thought you were arguing the opposite. My mistake.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote:Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why.

Because they are a large, strong, and aggressive breed. There. Now you know. Also, they don't bite more people, they kill more people. That's the distinction that I think you're missing.

Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.

That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.

The numbers are what they are.

No, I know they kill more people however as I said they aren't the biggest largest or strongest breed by a long shot, nor are they anyway near the most aggressive* genetically.

*Human on dog aggression that is

Kragura wrote:Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.

Breeding really isn't that controlled a process. A dog has a feature you like, you breed it with other dogs with that feature. A dog has a feature you don't like, you don't breed it.

The idea that you can control that so closely as to develop aggression towards dogs but not see any increase in aggression to humans or any other animals is kind of silly.

dogma wrote:

Kragura wrote:
Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.

Yet they kill humans more than any other breed in America.

As has been said, the numbers don't lie. However, people often do, especially to themselves.

Lie in what way? they tell us that pit bulls kill more humans and I haven't tried to debate that point. what they don't tell us is WHY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kragura wrote:Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.

Breeding really isn't that controlled a process. A dog has a feature you like, you breed it with other dogs with that feature. A dog has a feature you don't like, you don't breed it.

The idea that you can control that so closely as to develop aggression towards dogs but not see any increase in aggression to humans or any other animals is kind of silly.

Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.

Kragura wrote:Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.

The opening story makes it obvious that even when raised well, they still flip out and attack people.

You can say they 'can' breed them all you like, but the number of dead people really shows it hasn't worked.

sebster wrote:

Kragura wrote:Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.

The opening story makes it obvious that even when raised well, they still flip out and attack people.

You can say they 'can' breed them all you like, but the number of dead people really shows it hasn't worked.

the opening story says nothing of how the dogs were raised, of the dogs mental conditions or gives us any real context at all about what was happening at the time. It just says a pit bull killed someone.

Can breed has nothing to do with it, they HAVE been breed. Most pit bulls sold by reputable breeders end up becoming therapy dogs or family dogs, the same role most breeders association's and kennel clubs recommend for them, as I have said before multiple times they have one of the best temperaments of any dogs in the world.

Kragura wrote:what they don't tell us is WHY.

What's more likely:

The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs is unusually aggressive.

The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs happens to be owned by people that make it unusually aggressive.

dogma wrote:

Kragura wrote:what they don't tell us is WHY.

What's more likely:

The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs is unusually aggressive.

The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs happens to be owned by people that make it unusually aggressive.

It not that it happens to be, the dog is the best fighting dog you could own, That means dog fighters are going to love it. Once a dog is branded as the 'Tough guy dog' only the 'tough guys' are going to love it. if Alsations were the 'tough guy' dog the we would see the same discussions taking place over them.

We also have to remember the different uses of aggression, pit bulls are unusually aggressive to dogs. but just because a breed is unusually aggressive to dogs, that doesn't mean that it's aggressive to humans. And when we also remember that dog fighters breed dogs to be calm around humans, it seems highly unlikely that a dog bred for over 500 years, specifically for fighting, would have a high dog on human aggressiveness.

Kragura wrote:
It not that it happens to be, the dog is the best fighting dog you could own,

And why do you think that is? Perhaps because breeders have, over many years selected stock for athleticism and aggressiveness?

Kragura wrote:
We also have to remember the different uses of aggression, pit bulls are unusually aggressive to dogs. but just because a breed is unusually aggressive to dogs, that doesn't mean that it's aggressive to humans. And when we also remember that dog fighters breed dogs to be calm around humans, it seems highly unlikely that a dog bred for over 500 years, specifically for fighting, would have a high dog on human aggressiveness.

And yet it has been proven to be so.

dogma wrote:
And why do you think that is? Perhaps because breeders have, over many years selected stock for athleticism and aggressiveness?

Define aggression or stop saying it.

And yet it has been proven to be so.

The only proof you have is a circular argument

Pit bulls kill people because Pit bulls are naturally aggressive, we know this because Pit bulls kill people.

Does aggression need to be defined?

No, it already has been

Medium of Death wrote:Does aggression need to be defined?

No, it already has been

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I meant say whether you mean dog on dog or dog on human aggression, as you should know if you're actually reading what I am saying.

tiny dogs freak out more as a defense mechanism because they cant do much damage so they act tough. I have owned 30+ terriers and none have never purposely hurt me.

I reckon a specia iecense shoud be required to own aggresive dogs.


p.s sry about the ACK of a certain ETTER a certain key on my keyboard has just broken.