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.

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?

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.

I agree with Sebster, both his points are good ones.

More importantly, in the UK you only ever meet feth heads with status dogs.

In fact, ill find the story, because I read something related just this week.. It made me laugh because there is a fat drunk chav who lives around the corner from me, and his Staffy has a ridiculous big spiky collar on and is actually called Tyson.

Here we are.

http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/uk_national_news/9196044.Hamster_killer_spared_prison_term/

yan Goodwin, 23, hurled the pet, Kaya, in its cage from the first-floor window of his council flat during a furious argument with Sarah Symons during their break-up.

Goodwin, who has a £70 per week cannabis habit and receives £800 a month in benefits, was sentenced at Plymouth Magistrates' Court after admitting animal cruelty and being found guilty at an earlier trial of using threatening behaviour during the row in January.

District Judge Paul Farmer also banned him from keeping animals for seven years, telling him: "If you had been sent to prison today you could have no complaint. What you did was disgraceful."

Miss Symons was talking to police on her mobile phone when the incident occurred, and her horror was captured by the police 999 recording.

Goodwin, of Ipswich Close, Plymouth, arrived at court with Miss Symons. Judge Farmer was told they had since reconciled and were again living together.

Speaking outside the court after the hearing, Mr Goodwin apologised for his actions during the row at their former home in Marlborough Street, Plymouth, Devon, at around 3.30am on January 3.

"I am remorseful for my actions, it was in the heat of the moment," he said. "We are all in relationships and we do crazy things for love. And I do love her very much. It was a moment of madness."

He said the couple had not argued since moving back in together and being banned from keeping animals would mean he and his girlfriend would have to get rid of their dog, a Staffordshire/pitbull-crossbreed called Tyson.

And here is the happy couple.



Look at them. No matter what the middle class chislers on here tell you, there are MILLIONS of these people in the UK. They infest my streets, and they fill me with rage!

If I see a fighting dog over here, 99% of the time its got a can swigging, toothless, tattooed fething chav walking it. They usually have a pram as well, with an ugly, fethed up, cyclopean child in it, and the baby is called Lennox or Baxter or Jerome or Shakira or something equally ridiculous.

Anyway, said dog usually has some body armour or something on, ive seen that a few times. And its called "Tyson" or "Ripper" and they laugh when it barks at you and attacks your knads when your walking to the paper shop, and if you stamp on its head, your the bad guy?!

I digress, where was I... Oh yeah, I own a dog, half of my (very large because I am so affable and likeable) circle of friends have dogs.

Get a Labrador, a border terrier, a collie, a jack russel, a saint bernard, whatever floats your bastard boat. There are 100's to choose from that aren't famed for going nuts.

If you buy a Pitbull, your probably a douchebag anyways, almost certainly, why did you pick a pitbull out of all of the dogs on this earth?! Why?! If not for the ridiculous childlike notion that "it looks dead ard"

Screw it. Ive talked myself out of it, we should be encouraging people to buy them!

Then, when it eats your wife and kids it will be good news, because lets face it, they will be on wellfare for their entire lives as well, they probably wont even learn to read, so we will be doing the poor ignorant fools a favour.

The family gets ate, the dog gets shot. Its win or win for me. The only people who lose out are tobacco manufacturers, brewers, and the guys who make Goodfella's microwave pizza, because we are killing off their main consumer.

Kragura wrote:

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.

I don't even think you understand what you are posting, aggressive animals don't differentiate between their victims. People force these dogs to fight, do you really think the dog wouldn't turn on its handler if it thought it could get away from the situation, or the handler didn't have the bigger stick?

You are clutching at straws, attempting to make people say that pitbulls are ok if we discount x,y and z.

You're just pulling this information out of your arse.



Also, Matty for PM.

Kragura wrote: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.

What exactly is the point that you're making?

mattyrm wrote:And here is the happy couple.

Ye gods, what's wrong with his face? Was it hit with a shrink-ray or something? Urgh, he's like circus-ugly.

mattyrm wrote:They invest my streets, and they fill me with rage!

I would think putting money into the public infrastructure would be a positive thing.

I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM

I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.

I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".

Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.

I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.

FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM

I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.

Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:

"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."

Even a cocker spaniel.

Source: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/30137/pets/which_dog_breeds_are_more_likely_to_kill_people.html

I think really the biggest thing is that this guy has no qualms about, eh, his dog mutiliating his pregnant wife to death. And then having really zero problem with it.
If I was that guy, that dog would have been dead in about as long as it takes to find a gun. You don't pull that gak on humans. And if anyone has a problem with it, they can talk to the hand. How much of an donkey-cave do you have to be to own a dog infamous for violence, then have it kill 2 people and go 'Well, that's only a minor tidbit, doesn't represent the rest of them, eh?'

Ahtman wrote:

mattyrm wrote:They invest my streets, and they fill me with rage!

I would think putting money into the public infrastructure would be a positive thing.

Got a real life chuckle out of me.

Which is fething rare on here!

nectarprime wrote:I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".

Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.

I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.

FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM

I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.

Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:

"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."

Even a cocker spaniel.

Source: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/30137/pets/which_dog_breeds_are_more_likely_to_kill_people.html

I don't know the origins of the pit bull. No idea if it was bred for fighting, don't care. All I know is that a study that goes back 20 years involved 66 deaths from a pit bull. More than any other breed. The study also seems kind of old. I think an updated study might tell you more because the world is more connected today and word/info gets around more. I wonder how many deaths went unreported in that time frame? I don't mean to attack the breed but I think this proves that an aggressive animal that can kill will do so more often than one that won't. If your point is that non-aggressive breeds like cocker spanial's can kill too then well done. However all this information provided is more information to the conclusion that I made in my post. Pit Bulls are aggressive animals that can kill you, and have. So why would you want to own one? Bear in mind I have watched the Dog Whisperer and think the pit bull "Daddy" is a great dog.....but he's the dog whisperer so.....

My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.
But I do agree with you, the study is old and probably not as accurate as it would be if done today.
I, myself, would not own a pitbull because I'm just really not a fan of them. I'd rather have an english bulldog or a pug

nectarprime wrote:My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.

That's not quite a logical conclusion.

You could want to own a dog that's statistically much less likely to kill you.

Mattyrm your post was hilarious, in part because I am an American and don't get all of British slang. Would someone tell me what Chav, Chislers, Pram, and paper shop - (newspaper?) mean?

I'm not trying to be obtuse/troll, lots of Brits post here and I don't get a lot of their slang, except from context I can make some of it out.

Monster Rain wrote:

That's not quite a logical conclusion.

You could want to own a dog that's statistically much less likely to kill you.

Seems a no brainer to me.

Monster Rain wrote:

nectarprime wrote:My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.

That's not quite a logical conclusion.

You could want to own a dog that's statistically much less likely to kill you.

Says you!

I give my dogs kevlar vests and automatics so they can make it a fair fight if they decide to rise against their human overlords.

Medium of Death wrote:

Kragura wrote:

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.

I don't even think you understand what you are posting, aggressive animals don't differentiate between their victims. People force these dogs to fight, do you really think the dog wouldn't turn on its handler if it thought it could get away from the situation, or the handler didn't have the bigger stick?

We've already been through this, [see forum posting rules] hounds were breed to kill raccoons, they are highly sensitive to the behaviour and defence mechanism's of raccoons, and react aggressively*. greyhounds are breed to know and react aggressively** to the behaviour of rabbits. bulldogs are breed to notice when a bull is enraged time a jump at it's nose and then bite the upper lip of the bull without hurting either itself or the other animal. why is it so hard to imagine that a dog can exhibit certain behaviours towards one species, but different ones to another?

The reason they don't turn on their handlers is because they have been breed over hundreds of years not to, the reason they don't attack spectators is because they have been breed over hundreds of years not to.

* dog on raccoon aggression that is
** obviously dog on rabbit aggression


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote: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.

What exactly is the point that you're making?

That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.

I have an unfixed Pitbull, and yes, he can before aggressive, but he's been one of the best dogs on the planet.

Heck, my little sister and brother love to pull his tail and ride him like a pony, and he just goes with it. Best dog I've ever had

Kragura wrote:

That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.

I'm certain that this is wrong.

If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people. They are officially banned in the UK, and its not just because they are "big" because none of the other big dogs are banned.

nectarprime wrote:I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".

Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.

I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.

FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM

I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.

Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:

"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."

Even a cocker spaniel.

Source: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/30137/pets/which_dog_breeds_are_more_likely_to_kill_people.html

With the exception of Frazzled's Dachshund Legions, I don't think anyone has ever been killed by a ferocious wiener dog.

mattyrm wrote:

Kragura wrote:

That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.

I'm certain that this is wrong.

If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.

Why?

Kragura wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Kragura wrote:

That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.

I'm certain that this is wrong.

If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.

Why?

I would say due to generations of them being bred to fight. Animals are selectively bred all the time, race horses love to run.

Think about it, some dogs love water, some dogs hate water. For example, Border Terriers generally don't like to swim, and labradors love to swim, they act like otters almost all the ones ive seen, and this is because terriers were used as ratters and labs were used as gun dogs that retrieved things from the water.

Pitbulls were bred to fight. Sure they can be great dogs if you raise them nice, but they must still be more likely to snap and rip your balls off than a famously placid dog like a Labrador or something.

mattyrm wrote:

Kragura wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Kragura wrote:

That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.

I'm certain that this is wrong.

If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.

Why?

I would say due to generations of them being bred to fight. Animals are selectively bred all the time, race horses love to run.

Think about it, some dogs love water, some dogs hate water. For example, Border Terriers generally don't like to swim, and labradors love to swim, they act like otters almost all the ones ive seen, and this is because terriers were used as ratters and labs were used as gun dogs that retrieved things from the water.

Pitbulls were bred to fight. Sure they can be great dogs if you raise them nice, but they must still be more likely to snap and rip your balls off than a famously placid dog like a Labrador or something.

But breed to fight what, pit bulls were breed to fight other dog's and to never attack humans. I know it sounds counter intuitive but many famously placid dogs have violent, awful history's. consider the old English mastiff, pretty much recognised as the best example of a gentle giant you could find in a dog. they were breed to kill any wolves and bears that looked at their masters funny. Or the Rhodesian ridge back breed to kill lions out on the African savannah, when their owners can keep up with their athletic needs they produce calm, very shy dogs.

The ATTS gives pit bulls an overall breed temperament score of 86.4%, that's higher than a golden retriever or St Bernard .Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs, but the conditions they are brought up in do produce dogs like that.

Kragura wrote:The ATTS gives pit bulls an overall breed temperament score of 86.4%, that's higher than a golden retriever or St Bernard .Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs, but the conditions they are brought up in do produce dogs like that.

Yeah, you've pointed out that number already.

The point is, that 13.6% of the time when the pit bull goes ape someone is much more likely to die from it.

Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs

They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.

Ahtman wrote:

Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs

They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.

All hail the Ahtman, for he speaketh the true word.

Ahtman wrote:

Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs

They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.

Except of course, as I have already said, we don't know anything about how the dogs were treated so using this as any kind of evidence is just ridiculous.

As I've already said this is a circular argument. "This pit bull killed someone, it did that because it has been breed to do that, how do we know this? because it killed someone." go back and read my responses to Sebster and Dogma, all the arguments that have been made in the last 2-3 pages I've already responded to.

Regardless of breed; all dogs have the possibility for causing serious injury and death. Its in the nature of the beast. So no one breed is better than another.

Mr Hyena wrote:Regardless of breed; all dogs have the possibility for causing serious injury and death. Its in the nature of the beast. So no one breed is better than another.

Kind of like Toyotas right?

Its like cars. A car is a car. A car can be 'posh' and a sportscar.

But at the end of the day its still just a car; no different from a Toyota or an old banger of a car.

Yet some are safer than others. The potential will always be there, but the chances of injury/death can be greatly changed by the make/type of car.