I'm extremely attached to my dog and I still couldn't agree more with this statement. The comparisons to inanimate objects and human beings is so far fetched from reality it's hard for me to even wrap my head around that line of thinking...
Probably most of the time it is the owner's fault (most, but not all by any means). I am sure that most of you who are passionate about your dogs do the right thing, and properly train your dogs. Not everyone does. As I said earlier, until there is a way to tell the one from the other before the dog has mauled or killed a kid, there needs to be some kind of control. FWIW, the family of the 5 year-old kid I mentioned earlier, who was killed by the family dog, has been all over the news and social media telling anyone who will listen that they had no idea that this would happen, that this was a well-mannered, well behaved dog, right up until the moment it locked onto their daughter's throat. They are advising anyone who owns a pit bull to "get rid of it"
I think a year is a little more of a forecast than a day or week or month. Use 10 years, I don't care, Pitbull varieties will still far and away lead the category of most human deaths and maulings. When compared to the small percentage of them to all other breeds, it only gets worse. I don't make up those numbers, they speak for themselves. And, we are not counting beans. We are counting dead people. I like beans, pitbulls........not so much.
It isn't fear, its discretion. I'm not afraid of pitbulls, I backed one down while jogging about a month ago. If I had been a child or elderly person, things would have been far different. So again, I am not afraid of them, but I am not willing to subject others to the very calculated risk that they pose. I think it would be selfish.
This needs to be read and re-read by anyone that keeps a pitbull around children. Then continue to convince yourself that your dog would NEVER maul your child. Then, ask the families that had their own children mauled by their loving family pet how that worked out for them.
60% caused by 5% of the dog population is a staggering number. Don't you think? Kind of like 5% of the bowhunters consistently kill 60% of the deer. If you needed deer killed, are going with a 5 percenter? If you don't want to risk a mauling, are you going with a 95 percenter?
This, besides the heroine thing, is probably the closest I agree with. Any dog has the potential to bite, I don't care how friendly or cuddly they are. Some breed just inflict more damage. Take the example Christine used with heelers, I've owned three over past 10 years. They are probably one of the more mouthy dogs there are. But that what they're bred for. They're also bred for their loyalty and protective traits and I can almost guarantee if any of you pulled in my driveway he would go nuts until I come out. But that's a 40-50 pound dog, you double that and now it's a real problem. I tend to lean more blame away from the dog though regardless of the breed. Different dogs are breed for different reasons and people getting these dogs need to realize what those are and if they can handle them. That includes every trait not just a few good or bad. I'm a big believer in the training of dogs or any animal and being able to control them. Regardless if they have a free mind or not, no dog just snap and hurt people. There's always a reason if the proper training and responsibilities are taken no matter what the breed. Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Exactly... I realize these are rough numbers but that would make Pitts 12x as likely to kill someone as other breeds.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. Where I live,In between Milwaukee and Chicago, the Pitbulls out number most other dog breeds. From what I'm seeing on my walks with my dog, 50% of the dogs I see are Pitbulls. So, 60% by 50% of the dog population is not out of hand. I think you'll find that the urban areas are where most of the Pitbulls reside as well as where most instances occur.
Seems obvious to me. Not sure how anyone can ignore that kind of information. Even if they were only three times more likely, it would be a no-brainer.
Its hard to know for sure because so many dogs of any breed are not registered. I found as low as 1% of the total dog population as pits and as high as 5% of the total dog population being pits. I tried to err towards the high side so as to not look like I was skewing the findings. This for an overall national average. Obviously, there will be areas with higher and lower densities. But, the mauling and death statistics are nationwide, so its only fair to also use the national total for breed percentage. I also find it interesting that most maulings or deaths were from the pits first ever aggressive act. In my opinion, other breeds tend to show warning signs of aggression and pits tend to just go off like a bomb without warning. Happy day. By the way, I find it amusing that you accused me of being too narrow in my findings by only using the stats from a single year, yet you want to use your personal experience from a single neighborhood. There are three pitbulls in my town that I am aware of, so maybe I should say that they only comprise .027 percent of the total dog population. Or not.
The issue isnt who likes my dog/breed. I could care less. I dont like cats. Its the liberal tree hugging idea that we should ban a breed of dog. A dog once refered to as AMERICAS dog. You are thousands of times likely to die by a gunshot. But yet folks on here would rally till their last breath if firearms were banned. You say its an object compared to a living animal? It takes a living animal to fire a weapon into a person. Lets start with pitbulls, then guns, then bows, then alcohol, then hell why not cars. It keeps people "safe" since all these things kill thousands of times more people daily
Fletcher I'm glad that I amused you, but you keep coming up with numbers that just don't seem to fit what I have read or experienced. Kind of like a bean counter. Of course you used a narrow range. It fit your agenda. Take a 10 year span and the numbers change. I wonder what a 50 year range would show? The point about my personal observations was just to bring up a point I felt was valid. Urban incidents vs nation wide. Anyone can skew the numbers. Have a good day. Heading up north now.
