I guess it would depend on what "better controlled" was. Honestly, I think its selfish and near sighted to put others at risk by owning one. Every one of us here would cry foul if a parent left a loaded gun laying around in the home and someone was hurt or killed. How if keeping a breed that is known account for the majority of human deaths by dogs any different? If the only way to safely maintain one is to keep it penned, is it really worth having? Is that fair to the animal?
Obviously there is as we are having one and many others believe the same as I do. Other dogs kill and maul people too. The owners of pits aren't usually your upper class white neighbors hence the skewing.
Find the stats on how many labs have killed people vs. pitbulls killing people. Then find the stat on how many more labs are in this country compared to pits. Those are stats that I can form a logical opinion on. Those are also stats that you cant ignore.
I look at it this way dogs are bred and have traits. You could take a lab and raise that dog and never let it see a tennis ball in it's life. One day you pull out the ball and throw it and guess what the majority of labs would chase the ball it is a trait that they were bred for. Same thing applies to a pit bull.
Pitbulls make up the majority of human attacks, but it would be interesting to know what percent of the pitbull population has attacked someone (I'm assuming it is very little ). If pitbulls are "wired" to attack someone, how in the world could you justify that being the owners fault? That's saying every pitbull owner carries the burden of "this dog may attack and I may be charged with manslaughter"... That's just plain silly. I feel PBs need to be controlled... Not eliminated.
Maybe you should look at this by state, Here in Michigan we have this place called Detroit.....Where labs and happy families aren't found often. Instead it is a city with so many pit bulls that they actually have kill shelters. Now, Is it the dogs fault it was raised in a house with 20 brothers and sisters fighting for food in a pit?
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/ Should all these dogs be banned? One was even bred to be friendly to humans. The great dane and St Bernard are on this list. It's all about ownership.
You're neglecting ownership. I mean I can tell you how many people have been killed by guns, but that won't do us any good will it?
You're saying you could tell a 5 year old pit bull who has never fought or killed in his life, to kill or fight when put in a ring? Highly doubtful. Unless you're trying to say something else?
I wonder how many of these attacks people talk about are from 100% pure Pit Bulls....Most attacks I have heard of are mixes or the dogs wild.
I think purebreds are expensive. So yea most likely mixes, usually the ones people don't care about as much.
The Breeds Most Likely to Kill It took me two seconds to find this: As of May 25, 2013, the USA death count from dogs in 2013 is 14. Of these, 13 people were killed by pit bulls. In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers: "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.) So, 13 of 14 deaths (93%) were caused by pit bulls. Sounds pretty breed specific to me considering they make up a very small fraction of all dog breeds in this country. As far as fatalities go, it is BREED SPECIFIC. You wont find a single weapon that accounts for that percentage of deaths.
Guns are inanimate objects, dogs have a brain and a mind of their own. Impossible to compare the two.
Not saying they would get in a ring and fight, stay on topic we are talking about dogs being aggressive and biting a person
The Color of Crime Race, Crime, and Justice in America — Second, Expanded Edition, 2005 Major Findings:Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.Crime RatesBlacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispani
Nope. Its not the dogs fault that it has a propensity to kill people. Its our fault for allowing that opportunity to exist. So, I guess you are right, pitbulls should be eliminated in Michigan. You know what they say about 100 pitbulls at the bottom of Lake Michigan...........its a good start.
