Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[DrDNA]

DrDNA - IYO, What benefit would come from an outright ban on this one breed?

 

 

Forest for the trees, friend.

 

 

I'm not completely convinced that an outright ban is the answer, but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It definitely would not be anything on the scale of losing the White Rhino.

 

The fact of the matter is, it is not an irreplacable native species. Because it is not native, is not a species and it not irreplacable ; other breeds would quickly fill the void and take its place re: companionship AND it could easily be retrieved again by selective breeding even if it were eleminated.

 

Furthermore, particular dog breed ownership definitely isn't a God given right supported by the first or second amendment or any other amendment.

 

REALLY SEVERE penalties against ALL out of control dog owners/handlers might be an answer.

 

Perhaps sterilization is an answer. It would definitely eventually put a stop to the debate, without penalizing existing dogs that have not done anything wrong, and the madness that seems to sometimesgo along with "Pit Bull" ownership.

 

To be perfectly honest, the image of teary eyed "Pit Bull" owners, gnawing and gnashing their teeth, traumatized, aimlessly marching through suburbia, wailing, with drool running down their chins, and snot running out of their noses, with handfuls of their own hair in their hands because Spot can't have puppies doesn't have much of an impact on me.

 

We need to remember that, other than the fact that they "love" us and we love them, dog breeds are kind of like the selectively bred or imported fish that live behind the man-made dams that have overtaken the natural fauna of the small streams and rivers that used to be there. So, how many different types of grass feeding carp (or selectively bred types of dogs) behind that massive dam that is killing the native trout and salmon does the world need...10, 100, 1000, 10000? They are both creations of man or man's influence over (ie, screwing up) the natural scheme of things.

 

But if I might flip your statement over, what societal woes would actually result from a complete ban on this man-made creation? Would society fall apart if all the "Pit Bull Terrier" owners suddenly became turtle neck sweater-wearing Poodle owners; outfitting their little darlings with cute bows and pink colored toe nails?

 

I seriously doubt it.

 

PS: I am waiting in anticipation to read the evidence and data to support that the "Pit Bull Terrier" is better for a particular task or trade than any of the working breeds that generally do the tasks commonly associated with their breed......eg, better than the blood hound for tracking, the German shepard for police work, the pointer for hunting, the husky for pulling a sled in Alaska, etc.... I'll take anything.

[iNow]

It's clearly a subjective issue.

 

The point has been made that this is one breed, and most of the arguments could be used to ban all dogs.

 

The benefit of the animal is in the eye of the beholder.

 

The problem, however, is how you are seeking to legislate your personal preferences for the rest of us.

 

If I want to own a pit bull, I should be allowed to own a pit bull. If that pit bull does something stupid, then I should be held responsible.

 

But let me make that decision. It's not your place to make that decision for me.

 

 

Next, you'll want to take away my guns.

[DrDNA]

Next, you'll want to take away my guns.

 

No I won't. You'll need it for the Pit Bull.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, this might not even be an issue if more citizens were armed. I think it is a good point.

I can absolutely guarantee you what will happen if I am attacked by any dog.......(except of course if I just so happen to be passing through an area that violates my second amendment rights....)

[SkepticLance]

Wheeeee!

 

Here's a chance for a change of thread direction into a gut busting, lung bursting, shouting tirade of argument.

 

Gun control!

 

As a citizen of a country with strict gun control (including no private hand gun ownership) I shudder that the thought of the widespread ownership of those machines designed specifically to kill people. Mind you, shooting pit bulls almost makes hand guns acceptable.

 

On the other hand, when I look at the murder statistics for the USA, I know that my country chose the right direction.

[DrDNA]

I think you should start a new thread if you want to do that, but besides protecting innocent people from Pit Bulls consider this:

 

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. The most precise criteria off all such studies, and estimates that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year. But the number could be as high as 3,609,000 times a year! “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.

 

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995.

 

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. "TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, http://www.nra.org/

 

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

 

 

Florida / United States

homicide rate -36% / -0.4%

 

firearm homicide rate -37% / +15%

 

handgun homicide rate -41% / +24%

 

"1998 NRA Fact Card." Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle

Association web site, http://www.nra.org/

[SkepticLance]

To DrDNA

 

It is very easy to obtain all sorts of data of that sort, since lobby groups such as the National Rifle Assn assiduously collect it, and publicise it. It is known as data mining.

 

For each, there are opposite data that are needed to create a balanced picture. For example : you talk about citizens defending themselves from criminals. You have not told me how many got killed in the process!

 

You talk about restrictions on hand guns. You have not told me how successful the restriction was. I would seriously doubt that the criminal groups ended up with fewer hand guns. As long as hand guns are available in one state, criminals in the next state will buy them.

 

The United States has almost the loosest gun laws in the entire first world, and has the highest per capita murder rate of the first world. I doubt that the link is coincidence!

 

There are nations with a higher murder rate, of course. In third world and developing countries. I doubt that comparison, making the US similar to such would be regarded by too many Americans as flattering.

[DrDNA]

Here we go. Drop your pants and poop right on my data but not bring any of your own to the party....

 

This is to both the Gun Control Advocates AND the Pit Bull lovers,

 

This is supposed to be a fact driven forum. If you really believe what you say, why don't you pull your pants up and support your statements and back up your opinions with some hard data?

 

PS: I need at least 3 or 4 easily concealed semi automatic handguns to protect myself from the Pit Bulls.

 

It's clearly a subjective issue.

No it isn't. The data shows that Pit Bull Terriers attack, maim and kill a rates greater than other breeds. Some people refuse to accept the data and call it a subjective issue? The fact of the matter is, that the pro pit bull crowd has been basing their claims on mostly subjective criteria, while the con pit bull crowd has been comparatively objective.

 

The point has been made that this is one breed, and most of the arguments could be used to ban all dogs.

Uh. No they couldn't.

 

The benefit of the animal is in the eye of the beholder.

This is relevant to the debate how? What is relevant is that some people stated that pit bulls are great for this and that vocation, but did not support the statements.

 

The problem, however, is how you are seeking to legislate your personal preferences for the rest of us.

 

If I want to own a pit bull, I should be allowed to own a pit bull. If that pit bull does something stupid, then I should be held responsible.

 

But let me make that decision. It's not your place to make that decision for me..

 

I have not seen any evidence of anyone trying to legislate any personal preferences what so ever on anyone else or force decisions on them. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are in essence projecting a victim status where none exists in order to win an upper hand; turning what is basically a lively, but still mostly rational debate of pro vs con completely irrational.

 

Next, you'll want to take away my guns.

 

Your guns are protected by the constitution a right which I'll die fighting to protect and preserve......conversely, Pit Bulls are not protected by the constitution....so they are fair game.

[Marty]

I'm not completely convinced that an outright ban is the answer, but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It definitely would not be anything on the scale of losing the White Rhino.

 

The fact of the matter is, it is not an irreplacable native species. Because it is not native, is not a species and it not irreplacable ; other breeds would quickly fill the void and take its place re: companionship AND it could easily be retrieved again by selective breeding even if it were eleminated.

 

Furthermore, particular dog breed ownership definitely isn't a God given right supported by the first or second amendment or any other amendment.

 

REALLY SEVERE penalties against ALL out of control dog owners/handlers might be an answer.

 

Perhaps sterilization is an answer. It would definitely eventually put a stop to the debate, without penalizing existing dogs that have not done anything wrong, and the madness that seems to sometimesgo along with "Pit Bull" ownership.

 

To be perfectly honest, the image of teary eyed "Pit Bull" owners, gnawing and gnashing their teeth, traumatized, aimlessly marching through suburbia, wailing, with drool running down their chins, and snot running out of their noses, with handfuls of their own hair in their hands because Spot can't have puppies doesn't have much of an impact on me.

 

We need to remember that, other than the fact that they "love" us and we love them, dog breeds are kind of like the selectively bred or imported fish that live behind the man-made dams that have overtaken the natural fauna of the small streams and rivers that used to be there. So, how many different types of grass feeding carp (or selectively bred types of dogs) behind that massive dam that is killing the native trout and salmon does the world need...10, 100, 1000, 10000? They are both creations of man or man's influence over (ie, screwing up) the natural scheme of things.

 

But if I might flip your statement over, what societal woes would actually result from a complete ban on this man-made creation? Would society fall apart if all the "Pit Bull Terrier" owners suddenly became turtle neck sweater-wearing Poodle owners; outfitting their little darlings with cute bows and pink colored toe nails?

 

I seriously doubt it.

 

PS: I am waiting in anticipation to read the evidence and data to support that the "Pit Bull Terrier" is better for a particular task or trade than any of the working breeds that generally do the tasks commonly associated with their breed......eg, better than the blood hound for tracking, the German shepard for police work, the pointer for hunting, the husky for pulling a sled in Alaska, etc.... I'll take anything.

A Quote for ya!

 

‘The fool doth think himself wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.’

 

— William Shakespeare

 

Fools act on imagination without knowledge. Pedants act on knowledge without imagination.’

 

— William Arthur Ward

[DrDNA]

Well. You really got me there.

But please indicate exactly which points are unwise, and/or unimaginative, without a foundation in knowledge and why so.

[iNow]

But please indicate exactly which points are unwise, and/or unimaginative, without a foundation in knowledge

Honestly... all of the ones you made in the post which was quoted, except for your very first point:

 

 

 

 

I'm not completely convinced that an outright ban is the answer

[John Cuthber]

"What's the benefit of having ANY dog then? Ban one, ban them all because they are all "useless." The American Pit Bull Terrier's "usefulness" can match -and exceed- that of just about any dog.

 

Pit Bull uses in Therapy, Service and other work"

 

Thank you for answering your own question.

No, the elimination of a particularly hazardous breed of dog does not lead logically to the elimination of all dogs. As you say plenty of dogs (some of the pit bulls) own their keep.

Now, unless you can find an example where the pit bull does a massively better job than another breed (sufficiently much better to offset the additional risk), you still have yet to answer the question. (And I know that someone posted before that it's not a relevant question. Yes it is, and if you don't see that, then you need to think about it some more. It's called cost/benefit analysis).

 

"The problem, however, is how you are seeking to legislate your personal preferences for the rest of us."

My personal preference is that I don't want to be threatened by a dog that was bred for killing and that has a propensity to do so.

It happens that, in the UK the government felt (perhaps wrongly; there was no referendum) that this personal preference was shared by the majority and banned the dogs. It's called democracy. Feel free to come over and start the "right to own dangerous dogs party" and see how far you get.

 

 

Frankly I give up.

It has been pointed out before that it isn't the dogs' fault, the problem isn't the dogs, it's the owners.

OK Let's ban the people who own the dogs.

[iNow]

It has been pointed out before that it isn't the dogs' fault, the problem isn't the dogs, it's the owners.

OK Let's ban the people who own the dogs.

 

Strangely, I'm okay with that.

[Paralith]

Strangely, I'm okay with that.

 

Me too. Seriously - for any big dog that could be dangerous, I think owners should have to prove they can competently control their animal. It's their responsibility.

[DrDNA]

An example of banning or legislating "personal preference" related to pets would be banning all brown dogs or the banning harmless baby kittens because you just so happen to dislike cats. See the difference?

 

So, this certainly isn't about legislating "personal preference" and I really can't see how anyone would confuse the two. It would appear to be a smoke screen to deflect attention from the real issue.

 

Me too. Seriously - for any big dog that could be dangerous, I think owners should have to prove they can competently control their animal. It's their responsibility.

 

I might agree with you except...define "could be dangerous", "control" and "prove" how?

[ParanoiA]

Oh great, more licenses, fees, and bullshit because we don't want to actually punish people for their neglect. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

Remember, this question is coming from someone who hates pit bulls.

 

The pit bull owner down the street from hasn't done anything wrong, why should he have to prove squat to anybody?

 

Imagine every conceivable combination of danger I can impose on you to prove to me you can negotiate. That's a bureacratic mess the intolerant big government human behavior regulators would love to get started.

[SkepticLance]

Owning a pit bull is like owning a gun. Both are dangerous if handled carelessly. If you have to prove competence to buy a gun (legally), then the same applies to pit bulls.

[DrDNA]

One side of me says good idea. Another side of me knows that involving regulatory blessing and approving agencies and the like is a nightmare.

 

Would this only apply to Pit Bulls?

If so, why only Pit Bulls and not other breeds with higher than average rates of dangerous behaviours...for example Rottwielers, Wolfs and Wolf Hybrids, Dobermans, etc?

 

Competence would be difficult to define and nearly impossible to prove. Someone might demonstrate some level of competence in certain parameters, but proving competence....oh boy.

 

In the US, you would have to make sure it is all done in 20 or so different languages so as not to discriminate against anybody.

[ParanoiA]

Owning a pit bull is like owning a gun. Both are dangerous if handled carelessly. If you have to prove competence to buy a gun (legally), then the same applies to pit bulls.

 

You don't have to prove competence to buy a gun. Good thing too. And neither should you have to in order to own a pit bull. Our founders chose to go with the idea of personal liberty limited to direct damage - not personal liberty limited to the subjective whims of competency.

 

In other words, in terms of law anyway, it's up to you to prove I've done something wrong - not up to me to prove I've done something right.

[DrDNA]

You don't have to prove competence to buy a gun. Good thing too. And neither should you have to in order to own a pit bull. Our founders chose to go with the idea of personal liberty limited to direct damage - not personal liberty limited to the subjective whims of competency.

 

In other words, in terms of law anyway, it's up to you to prove I've done something wrong - not up to me to prove I've done something right.

 

What is your stance on driver's licenses?

 

Physician certification?

[ParanoiA]

Driver's licensing passes mustard with me only because the roads are paid for by the government. Should the government build roads? I think so. Certainly at the state level this isn't an issue, although I'm not sure the feds should. Driving on your lawn or acreage? I don't see any authority to require licensing and such, and I believe that is the present law actually.

 

Physician certification? Well, if you want to see a doctor of medicine, I believe he will have to have earned the title or else he couldn't call himself a doctor of medicine. I don't see why he needs the government to tell him he's a doctor as well, nor me, otherwise he's commiting fraud - the punishment, I believe anyway, should be quite severe considering the potential consequences. And if he wants to compete with other doctors, he'll sport his credentials.

[DrDNA]

Owning a pit bull is like owning a gun. Both are dangerous if handled carelessly. If you have to prove competence to buy a gun (legally), then the same applies to pit bulls.

 

In the US, you can purchase most firearms after the dealer does a quick (usually over the phone while you wait) background check on the purchaser.

In order to CARRY a concealed weapon (eg, a pistol under your jacket or in your pants) in MOST states you must pass a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit class. 39 states are now "shall issue" CCW permit states and the number keeps climbing (thankfully). To obtain the permit, you must pass a class and demonstrate a level of competency. The class is generally about 8 hours long including lecture and shooting range qualification. Plus you must pass a stringent federal background check.

In some states you can carry a hand gun without any type of permit if it is clearly visible. In a few states, they require you to have it concealed if you carry so you don't scare people. There are restrictions on where you can not carry also, including post offices, public schools, national parks, voting places, government buildings, any place that serves alchohol (in some states),........

 

It is interesting that Vermont has NO restrictions on carrying or concealing hand guns and it has the one of

the lowest murder rates in the nation (47th out of 50) and, according to the FBI, almost the lowest violent crime rate (49th).

[iNow]

If you have to prove competence to buy a gun (legally), then the same applies to pit bulls.

 

That's an invalid comparison and a non-sequitur. Either way, it's also false (as others have posted above, one does not need to prove competence to buy a gun)... YMMV.

 

 

Yes... I know I made a comment lots of posts ago about "Next, you'll try to take away my guns," but this thread is not about gun control, so get off it already people. Start a new thread if you'd like.

 

 

 

Oh great, more licenses, fees, and bullshit because we don't want to actually punish people for their neglect. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

Remember, this question is coming from someone who hates pit bulls.

 

The pit bull owner down the street from hasn't done anything wrong, why should he have to prove squat to anybody?

 

Ditto.

 

Another issue I see is that there are already a plethora of existing laws, it's just that they are not adequately enforced. It's not like adding new laws is going to magically fix the few legitimate issues that have been raised in this thread. Enforcement of existing laws, however, most certainly would ameliorate those aforementioned legitimate issues.

[dichotomy]

It is interesting that Vermont has NO restrictions on carrying or concealing hand guns and it has the one of

the lowest murder rates in the nation (47th out of 50) and, according to the FBI, almost the lowest violent crime rate (49th).

 

I find this interesting. Would anyone know where Vermont is rated as far as dog attacks goes? I’m assuming here that low murder rates are to do with the local culture, and not the local gun laws. The average mental maturity of the population in Vermont maybe quite high, increasing their sense of personal responsibility for lethal weapons.

 

I do think as a rule that Pit Bulls (in city areas) tend to be owned by immature and nervous types. So an owner’s culture probably is key to a higher frequency of dog fatalities.

[thomast1777]

Once again, I am really surprised at how much un-scientific opinions and stereotypes have been brought to this topic in a forum such as this.

 

"I do think as a rule that Pit Bulls (in city areas) tend to be owned by immature and nervous types. So an owner’s culture probably is key to a higher frequency of dog fatalities."

 

What do you base this on? This is nothing more than your opinion. I find it absolutely depressing to think that everyone assumes I am some kind of degenerate because I own one of these dogs. For your information, there are thousands upon thousands of "Pit Bulls" in the hands of very intelligent and respectable people. I, myself, am working on a second college degree, work full-time as a computer and networks installer, I vote, and pay my taxes. I know attorneys, I know of doctors, and various other people in "upper class" positions who are active in this breed. However, I guess we are all "immature and nervous".... That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems people have with the breed. They have learned to associate them with ignorant thugs.

 

Also, how many of you can honestly say that you can pick out a true-to-breed APBT out of a line-up? If you would be bitten by a large, muscular dog with short hair, how many of you would jump to the "Pit Bull" label without actually knowing what breed it truly is?

 

There are many dozens of breeds and their mixes that can be easily confused as being a "Pit Bull". It is extremely possible that the vast majority of the claimed "Pit Bull" attacks weren't Pit Bull attacks at all. They could have been a wide variety of dogs. People are going to call the dog that bit them whatever the media has taught them to associate a muscular, short-haired, aggressive dog as being. This does not mean that the dog was actually of the breed that they claimed.

 

I guarantee you, that the vast majority of the people couldn't pick out an APBT in a line-up. There is a wide misconception regarding the way this breed looks and acts.

 

I have much more to say but I have to get to work.

[ParanoiA]

What do you base this on? This is nothing more than your opinion. I find it absolutely depressing to think that everyone assumes I am some kind of degenerate because I own one of these dogs. For your information' date=' there are thousands upon thousands of "Pit Bulls" in the hands of very intelligent and respectable people. I, myself, am working on a second college degree, work full-time as a computer and networks installer, I vote, and pay my taxes. I know attorneys, I know of doctors, and various other people in "upper class" positions who are active in this breed. However, I guess we are all "immature and nervous".... That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems people have with the breed. They have learned to associate them with ignorant thugs.[/quote']

 

He used the word "tend" - not an absolute statement. You're avoiding reality if you don't realize that your favorite breed of dog is being exploited by thugs.

 

This reminds me of how I used to get all pissy with indignation at the stereotype that us teenage guys with long hair do drugs. Then I found that I couldn't name one person I knew with long hair that didn't do drugs. I had to admit the truth - the generality wasn't that far off. And I don't believe it is with Pit Bulls either.

 

Also, consider that this may serve your interests. After all, the case you're trying to make is that good owners don't produce violent dogs right? So, it stands to reason that our exposure with Pit Bull attacks involve idiotic owners - namely thugs and rednecks. That's our focus. Not responsible dog owners.