Experiment: Pit Bull Interaction & Attack Poll

[lukey]

I've only interacted with 2 pitbulls. First one was fun, just sat around like a normal dog. The other continually starred and looked pretty evil, it would then put its head on your lap and just look up in your eyes. I was worried as it would do something but it didn't.

[iNow]

I've only interacted with 2 pitbulls. First one was fun, just sat around like a normal dog. The other continually starred and looked pretty evil, it would then put its head on your lap and just look up in your eyes. I was worried as it would do something but it didn't.

 

So, basically, it did nothing but inspire an insecurity within you?

 

Thanks for sharing your story. I'm glad to hear of yet another person who's interacted with the dogs without any issue whatsoever.

[lukey]

Yeh basically I would say that it was just my fear, and the dog really produced no threat.

[dichotomy]

So what do the pro-pitbull people think is an acceptable risk in keeping these animals in city areas?

 

1 death per 100 people? 1 death per 1000? 1 death per 1000000?

 

Just interested in what is deemed an acceptable human mortality rate by the pro pitbull people?

 

iNow

 

Why do you have to take it personally? My post was not aimed at you.

 

Watch out! He might sic his dog onto you!

[ParanoiA]

1 death per 100 anti-pitbull people

[iNow]

So what do the pro-pitbull people think is an acceptable risk in keeping these animals in city areas?

 

I'm not so much pro-pitbull as I am anti-really-stupid-ineffective bans.

[Mr Skeptic]

So what do the pro-pitbull people think is an acceptable risk in keeping these animals in city areas?

 

1 death per 100 people? 1 death per 1000? 1 death per 1000000?

 

Just interested in what is deemed an acceptable human mortality rate by the pro pitbull people?

 

I might consider anything less dangerous than peanuts an acceptable risk, so long as it has significant benefits. If it had few benefits, it would have to be a lot less dangerous than peanuts for it to have an acceptable risk. It seems pit bulls cause less than 0.00000002 deaths per capita per year (I'd do deaths per capita per year per pit bull if I knew how many pit bulls there were). If you consider that a pit bull may save a person's life in its duty as a guard dog, overall perhaps pit bulls save lives. So I'd want people who want to ban pit bulls to show that pit bulls kill more than they save lives if they want to ban them.

 

Also, I'm not a pro-pit bull person, don't have a pit bull or any dog, but I can't stand the stupidity and restrictiveness and paranoia showed by this kind of legislature.

 

Do pit bulls kill more people than they save in their duty as guard dogs?

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

That is the wrong question.

 

You would have to say, do pitbulls save more lives than the alternative (other breeds of dogs as guard dogs), and is that excess, if it exists (unlikely), greater than the number of people they kill?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yet still a valid question. Are pit bulls, overall, bad? How they compare to other breeds is also a valid question, but I don't think it is the most important.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

That question is also a wrong one. ie. Are pit bulls bad overall?

 

Most pit bulls are not bad, and will never attack a human. However, that does not matter. We know that a small minority will attack people and will kill them, and do. Pit bulls are the type of dog that kills more people than any other.

 

To me, the alternative does matter. If a person wants a dog, and can buy either a pit bull or another breed, they are far more likely to end up with a human death on their hands if they buy the pit bull.

[iNow]

To me, the alternative does matter. If a person wants a dog, and can buy either a pit bull or another breed, they are far more likely to end up with a human death on their hands if they buy the pit bull.

 

Is that "far more" on the metric system, or IU?

 

How about you quantize how much "more likely" a person is to wind up with a death on their hands if they buy the pit bull, eh? Are we talking 90% more likely, or 0.00002% more likely?

 

If the latter, I can hardly agree with your use of the term "far more likely," but I'll keep an open mind while I wait for you to show some actual numbers. Fair?

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

You have seen the official statistics many times already, so you can stop rolling your eyes.

[iNow]

iNow

 

You have seen the official statistics many times already, so you can stop rolling your eyes.

 

So, you can't support your claim about how much more likely some is to "experience a death" if they buy a pitbull as opposed to a dog of another breed? It's fine if you cannot. I'm just asking.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I could calculate it with a little more data. The USA stats show that pit bulls account for a third of all human fatalities from dog attack. Add in Rottweilers and you have half of all such deaths from those two types. All other breeds of dogs (and there are hundreds) added together account for only half of human deaths from dog attack.

 

This is sufficient to conclude that buying a pit bull rather than another breed increases your chances of being the owner of a dog that kills someone.

[iNow]

I could calculate it with a little more data.

Then, how about you try that before you continue making all of these conclusions?

 

This is sufficient to conclude that buying a pit bull rather than another breed increases your chances of being the owner of a dog that kills someone.

 

No, it's not. Let's see some numbers.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

You are calling for more numbers, but you are ignoring the ones we already have. More than one third of all dog attack-human deaths in the United States are from attacks by pit bulls.

 

This figure alone is enough to say that pit bull owners are more likely to have dogs that kill people than owners of other types of dogs.

 

The only number I am missing to make this conclusion absolute proof is the percentage of dogs in the United States that are pit bulls. For my conclusion to be wrong, pit bulls must be more than a third of all dogs in the United States. While I cannot 'prove' this to be wrong, I have been to the US, and I have seen heaps of dogs - and very few pit bulls. It seems probable that pit bulls are a lot less than one third.

 

Does anyone else have the required figure?

[iNow]

Okay... I give up. You really just don't get it.

[ParanoiA]

This figure alone is enough to say that pit bull owners are more likely to have dogs that kill people than owners of other types of dogs.

 

No, the figure "alone" does not do that. What if every dog owner owned a pit bull, and only one guy owned a poodle? Those numbers would be misleading in that case wouldn't they?

[PhDP]

...one of the problem with pit bulls is their tendency to attack without provocation.

 

Anyway, some nations have banned pit bulls, so my question is, does it work ? Is there less people dying in France because of the ban ? Less children injured ? Is there a viable alternative to a total ban ?

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA

 

Your post just repeats what I said about lacking the one piece of data I need for absolute proof. However, I seriously doubt that over one third of all dogs in the US are pit bulls. And if they are less than a third, then pit bulls kill more people per thousand dogs than other breeds. Come on guys! Do you really think there are that many pit bulls? I doubt it!

[John Cuthber]

"No, the figure "alone" does not do that. What if every dog owner owned a pit bull, and only one guy owned a poodle? Those numbers would be misleading in that case wouldn't they?"

What if all the numbers were made up?

What if this thread is being written by pit bulls?

Seriously, as has been pointed out, unless about a third of dogs in the US are pitbulls then pitbulls are statistcally more dangerous than other dogs.

Stop pretending that, because we don't have data on evry dog in the US we can't make that observation.

 

This brings us back to my earlier point; what's so great about these dogs that justifies keeping them even though they aer notably more dangerous than other breeds?

[iNow]

what's so great about these dogs that justifies keeping them even though they aer notably more dangerous than other breeds?

 

Quite simply: Our freedom to have them, and not be forced to challenge a stupid ban which would be ineffective and unenforced anyway.

 

You want to remove one of my freedoms? You want to prevent me from caring for a canine of the type I wish by legislating an outright ban? You'd damned well better make a better case than "they killed 66 people in 20 years."

[John Cuthber]

I gather that in the states you have the freedom to own guns but not nuclear weapons. The people, through their representatives in government have made that choice.

In principle there is no difference between banning nukes and legislating to ban a breed of dog.

(of course, there are practical differences)

People have, in a democracy, the freedoms they choose to let their neighbours have

The fact that many people chose to break the law is their fault, not mine.

Now would you please answer the question, what's so much better about a pitbull compared to, for example, a retriever that explains why I should have to worry about my children getting attacked?

If you want a dog, get a dog, but, unless you are deliberately antisocial, why would you want to get one that presents an unncessary risk to other people?

"freedom" doesn't cut it; we already restrict individual freedom for the sake of the majority's freedom in many things. Why is this one different?

[SkepticLance]

To John Cuthber

 

Nice post. You made the point very well.

 

I agree totally. Freedom is a good thing but is ALWAYS restricted. I am not permitted to drive a car while drunk, and that is a right and proper rule. Why should I have a freedom that can hurt or kill other humans?

 

In the same way, it is exactly the same principle putting a restriction on which types of dog I might own, depending on how likely they are to hurt or kill other humans.

[ParanoiA]

If you want a dog, get a dog, but, unless you are deliberately antisocial, why would you want to get one that presents an unncessary risk to other people?

"freedom" doesn't cut it; we already restrict individual freedom for the sake of the majority's freedom in many things. Why is this one different?

 

I appreciate your argument, but the onus is on those who want to restrict freedoms to prove why they should be able to, not on everyone else to prove why they shouldn't. I could walk in your house and keep you busy for hours scrambling to justify why you should be allowed to have frying pans, cooking oil, fire, aspirin, gas...etc. All of which cause more deaths PER YEAR than Pit Bulls.

 

Our justice system is nice compliment to this as well, you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accusee to prove they are innocent.