Pitbulls are for poor stupid people

• WebFire

  Raw Dawgin' it;1186103 wrote:I just clicked your most recent post at the time - but seriously, lol that you agree with isadore that a domestic dog is dangerous because society makes them out to be and only focus on exceptions to rules.
  
  Here's some reading for you
  http://www.cesarsway.com/dog-behavior/dog-biting/How-You-Can-Prevent-Dog-Bites
  
  This goes for any dog, not just pitbulls

  LOL at me for thinking one breed is more dangerous than others because it leads fatality statistics.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186106 wrote:LOL at me for thinking one breed is more dangerous than others because it leads fatality statistics.

  But comes in sixth in DOCUMENTED bite attacks in Ohio at a whopping 2% (probably lower than 6th, but who is going to report a Dachshund or Chihuahua bite).
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  WebFire;1186106 wrote:LOL at me for thinking one breed is more dangerous than others because it leads fatality statistics.

  LOL If you have a mean Chihuahua that's fine because they have small teeth? So pitbulls and rottweillers should not be allowed in homes, but Chihuahuas should be even though they can be just as vicious?
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186101 wrote:On my phone, so please excuse spelling errors, but here goes.
  
  
  
  If you insist:
  
  This study suggests that no "aggressive" genetic disposition exists.
  http://www.mercer.edu/psychology/faculty_staff/wright_jc/downloadable_articles/Canine%20Aggression%20-%20Dog%20Bites%20to%20People.pdf
  
  A Cornell University study on the genetics of canine species suggests since 1998, there are more human deaths by Rottweiler than by pittbull terrier:
  http://actavet.vfu.cz/pdf/200776030431.pdf
  
  The same study goes on to explain that a rise in attacks from a particular breed is most likely the result of the popularity of the breed, and that if fatalities increase, it is the result of the size and strength of the dog, and not an ingrained aggressive trait.
  
  If you look up a study done by the American Canine Foundation on dog bites in Ohio from 2001 to 2002, you'll read that pitbull bites only acounted for about 2% of all the documented dog bites reported. Conversely, mutt/mixed breeds accounted for 34%, German Shepherds accounted for 7%. Labs accounted for 7%. Rotts accounted for 6%. Boxers accounted for 4%, and Chows 3%. Excluding the mixed breeds, pitbulls were sixth in bite attacks in Ohio during that stretch of time. Fatalities are higher based on their strength, but aggression measured by bite attacks found that those other five were more aggressive than pitbulls. The study was cited in an Ohio court hearing in 2006, per below:
  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf
  
  I can keep going if you'd like.
  

  Thanks. I will look over these tonight. I don't have time at work today.
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186109 wrote:But comes in sixth in DOCUMENTED bite attacks in Ohio at a whopping 2% (probably lower than 6th, but who is going to report a Dachshund or Chihuahua bite).

  I don't really care about that. I'd rather not die when bitten. I think we already discussed all this.
• WebFire

  Raw Dawgin' it;1186110 wrote:LOL If you have a mean Chihuahua that's fine because they have small teeth? So pitbulls and rottweillers should not be allowed in homes, but Chihuahuas should be even though they can be just as vicious?

  So whoever brought up the knife situation. We shouldn't outlaw the big knives? After all, the only reason they kill is because they are bigger than the little knives.
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186101 wrote: Not at all. Most dogs are not trained properly at all. But that's the fault of the owner, not the genetics of the breed or type.

  Point being, dogs shouldn't need formal training to not be dangerous. A good dog can be trained sufficiently by it's owner.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  isadore,jr.;1186115 wrote:So whoever brought up the knife situation. We shouldn't outlaw the big knives? After all, the only reason they kill is because they are bigger than the little knives.

  lol seriously you go back to that? A well trained pit is more dangerous in your mind than a vicious chihuahua? So a bigger dog that doesn't bit is worse than a small dog that does? If a chihuahua attacks a baby are you saying that's fine since it's not a vicious breed? You have a biased against a dog for no reason other than society making them out to be.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186113 wrote:I don't really care about that. I'd rather not die when bitten. I think we already discussed all this.

  
  And that may be, but it doesn't establish aggression to kill more often than other dogs, if it attacks far less often than other dogs.
  
  If you wish not to die, don't be around abused dogs that are large enough to kill a human your size. I have no problem with people who prefer not to be around dogs because of that dog's temperment or because they have a small child. But vilifying an entire breed based on 20-ish fatal attacks a year in the entire country seems ludicrous to me.
  

  WebFire;1186116 wrote:Point being, dogs shouldn't need formal training to not be dangerous. A good dog can be trained sufficiently by it's owner.

  You don't need formal training to keep a dog from being aggressive. Aggression is a learned behavior. Even the most promising studies to find an aggression gene currently find trends that could indicate a predisposition that would still need triggered by environmental forces ... most easily being abuse.
  
  I don't own a full pit, but one of my dogs is a pitbull-Great Dane mix. He's basically a 97-lb. dog with a Dane head and a pitbull body. I also have two other dogs that weigh less than 20 pounds combined. In the four years I've had him, the big one has not once even attacked the smallest (a 5.5-lb Chihuahua mix), let alone the other (a 12-lb. Italian greyhound mix). Nor has he ever even growled at a human being. He is not abused, regularly exercised, and trained by my wife and I (though we did take a training class at the local PetCo, but that was to keep him from chewing and marking).
  
  I've grown up around full pits, and not a single one of the ones in my home was ever aggressive. They were treated the same way.
  
  Now, I do have neighbors with an aggressive one. They leave him/her tied to their garage door for days on end. They constantly scream and hit him. I'm certainly not going to chalk it up to his breed or type.
• WebFire

  Ok so yours aren't. So all pits are good.
  
  /thread
• WebFire

  Raw Dawgin' it;1186119 wrote:lol seriously you go back to that? A well trained pit is more dangerous in your mind than a vicious chihuahua?

  So the pit has to be well trained now?
  

  Raw Dawgin' it;1186119 wrote:So a bigger dog that doesn't bit is worse than a small dog that does? If a chihuahua attacks a baby are you saying that's fine since it's not a vicious breed? You have a biased against a dog for no reason other than society making them out to be.

  Wow dude.
• WebFire

  Are stats biased?
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186140 wrote:Ok so yours aren't. So all pits are good.
  
  /thread

  Depends on what you mean by "good." If we're referring to completely and unequivocally safe, then all pits are not good, all German Shepherds aren't good, all Rottweilers aren't good, all Doberman Pincers aren't good, all Chihuahuas are not good, and no dog is all good.
  
  However, if you mean "good" in the sense that any dog, if treated properly, can be safe, then yes, every dog is good.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186144 wrote:Are stats biased?

  Depends on how they're used, but not completely. If they fit within the bottom level of Bloom's Taxonomy, they aren't biased.
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186161 wrote:Depends on what you mean by "good." If we're referring to completely and unequivocally safe, then all pits are not good, all German Shepherds aren't good, all Rottweilers aren't good, all Doberman Pincers aren't good, all Chihuahuas are not good, and no dog is all good.
  
  However, if you mean "good" in the sense that any dog, if treated properly, can be safe, then yes, every dog is good.

  I don't disagree with any of this.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186171 wrote:I don't disagree with any of this.

  Excellent! Then we have come to an agreement through the order of discourse! I do appreciate your input, and I value what you've had to say in this thread. In a nutshell, all I was saying was what I summed up in that statement.
  
  Hell, I've gotta work on not being so damn wordy.
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186178 wrote:Excellent! Then we have come to an agreement through the order of discourse! I do appreciate your input, and I value what you've had to say in this thread. In a nutshell, all I was saying was what I summed up in that statement.
  
  Hell, I've gotta work on not being so damn wordy.

  I'd still never bring a pit into my house.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186198 wrote:I'd still never bring a pit into my house.

  You are more than within your right to make such a rule in your own house. Nothing wrong with that, at all. Personal fears or reservations sometimes exist ... just because they do. I have my own thing about large aquatic animals, and no amount of valid justification would get me to climb in the water with one. Those dolphin trainers can have all the fun they want. I'm not getting in the damn pool.
  
  So long as one wouldn't refuse my right to have a domesticated dog type in my home, I'm okay with them.
• WebFire

  O-Trap;1186207 wrote:You are more than within your right to make such a rule in your own house. Nothing wrong with that, at all. Personal fears or reservations sometimes exist ... just because they do. I have my own thing about large aquatic animals, and no amount of valid justification would get me to climb in the water with one. Those dolphin trainers can have all the fun they want. I'm not getting in the damn pool.
  
  So long as one wouldn't refuse my right to have a domesticated dog type in my home, I'm okay with them.

  I don't believe that right has ever been refused. That isn't really what the thread was about.
• O-Trap

  

  WebFire;1186211 wrote:I don't believe that right has ever been refused. That isn't really what the thread was about.

  Fair enough.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  I would love to hear that isadore got raped and killed by a pitbull because his poor/jobless ass was living in the streets
• isadore

  O-Trap;1186101 wrote:On my phone, so please excuse spelling errors, but here goes.
  
  
  
  If you insist:
  
  This study suggests that no "aggressive" genetic disposition exists.
  http://www.mercer.edu/psychology/faculty_staff/wright_jc/downloadable_articles/Canine%20Aggression%20-%20Dog%20Bites%20to%20People.pdf
  
  A Cornell University study on the genetics of canine species suggests since 1998, there are more human deaths by Rottweiler than by pittbull terrier:
  http://actavet.vfu.cz/pdf/200776030431.pdf
  
  The same study goes on to explain that a rise in attacks from a particular breed is most likely the result of the popularity of the breed, and that if fatalities increase, it is the result of the size and strength of the dog, and not an ingrained aggressive trait.
  
  If you look up a study done by the American Canine Foundation on dog bites in Ohio from 2001 to 2002, you'll read that pitbull bites only acounted for about 2% of all the documented dog bites reported. Conversely, mutt/mixed breeds accounted for 34%, German Shepherds accounted for 7%. Labs accounted for 7%. Rotts accounted for 6%. Boxers accounted for 4%, and Chows 3%. Excluding the mixed breeds, pitbulls were sixth in bite attacks in Ohio during that stretch of time. Fatalities are higher based on their strength, but aggression measured by bite attacks found that those other five were more aggressive than pitbulls. The study was cited in an Ohio court hearing in 2006, per below:
  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf
  
  I can keep going if you'd like.
  
  
  
  Correct, but each one becomes dangerous if acted upon improperly.
  
  
  
  Not at all. Most dogs are not trained properly at all. But that's the fault of the owner, not the genetics of the breed or type.
  
  
  
  Evolution requires genetic change. Zero genetic change has been documented to suggest an increase in aggression among a particular breed or type. Plus, while they have been bred to be aggressive as of late, it hasn't been NEARLY long enough for any actual genetic evolution to take place, and we still have documented history of a time when pitbulls were bred to never be aggressive to humans.
  
  
  
  Of a very low number, yes, because their attacks carry a higher average mortality rate, but this is skewed by the low number of deaths each year by dog attack. For example, in 2011, only 31 people in the entire US died from canine attacks. Plus, as I mentioned above, they have been seen to attack less often than other breeds, per the American Canine Foundation's study as well as the Cornell University study.
  
  
  
  False. Statistics in that same 2011 report showed that most victims killed were between 32 and 60.
  
  
  
  And the protection of human intelligence should supersede the lunacy of the baseless paranoia you exhibit here and wish to inflict on other communities. Feel free to follow your conspiracy, but for the sake of intelligence, stop spreading the fear mongering so selectively. At least have the intellectual honesty to vilify Shepherds, Labradors, Rottweilers, Boxers, and Chows as well.

  Bite mean nothing, death are definitive and pitt are by far the deadliest. As to your 2011 stat that most of the killed were 32-60. Lets do it right over an extended period of time from 2001 to early 2012. From ages 3 days to 12 years 53 Pit bull killings, from ages 14 to 61 years 28 killing by Pit Bulls and from ages 65 to 90 25 killed by Pit Bulls. They love to kill the very young and the very old.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
• isadore

  DeyDurkie5;1186219 wrote:I would love to hear that isadore got raped and killed by a pitbull because his poor/jobless ass was living in the streets

  reconsider your life, there is still a chance for you to be redeemed.
• mcburg93

  

  isadore;1186248 wrote:reconsider your life, there is still a chance for you to be redeemed.

  gfy hope this helps
• isadore

  mcburg93;1186249 wrote:gfy hope this helps

  there is still a chance for your redemption and a small chance to overcome your addiction to profanity.