Yet another Baby Mauled to Death by PIT BULL - Should they be Banned?

page: 26
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


This is just more media sensationalism at it's finest. The parents are deadbeats. I'm sorry but any breed of dog could have damaged an infant. The newborns are the most delicate form of life and it is up to parents to proect them.

Why would anybody allow a dog to be in close proximity to an infant without intense supervision? Blame the pitbull...hell no...It's time dad got neutered.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
No they don't, but you've greatly misunderstood them.


Just because the truth irritates you, does not make it any less true.
~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


Are you kidding me? My Brother has a pit bull that wouldn't hurt a fly. My Mom and a good friend of mine both have chihuahuas that I and countless other people have been bitten by. Don't get caught up in the MSM hype. Especially that COW Nancy Grace. The only safety on her mind is that her ratings stay high keeping her job safe. Unfortunately there are terrible pet owners out there that should not own pets. Pit bulls are some of if not THE most loyal dogs out there. It's all about how the animals are raised. Statistically doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners since there are about 120,000 accidental deaths caused by physicians per year. Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services. So maybe we should ban doctors as well.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by andersensrm
No they don't, but you've greatly misunderstood them.


Just because the truth irritates you, does not make it any less true.
~SheopleNation

Its not about irritation. Its already been explained, that when people want dogs as a weapon or for fighting, they choose pit bull. If it was any other dog, then that dog would be responsible for 90% of attacks. You take pit bulls out of the equation, then the 2nd dog, becomes the most fatal dog, and so on. It does nothing to solve the problem.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Care to back up your claim with statistics, or are you just going to say "I'm right, you're wrong" with no proof?
2nd.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Maybe the numbers don't lie, but you'll have to furnish the data to back up your claim.


Why certainly......

Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.

The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).

www.dogsbite.org...

Wrap your brain around that statistic.


How many of those were pure breeds, how many were crosses, how many were misidentified?


Don't know, and don't care. They should be outlawed. They are mentally deranged violent killers. ~SheopleNation

edit on 19-2-2012 by SheopleNation because: Inserted link



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


All you are doing is twisting and mending the statistic to your agenda. You don't actually explain it, or admit that it could be misleading. Take another stat class.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


LOL! It's all there in the link for you to read. I am not gonna explain it to you. If you have a hard time with reading comprehension, that's not really my problem bud. ~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snalesnot

Originally posted by AliWV
Seems to me that the anti-pit people here are speaking out of pure ignorance. If you've never had or known a pitbull yourself, then you really don't know anything about them except what you've seen on TV. I've had two, so speaking from experiencee, they're the best dogs I've ever had.
What amazes me is that pretty much every ATS member knows you can't take the MSM at face value, yet so many are willing to do just that if it's a story about a vicious pit. C'mon, people.
AliWV


all i know is i never heard of a golden retriever or a poodle killing someone.


Poodle
Poodle #2

Golden Retriever

Sorry if these stories have already been posted. Just because the media doesn't sensationalize these stories doesn't mean they don't happen.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Believer101
 


Yeah, I just did. These dogs are usually behind most maulings. ~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by Believer101
 


Yeah, I just did. These dogs are usually behind most maulings. ~SheopleNation



As someone else asked, how many were misidentified? How many were actually pure breeds?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by aorAki
Maybe the numbers don't lie, but you'll have to furnish the data to back up your claim.


Why certainly......

Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.


Tell me, what is a "pit bull type dog"?
Is it a Pitbull or is it like a Pitbull? So immediately we have the possibility of misidentification.






How many of those were pure breeds, how many were crosses, how many were misidentified?



Originally posted by SheopleNationDon't know, and don't care. They should be outlawed. They are mentally deranged violent killers. ~SheopleNation



Don't know, and don't care? Oh, so what's the 'motto' of this site? Oh that's right: Deny Ignorance.

They have the potential to be mentally-deranged violent killers, yes that's true. However, so do other breeds of dogs and it is due to their treatment - or lack of- that decides this. It's not as simple as saying "Pitbulls were bred to kill so all Pitbulls must die."
All the Pitbulls I have had come into contact with have been absolutely lovely. The worst dog I ever met was an ankle-biting Dachshund that drew much blood with its sharp teeth...now imagine that around a baby.

I'm for owner registration (such as in owning firearms) as it ALWAYS comes down to how the animal has been treated or mistreated. ALWAYS. Whether that is by people, or other animals, it makes no difference. The case for nurture is indeed strong, as has been shown by my fellow Pitbull-owning posters.

None of us have condoned the violence. What does upset us is the ignorance and fearmongering.
edit on 19-2-2012 by aorAki because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2012 by aorAki because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2012 by aorAki because: decideds|? lol wth!



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


No, I don't think we should ban them, babies are cute and soft and smell nice (mostly).



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by andersensrm
 


LOL! It's all there in the link for you to read. I am not gonna explain it to you. If you have a hard time with reading comprehension, that's not really my problem bud. ~SheopleNation



Obviously you are having a hard time understanding, and obviously you have never had a statistics course before. You should take one you'd learn a lot. Im not saying the stat that 90% of the fatal dog bites are from pit bulls. What you seem to be missing, is the fact that 99% of the owners of the dogs that bit, didn't properly train there dog. They neglected them. The only reason they wanted the dog, was either for protection, or for gambling dog fights. When you say they're monsters and they should all be killed, you are failing to realize the reason they have become monsters. They don't just come out that way, they are unintentionally trained to be that way, either by being left on a chain for 20 hours a day, or put in a cage, only to come out to fight another dog. We wipe out all the pit bulls, then those same people will move to the next dog down the line, all the way down. Now if you have a hard time comprehending what I am saying, you need to go back to school.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
BSL has many failures. It's proposed ideal is one is reflected here with, people seeing it as a best option. Though, there are a lot of educated and informed responses.

A lot of times people buy and less so adopt-as the dogs are screened as well as the owner prior to adoption-without fully knowing what a breed requires. Not all dogs are the same. Not all are great with kids.

The real issue is that aggressive Bull breeds; APBTs, Staffies, etc, are badly bred from backyard breeding and puppy mills, where their stock come from fighting dogs. Fighting dogs, are dog aggressive. Not even to delve into parents should never leave their child alone with a pet. Illegal ownership and fighting rings in BSL areas, just as with guns in banned areas, will still prevail.

The APBT was once America's beloved breed-One article...-, now they fall in with the trendy response of BSL, that happened to so many breeds before, the GSD, the Rottweiler.

If you're not a fan of Pitt Bulls, I implore you to research BSL and history of the breed, before coming to such a conclusion. If you still feel they should be banned, think of the consequences not only for the owners and the dogs but the community as a whole; what should be done with these dogs locally in the area of banning? Do you believe shelters can handle such an amount for euthanasia? Can rescues afford to take in so many? Who says dog a) that is mostly lab but "may" have a bully breed mixed in, is a Pitt Bull or not? Who will pay for the DNA tests?

If you are an owner, please make sure you know the dogs background, don't buy from BYBs. If a rescue than you probably already know the precautions.

Here are some examples of the failures of BSL:
Since the Denver Ban for example:

Fatal attack by a chow mix

Pit bull population is not believed to have decreased in Denver

Thousands of “pit bull”-looking dogs have been killed by animal control for no reason other than appearance.


Bites by other types of dogs now exceed the number of bites by pit bull types

Source




Surely someone has had success with BSL?

The effects of BSL on public safety are seriously understudied, especially by the scientific community.

The few scientific studies that exist have indicated that BSL has little to no effect on public safety. In some cases, as in the U.K., dog bites appear to be a growing problem in spite of BSL.

Source



In conclusion,
BSL not only limits one breed, but can limit a whole category of breeds. As reflected by the source above BLS is not the answer here. It is education in responsible ownership.

About BSL
edit on 19-2-2012 by dreamingawake because: article



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
Sorry if these stories have already been posted. Just because the media doesn't sensationalize these stories doesn't mean they don't happen.


Of course not, Because they rarely happen. ~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 

This particular breed does appear to be highly unpredictable,which must be due to the way in which they are bred and "trained" you just have to look around you at the types who own these dogs to see that they maybe aren't trained to the highest responsible standards possible,I don't know about banning the entire breed though,but certainly only highly responsible and experienced owners should be allowed to have them.and they would need to prove conclusively that they will not breed them ,indeed they should only be given ownership on the understanding that the dog is spayed/neutered and that they will not be trained/used for any guard or attack roles whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
As someone else asked, how many were misidentified? How many were actually pure breeds?


I don't know, sounds like you got some research to do. ~SheopleNation



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


it just so happens more deadbeats own pits then any other people
so their is a relation here ..

Deadbeats + Pits = victims of dog bites and attacks



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


What a load of garbage. You know damn well what dog we are talking about. Swim all you like, The dogs are dangerous. ~SheopleNation





top topics
 
11
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join