File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ITT bully breeds
>> Anonymous
gas 'em all
>> Anonymous
>>105937
gas yourself
>> Anonymous
>>105938
no, 'cause, see, what we need *more* of is people who *don't* feel to need to own far-more-than-typically potentially agressive animals as "pets" in compensation for penile girth or what-have-you.

not *less*.

diaf, nigger/dogfighter/white trash pit-tard.
>> Anonymous
>>105941
Well, I dunno where you live, but whre I'm from these dogs are breeded with great care, and most likely if this kind of dog is aggressive is because their owner didn't know what the fuck he was doing. I agree, that these dogs are potentially dangerous, since some stupid people who just want to show of will buy one, but the proble is STILL the owner, not the dog. They do need alot of socializing etc, but they are not killers by nature. At least not anymore.
>> Anonymous
>>105951
also, sorry for bad english
>> Anonymous
"It is at this point that everyone starts yelling at each other and pointing fingers. My pit bull, someone says, plays with my children every day. He's the cutest, most affectionate pet we've ever had. Pits are no more aggressive or dangerous than beagles.

That's not true.

According to a study by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, covering the years between 1979 and 1994, pit bulls were involved in 57 fatal attacks -- well over twice the number for the next breed on the list, rottweilers, with 19, and more than German shepherds (17), huskies (12) and malamutes (12) combined. A 2000 study by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that pit bulls "were involved in 65 fatal attacks between 1979 and 1998 ... twice that of rottweilers and more than three times German shepherds.''

Even more damning are the statistics kept by Clifton, a dog activist who has been keeping meticulous records since 1982 of dog attacks severe enough to have been reported in the media. It should be noted that Clifton excludes attacks by guard dogs, police dogs and trained fighting dogs and does not chart cases where the breed is uncertain.

The numbers are stunning. As of last week, meaning Mabel Wong's mauling would be included, pit bulls were cited in 831 attacks. The next closest was the rottweiler with 373. No other breed made it out of double digits."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/06/BAG0C7H3811.DTL
>> Anonymous
Statistics don't tell what kind of people the owners were, do they? I've had two Rotties and I've known many. They would have never harmed a soul. I agreed that these breeds are potentially dangerous in the hand on idiots and they are potentially more aggressive by nature than for example collies, but THEY WILL NOT attack on people without being treated in a wrong way.

Many of the breeds that used to be really bad natured have been breeded so that their nature has softened since there is no longer use for figthing dogs. Though I don't know how things are in USA and Britain for example, but where I live there is no problem with that kind of things anymore.
>> Anonymous
>>105955

This is a very poor application of statistics, and it confuses casuality with correlation.

The numbers you quote only tell you that if someone WAS attacked by a dog, then that dog is likely to be a pit bull. It does NOT say that pit bulls are more likely to be agressive compared to other dogs becasue it is missing a lot of critical data, such as how many (total) of each breed is out in the public, and also what the owners are. Here are two examples of how you cannot draw the conclusion that pit bulls are agressive from that data:

A) If pit bulls are more common than various other breeds, then you will see more pit bull attacks becasue the dogs themselves are common.

B) The owner factor: Pit bulls may be popular among people who WANT agressive dogs, or among "bad owners" who don't train them. The high incidence of pit bull attacks may be because of the owner, not the dog.

In fact these two combine quite well: If pit bulls are popular amongst bad owners, then that's certainly a recipe for high numbers of attacks.

On the other hand, if you had statistics that said, out of X total pit bulls, Y of them were agressive, and you had similar data for other breeds, then that would be much more meaningful.
>> Anonymous
It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy, pitts are known as vicious dogs. People who want vicious dogs get them. They, in turn, train/mistreat them and make them vicious.

Is there some underlying viciousness in a pitt that's not in other breeds? Maybe. Is that what accounts for the large statistical divide in attacks? I doubt it.

It's like people who say black people are prone to crime because a higher percentage of black people go to jail than white people. This discounts quite large factors such as income level, home conditions, variety of crimes, the fact that police officers may look for a black criminal before a white criminal, etc.
>> Anonymous
Poodles bit people more often than pit bulls do, it's just that poodles can't apply 1200 psi with their jaw!
>> Anonymous
>>105963

Excellent post.
>> Anonymous
>>105963
>>105963
>>105963
But its the blacks who get these dogs and have them fight
>> Anonymous
>>106057
baaaawwwwwwwww
>> Anonymous
>>106057
Aaand then we could have a whole discussion about social conditioning and such, but this isn't the board for that.
>> Anonymous
>>105972

Idiot get your statistics right. Hyena's bite a 1200+ psi not pit bulls. The strongest bite from a dog is from rotties and they measure in at about 385 psi.

>>105955
You fail by not taking the dogs population in that area into consideration.

>>105960
You pretty much got it right. ^^ ~<3
>> Anonymous
My dad and I once talked about dogs and came to form up a following analogy: Dogs are like guns. Some are of bigger caliber than others, but if you take good care of it, are responsible, use common sense and keep some rules and safety issues in mind, you're fine. It's just that some breed have a loose safety and can "go off" more easily and sometimes unpredictably. With these you keep yourself even sharper and safety and responsibility is an even bigger issue. ...And toy dogs are cap guns; they *might* take an eye out. :D
>> Anonymous
>>106188
Well put, anon.
>> Anonymous
>>106206
Thanks. Feel free to quote me if you wish. "Thus spoke Anon," etc... :D
>> Anonymous
>>105963

Pits seem to be mistreated more than other breeds. Stubborn as hell, so I guess I could see frustration, but I think it's mostly just stupid people buying puppies.

Only people I know that have them currently are women. "Rescue" type situations.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The sweetest dog ever! He's a bull mastiff
>> Anonymous
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/fatalattackstatistics.asp
>> Anonymous
>>106640
this is a pit apologist's personal page. this is not a professional source, and therefore her statistics may be skewed. also:

"Media sources will NOT be used to define canine behaviors as they are proven to be an unreliable source for obtaining information relative to the events and circumstances surrounding a case of fatal canine aggression.
Information from professional sources (Animal Control, Law Enforcement, Cornoners/Medical Examiners, Veterinarians, and Health Department Officials) will be gathered and analyzed in cases of fatal dog attacks."

so, if it is a severe/brutal/unusual enough case to make the news, she won't count it? also, she seems to only account for fatalities, and not maulings.
>> Anonymous
>>106640
protip: try some real, professional-grade research. is tasty.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

"During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths."