Pitbulls...

[manifold]

Because the age of the young child substantially increases the risk of a dog bite because they don't have a modicum of a clue how to treat a dog. I don't even think a dog has to be vicious in order to defend itself from what it perceives to be an attack.

Driving with a kid in the car doesn't impair my driving. She's strapped in and noise doesn't effect me. I've been driving to loud music all of my life.

Why distinguish between various levels of risk? Really?

You chances of getting hit by a car while playing on your lawn versus playing on a busy street don't warrant a distinction? Really?

Of course distinctions are warranted, the question was facetious. That's the whole point.

Arguing that because driving poses inherent risks somehow supports ANY position one wants to take on the subject of pit bulls, is no argument at all. It's a red herring fallacy.

Except it's not. It's comparing risk of death vs. risk of death. It's completely analogous. Both activities are non essential risk. The comparison is valid.

I'm just glad you understand intuitively what you refuse to acknowledge intellectually, and you know better than to own a pit bull yourself.

 

[manifold]

No dogs at all, for me. I have a 2 year old. I don't recommend any dogs for young children. I think I said that like my 3 or so post in this thread.

Why do you take even riskier chances by putting her in a car?...



peace...

Because riskier does not equal risky, genius.

Also your premise is faulty, I believe its safer to drive than to leave a 2 year old with ANY dog.

Based on what, exactly?

Weren't you jumping up and down on your soap box talking about numbers a while back?

So where are the numbers that support your conclusion that cars are safer than dogs?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I used to be completely opposed to BSL and banning of pit bulls. And, I blame humans for every single attack by a pit bull because its human's over breeding and inbreeding that has created a completely different dog than the pit bull of the 19th century.

Esmeralda makes some very good points as does GT. Its true that its a minority of pits who attack, kill, maim.

But, google "pit bull attacks" and then "images". Imagine those people are your child or other family member.

Is this dog breed really more important, worth more, more valuable than the safety of human beings?

 

[manifold]

I'd own a pit bull if the stats are as we've found on those non-substantiated sources, and my daughter was 10.

Yeah, her being 10 would certainly mitigate the risk of a pit bull attack.

And I haven't refused anything intellectually - you have. My foundation is one of numbers, yours is one of emotive responses to horrific attacks.

So where are those numbers about driving being safer for 2 year olds than dogs?

 

[mal]

No dogs at all, for me. I have a 2 year old. I don't recommend any dogs for young children. I think I said that like my 3 or so post in this thread.

Why do you take even riskier chances by putting her in a car?...



peace...

Because riskier does not equal risky, genius.

Also your premise is faulty, I believe its safer to drive than to leave a 2 year old with ANY dog.

Statistics don't agree with you... 2 year olds are left with dogs ALL the time in America... For hours on end in Homes from Coast to Coast.

I would Suggest that the Comparibly more Limited time they spend in a Car is more Dangerous to them than being at Home with the Family Dog.

The Point is you pretty much need to Commute to Survive and in that you Weight the Risks towards Survival in the Modern Age.

I don't own a Dog because I Disagree with keeping Animals in general and I don't like picking up dog shit, buying dog food or having Vet Bills.

That and (3) People I know Personally have been Disfugured by Dogs.

(1) would've been all it took.

Ask Strollingbones, she's seen one of my Family Members who was Attacked by the "Family" Dog... It's always, "they never acted Aggressively before".

And I am Damned Certain that Attacks by Dogs are Overwhelmingly Unreported to the Authorities.

After Witnessing Friends of ours Decide to keep their Dog that Attacked their Baby, I am Certain that MANY Dog Owners/Lovers will do some REALLY Stupid shit not to Lose their Animal Slave.



peace...

 

[manifold]

I said cars were safer than leaving a 2 year old with a dog. Some things you can surmise with common sense, but I guess not huh?

So it's all about the numbers out one side of your mouth and all about common sense out the other side.

I see how you roll.

 

[manifold]

I said cars were safer than leaving a 2 year old with a dog. Some things you can surmise with common sense, but I guess not huh?

So it's all about the numbers out one side of your mouth and all about common sense out the other side.

I see how you roll.

Umm, no.

It's about evaluating data. Nice try to obfuscate to get some sort of faux moral victory dude, but it's retarded.

So where is the data that 2yr olds are safer in cars than in the company of dogs?

 

[manifold]

Here's a stat for you G.T.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age from 2 to 14 years old

Go ahead and tell me again how 'common sense' allows you to dismiss it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I used to be completely opposed to BSL and banning of pit bulls. And, I blame humans for every single attack by a pit bull because its human's over breeding and inbreeding that has created a completely different dog than the pit bull of the 19th century.

Esmeralda makes some very good points as does GT. Its true that its a minority of pits who attack, kill, maim.

But, google "pit bull attacks" and then "images". Imagine those people are your child or other family member.

Is this dog breed really more important, worth more, more valuable than the safety of human beings?

A converse question, is: is a situation where you would be completely unharmed 99.992% of the time considered an "unsafe" situation?

And aside from that, we don't even know what percentage of that 0.008% of pit who kill were raised by seething, abusive retards. Your risk might even be far less.

You're right. If we could ban the damn owners, I'd be in favor of banning the idiots who have used and abused these dogs and then bred more. And I appreciate the points you've made about degree of risk.

But still -

What would be lost if pits were - POOF! - gone?

It won't happen though. Nor will we ever really punish dog fighters and others who are responsible for the dogs who attack.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are willing to gamble with human life, and ready to accept there will be casualities. I am not. We are talking about 151 completely unnecessary deaths, generally of the most vulnerable in our society, children and the elderly. There is no need for people to own pitbulls. There are probably nearly a hundred other breeds to choose a pet dog from. If pitbulls never existed, no one would miss them. If they disappeared, they would be soon forgotten. They are a toxic element in civilized society. The statistics I gave are of deaths only; they do not include all the maiming these dogs do. They also do not include all the other pet dogs and cats that pitbulls kill, which is substantial.

You want to gamble based on percentages and accept a kill and maim rate: I don't.

Everyone is gambling with human life - if you DRIVE, you included. Driving isn't the only example, either. Should planes NOT fly? It's gambling with human life.

Risks are worth it sometimes.

Again, your logic is failing. We need cars, we need airplanes. We do not need pitbulls. They add nothing to society. They are nothing but a problem, a pest, a deadly pest. It makes more sense to compare them to sharks or alligators, but sharks and alligators are part of the web of life. Pitbulls are not comparable to cars or airplanes. They are not comparable to sharks or alligators because they have nothing to do with sustaining the web of life. There are completely unnecessary and disposable.

99.992% of pit bulls never attacked anyone, and yet you call them disposable? Such logic is laughable.

Pit bulls work as therapy dogs in hospitals and nursing homes. They work as rescue dogs and assist the handicapped. But they are disposable?

The overwhelming majority of pit bull terriers are beloved family pets. You cannot quantify what they bring to the hundreds of thousands of families. Yet because of the actions of 0.008% of them, and without knowing the full circumstances of how they were treated, you call them disposable?

And if you had taken the time to look at all the info, instead of cherrypicking facts that support your own hysteria, you would have seen that the numbers you quoted are not even close to accurate.

from: Pit Bulls by the Numbers : StubbyDog
"Sites like Dogsbite.org like to claim that pit bulls only make up 5 percent of the total dog population in the United States and are therefore “attacking” at a much higher rate than other dogs, but the truth is that there are no accurate statistics kept on the total number of dogs in this country, let alone dogs by type. The CDC clearly states this on its website: “There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” And while it’s anyone’s guess exactly how many pit bull type dogs there are in this country, it’s clear from looking around most cities, neighborhoods and shelters that dogs labeled as pit bulls are far more common than 5 percent."

The link I posted earlier offered quite a few pictures of various dogs, with the challenge to find the pit bull. Did you find it? I would be willing to bet that most people would have called every dog pictured a pit bull. The misidentification involved is huge and renders your claims ridiculous. When the CDC does not trust the numbers put out there, I certainly don't think we should consider any breed of dog as disposable.

 

[manifold]

There isn't - that was my point: with NO DATA...

No data on moving vehicle fatalities?

Are you serious?