Sure, ban 'em. Along with a number of other breeds that are totally useless, or potentially dangerous. Why not? Purebred dogs are a perversion of nature, anyway.
heh. moreover, after countless millenia of domestication, humans aren't even pack animals--they're herd animals (yes, they, i am not human). a herd of independent minds, as chomsky would have it (of the americans, at least).
i vote ban the stupid owners of any dogs!! its not the dogs falught! They dont know better, they just know what the owners teach it..if you dont spend time with ur dog, ya, they get alittle rambunctious! but sheesh!! I have seen ppl slapping their rottys with fly swatters!!! or take away a toy, because their dogs where just playing around
All 26 pages of this thread are based on faulty premise, if they assume pitbulls are dangerous. There are 4.7 million dog bites a year -about 16 die each year. Any dog that's used as a guard dog is obviously at a statistical disadvantage. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html
An animal is not only considered dangerous if it kills you. Animals that regularly wound people are considered dangerous too. Personally I feel that 4.7 million bites a year is a lot.
I would like to see a world where dogs ran the streets and caused nightly news death tolls of dog deaths, taking out the trash would be a life risking event as every man lived in fear from the broods of dogs roaming the streets. No one would be safe.
Sir, you do realize that you proved yourself wrong? First, it isn't just the death the bites too. Second you have to look at %, not absolute numbers. Oh I am sorry, did I confuse you with the absolute numbers thingy?
yeap Pit bull should be banned from the city at least, I know some folks use them to hunt wild pigs here in Pennsylvania and that's ok but to keep them in the city that's not right.
well, if you read the thread, you'll note that a few people have pointed out that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE which suggests that pitbulls are any more "dangerous" than any other dog. i'm sure that zsysysygs guy, who has such a high regard for science and all, will point out that completely worthless study he cited a few pages back. it's completely fucking worthless, see subsequent posts. perhaps a moderator will delete or cesspool this completely worthless less. but i guess it's already in free thoughts, so whatever.
You should stop acting like a smug bastard. I also didn't "prove myself wrong". You also mean "Raw numbers" not "absolute numbers", there's no such thing as an "absolute number" unless you're using a 3rd graders terminology for absolute value. Also if you would have been paying attention, I was proving that ratios wouldn't be relevant since the raw data was so little.
thank you. the data just isn't out there. period. and what "stats" there are, cannot even be trusted for any number of reasons: the individual identifying the dog as a "pitbull" is hardly an authority on dog-breed identification, etc. as zsygysz seems capable solely of argument by ad hom, non sequitur, etc., i shall henceforth ignore.
