If you claim bias then you'd do better to prove the bias, just as I prove yours by posting this, instead of squealing like a dog with its tail stood on. If you bother to check, the facts are reliably sourced, e.g. http://www.injurycontrol.com/Hank/reprints/dogbitejbr71203.pdf
i believe it would be justified in the case of pitbulls. by a pit bull? yes, A dog, one. dogs are pack animals. you ever face two or more watch their tactics. there is only one reason for pit bulls and it isn't "self defense" frankly i consider it a reasonable thing to do.
the bias is in the linkname. dont be stupid. dead link. good try though. you have never known a pit bull in your life, otherwise you would know that the arguments are fallacy.
You are the ignorant idiot. The actual report is the copyright of the American Medical Association. I refered to the facts, which speak for themselves. The link works from here. To find an alternative google for Incidence of Dog Bite Injuries Treated in Emergency Departments.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that pit bulls are responsible for proportionately more attacks on humans than say labradors. (The two times I've been nipped by dogs, it was a labrador and an alsation) However I didnt see anything correcting for the situation the dog was in. Like has been said before, if the dog owner is looking specifically for a dog to be hard, and doesnt actually know much about dogs, they will end up with the kind of confused, badly trained dog that will attack someone. Hence, simply condeming pit bulls as dangerous by themselves ignores the owner factor.
i think that it is right pit bulls are dangerous so many times a year poor cats are killed calously by stupid teenagers who have pitbulls as the defensless creatures are hung over the dogs that are trained to be violent. what you are forgetting is many of these dogs are trained from puppies to adult dogs into being clam creatures and many are brought up in households with children. my next door neighbour has 2 dobermans and a baby the dogs are so sweet and would never harm the child. i think you are confusing with what you see on tv or read in the newspapers i think that pit bulls should still be allowed so long as *because they can be dangerous* the owners are tested so they dont end up in the wrong hands. i also think that the moment a dog shows any signs of violence they should be taken away as many of these children are neighbours of the dog who have been in minor incidents with the dogs before a major one which is taken as notice it should not be allowed to get that far.
I don’t believe that pit bulls should be banned, but I do believe that people should have to possess a special license to own one. Anyone that owned a pit bull without a license should have to pay an expensive fine. Pit bulls can be harmless around people, dogs, and cats if they received the proper training from a young age. I think people should have to go through some kind of mandatory inspection to insure that the dogs will grow up in an environment where they will receive the proper training. These mandatory inspections should also apply to other breed like German Shepard’s, Dobermans, and Rottweilers. Cities and towns should also make laws that would require some dogs to pass an obedience test when they have reached a certain age.
Pit bulls are some of the sweetest, loyalest, and friendliest dogs out there. I've had the pleasure and honor of living with two pits in my lifetime, and they are amazing dogs. My pitbulls never attacked anyone. They never bit anyone. They were perfectly fine around toddlers and little kids. It's the deed, not the breed. The breed isn't inherently bad. Pit bulls are often the victims of abuse and bad training, which is why some of them bite people. The vast majority (the silent majority) of pitbull owners are RESPONSIBLE, and don't let their dogs break rules. It should be the bad owners who should suffer the consequences. Saying that pitbulls should be banned because they are frequently involved in attacks is like saying that black people should be banned from cities because a lot of gang members are black. See how that's a problem? It's a spotlight fallacy. Pitbulls only seem to be involved in more attacks because that's all you hear about on the news. People don't generally make a big deal when any other dog bites someone. It's only the pitbulls that poeple hear about. In my opinion, pitbulls are the most beatiful, friendly, and faithful dogs in existence. They make a great family pet, and banning them is pure ignorance. Anyone who loves pits should watch these videos. And anyone who supports breed-specific legislation should watch these too, because it's the deed, not the breed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0bLrVPSbEg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YugD3TNPcIM And this site: http://www.sorryagain.com/sorry1.htm Click on any of the 800 pages at the bottom to see dogs who are sorry that you didn't get to know them before you judged them.
unless i'm mistaken... pitbulls are trained to fight other DOGS, not actively fight PEOPLE, unless in the case of small children in which case i haven't EVER seen a dog not get uneasy around screaming toddlers. If the fear is of having a pitbull fight other dogs, keep the dog away from other people's dogs, and if your pitbull snarls, give it a swat with a newspaper (not a painful beating, just a swat, but you'd train the dog earlier on to associate a swat by a newspaper with incorrect behavior). It's basic common-sense and training. The owner of ANY dog should have researched it's breed background, even if the dog's a mutt, to understand what dispositions it has and to accomodate them. So, if a dog ends up ripping someone's face off, or attacking another dog, it's the owner's fault, for they allowed it to happen. Sure, the dog in that case would probably be put down on account of the risk of retraining, but that doesn't mean every dog of that breed needs to be put down.
If it is possible to be more accurate than this, or if there is something demonstrably wrong with the victim count, please tell and show: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
Sauna's article reports the solution that would be obvious to anyone not living in a country where the damn government is expected to solve every problem we've ever thought of. Private enterprise to the rescue: It is becoming increasingly difficult for owners of dogs statistically identified as dangerous to get insurance. Many companies simply won't write a homeowner's policy for a customer with a pit bull, presa canario, etc. Others will charge so much that the dog owner is underwriting his own risk. Renters don't get off easy just because they don't pay for insurance. Their landlords do and it's starting to become difficult to find a place to live if you have a notorious dog. It's really sad to see rottweilers on this list. They were originally bred by the Romans to be draft animals in mountain areas where the roads were not good for horses. They were once as placid as draft horses.
Why? So there can be more robberies, rape victims etc ? Why is it good to remove everyones defenses when you know we live in a world where people are more violent than pitbulls?
All of you people who think we should put dogs through all these tests. Can we put humans through an obedience testing process too? Should we have a license to raise children? Should violent people be banned? All the stuff that you apply to dogs can just as easily be applied to people, that includes having dogs put to sleep, and mutilated by removing their tails. Think more about how you treat our dogs.
Indeed, I'd thought that it is generally agreed that humans should not be bought and sold as slaves. To be consistent, ban the ownership of animals.
It is these individuals of the dog breeds in question, the ones who are kept for "defense," that are causing all the problems. These are the pit bulls (and other dogs once used for fighting) who are bred to be throwbacks to their squalid ancestry and who are trained to be violent. Breeding and training a dog for the willingness to attack people, as a means of self defense, is a spectacularly stupid idea.The statistical analysis doesn't cover something that has become obvious to me after living with dogs for many years. Those pit bulls probably made the judgment that those people were the ones who needed to be killed. Our Lhasa Apsos have better sense than we do. They unfailingly identify the plumber who's going to overcharge us for shoddy work or the in-law who should be exiled to Siberia. Then they make nice with perfect strangers who ultimately turn out to be sweet people. When I walk them sometimes they act hostile toward certain people with no apparent reason, but I know they have identified that person as someone they wouldn't want me to invite home. Fortunately most Lhasa Apsos weigh less than twenty pounds and have an underbite that makes them pretty innocuous. And furthermore their instinct is simply to identify the bad people and let us decide what to do about it, not to dispense justice themselves. They are watch dogs, not guard dogs. I'm sure plenty of other dogs have this same instinct. If you get it in a dog that has been specifically bred and trained to kill people, you've got yourself a mighty big problem. Not every bad person is caught trying to crawl through your bedroom window during the night. Lots of them are walking down the street bringing home groceries to their children. DO NOT KEEP A DOG FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HUMAN BEINGS. It is really idiotic idea that is destined to backfire. Neither you nor your dog have the right to kill people even if you're sure they are bad people.
We already do. It's called school. Yes. Lets face it, there are people out there who should never be allowed to even have a pot plant, let alone children. They already are when they become violent. It's called jail. We already do. People who attack, maim, injure or kill others are jailed or sometimes put down depending on the country. Death penalty. Lets also not forget the debate for euthanasia now.. People are known to do just as bad, if not worse to their fellow human beings, even if those humans are their very family members. And think more how our dogs treat us. Every dog, around a child or even another animal, can be considered a dangerous animal. Pit bulls more so. I have a cross between a golden retriever and a poodle (golden doodle lol) and my 1 year old adores him. But when they are together in the yard or anywhere else for that matter, I never for one second take my eyes of them. My dog is still a puppy, well trained and does not have a violent streak in him, but I still do not trust any dog to be around my child, no matter how well trained it might be. I would never buy a pit bull because they have been shown to be more dangerous than other breeds. I'd never buy a doberman or german shepherd either for the same reason.
Do you believe that someone that wants to own a lion or a tiger shouldn’t have to possess some qualifications? (An advanced knowledge about the behavior of the species, proper facilities, Ect) Did you know that a pit bulls jaw has a stronger biting force than wild cats?
