"In 2006, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence published a study that focused on Ohio dog owners.23 The results showed that criminals are more likely to own vicious dogs. For the purposes of the study, researchers used agreed definitions of “vicious dogs” found within local ordinances. All ordinances included pit bulls because during this period Ohio state law automatically declared all pit bulls “vicious.”
“Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises … are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence … and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs.”
Pit bulls are at the top of the list at 116… They outnumber fatal dog attacks almost double rottweilers (67). and 14.5 times greater than labrador retrievers (8)…
“Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996…[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.” (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs inv
What a sorry excuse for a canine.I would have just as much pleasure squeezing off a round in a pitbulls head,as I would in a yotes head…and I’ve squeezed off quite a few on the yotes in my day.
thanks for posting Skint-knee,I hate those bastards.
Dogs by nature are not born vicious. Their owners make them that way. The problem with pits are not the dogs themselves but the people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature. When they were first bred for fighting any dog that exhibited any aggression towards humans were culled, immediately. Pit bulls were once called nurse dogs because of their loyalty to their family, especially children. I have never owned a pit, but have known many over the years that were great dogs and I would not hesitate to have my children around them. They also had responsible owners.
The people that own the dogs pictured are the problems! That guy with the gun should do us all a favor and put it to his own head.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
Aren’t some municipalities making it illegal to own these now? I would love to see a ban of this breed nationwide. Absolutely no reason to own such an animal. Their are plenty of other canine breeds to own that don’t chew on babies faces.
Dogs by nature are not born vicious. Their owners make them that way. The problem with pits are not the dogs themselves but the people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature. When they were first bred for fighting any dog that exhibited any aggression towards humans were culled, immediately. Pit bulls were once called nurse dogs because of their loyalty to their family, especially children. I have never owned a pit, but have known many over the years that were great dogs and I would not hesitate to have my children around them. They also had responsible owners.
The people that own the dogs pictured are the problems! That guy with the gun should do us all a favor and put it to his own head.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
You contradicted yourself...
You said:
“Dogs by nature are not born vicious”
“people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature”
So which is it, dogs are not born vicious, or they are bred to accentuate their aggressive nature? If breeding has an effect on their nature, then surely this implies a genetic influence (i.e. “born vicious”…
Side note: All dogs are domesticated breeds. I’ve never seen a pack of wild labrador retrievers.
I don’t believe the whole “It’s the owner that makes the dog vicious” argument. These dogs have been bred over generations to fight, be vicious, etc. It’s the same with labs or retrievers when it comes to jumping off the dock or the willingness to retrieve. They somehow just ‘take to the water’, similar to how a pit ‘takes to fighting’.
If I was going to someone’s house and I knew they had a pit, I wouldn’t let my children inside until I knew the dog was locked in his crate.
It’s not worth it because as we read time and time again in the papers, these dogs have a tendency to attack.
Aren’t some municipalities making it illegal to own these now? I would love to see a ban of this breed nationwide. Absolutely no reason to own such an animal. Their are plenty of other canine breeds to own that don’t chew on babies faces.
“Banana Pants”
Indigo Bay 170
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Ha, they were illegal in Miami where you have to register your dog by law. When I went down to the animal shelter to register, the #1 breed in there waiting to be adopted\euthanized was the pit bull. The problem is that they just register them as "terrier mix" as a loophole.
I think it’s entirely obvious that scumbags are attracted to this breed. The same type of scumbag that would throw their dog on the street to get picked up by the pound.
Now, am I saying that all pit owners are scumbags? No, not at all… But if you are a scumbag, you are probably likely to want a dog that makes you look “tough” like a pit bull…
Again, see the articles above. There is a direct correlation between pit bull owners and crime.
Dog fighting was once legal in the USA. It’s still popular underground. But, why is the pit bull the #1 choice? Why don’t people enter their Labradors into these dog fights? Most labs are twice the size of a pit bull. MONEY is at stake here so, wouldn’t you want the best outcome if you have cash on the line? If you believe anything other than “pitbulls are more vicious than labs in a dog fight” then you are surely an idiot… Thus, BREED MATTERS!!! PERIOD!!!
So yes, any intelligent person could draw the conclusion that:
There is a pit bull owner problem.
There is a breed problem.
Scumbags are attracted to pit bulls because of nature of their breed.
If I was going to someone’s house and I knew they had a pit, I wouldn’t let my children inside until I knew the dog was locked in his crate.
Agree 100%. My kids will not be around a pit bull. I don't want to hear about how it was my kid's fault for getting her face chewed off because the poor pit bull was scared of the bicycle and didn't know any better.
Dogs by nature are not born vicious. Their owners make them that way. The problem with pits are not the dogs themselves but the people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature. When they were first bred for fighting any dog that exhibited any aggression towards humans were culled, immediately. Pit bulls were once called nurse dogs because of their loyalty to their family, especially children. I have never owned a pit, but have known many over the years that were great dogs and I would not hesitate to have my children around them. They also had responsible owners.
The people that own the dogs pictured are the problems! That guy with the gun should do us all a favor and put it to his own head.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
You contradicted yourself...
You said:
“Dogs by nature are not born vicious”
“people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature”
So which is it, dogs are not born vicious, or they are bred to accentuate their aggressive nature? If breeding has an effect on their nature, then surely this implies a genetic influence (i.e. “born vicious”…
Side note: All dogs are domesticated breeds. I’ve never seen a pack of wild labrador retrievers.
No contradiction, you just don’t understand the difference between vicious and aggressive. First off, ones a noun and ones an adjective
Here’s the definitions for ya.
vi?cious #712;viSH#601;s/Submit
adjective
ad
So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t ban the dog because of a bunch of reckless owners. The dog isn’t the problem, it’s the owner and how he handles the dog? Right?
So we shouldn’t ban guns either, since obviously the guns are not the problem. It’s the owners, and the way they handle guns.
Dogs by nature are not born vicious. Their owners make them that way. The problem with pits are not the dogs themselves but the people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature. When they were first bred for fighting any dog that exhibited any aggression towards humans were culled, immediately. Pit bulls were once called nurse dogs because of their loyalty to their family, especially children. I have never owned a pit, but have known many over the years that were great dogs and I would not hesitate to have my children around them. They also had responsible owners.
The people that own the dogs pictured are the problems! That guy with the gun should do us all a favor and put it to his own head.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
You contradicted yourself...
You said:
“Dogs by nature are not born vicious”
“people that have irresponsibly breed the dogs to accentuate their aggressive nature”
So which is it, dogs are not born vicious, or they are bred to accentuate their aggressive nature? If breeding has an effect on their nature, then surely this implies a genetic influence (i.e. “born vicious”…
Side note: All dogs are domesticated breeds. I’ve never seen a pack of wild labrador retrievers.
So what you are saying is that we shouldn’t ban the dog because of a bunch of reckless owners. The dog isn’t the problem, it’s the owner and how he handles the dog? Right?
So we shouldn’t ban guns either, since obviously the guns are not the problem. It’s the owners, and the way they handle guns.
OFM, I completely agree.
“Banana Pants”
Indigo Bay 170
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Careful Geronimo. OFM doesn't contradict himself. How can he be contradicting himself? Guns are dogs are not the same thing...
Let’s review the definitions:
gun
g#601;n/Submit
noun
1.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp
dog
d?g/Submit
noun
1.
a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports.
I think the funniest thing about your contradiction is that, if anything, you are completely backwards. It’s probably WAY easier to make a dog more aggressive than it is to make it more vicious. There is no doubt in my mind that the viciousness of the attacks is a part of genetic inheritance (i.e. born that way). The statistics even back it up. I gave you the number of FATALITIES, not ATTACKS. Number of ATTACKS = aggressive. FATALITIES = vicious.
Yet, you say that they are not born vicious… Funny stuff. I might print this out and put it in my OFM “Silly Wisdom” notebook…
I think the funniest thing about your contradiction is that, if anything, you are completely backwards. It’s probably WAY easier to make a dog more aggressive than it is to make it more vicious. There is no doubt in my mind that the viciousness of the attacks is a part of genetic inheritance (i.e. born that way). The statistics even back it up. I gave you the number of FATALITIES, not ATTACKS. Number of ATTACKS = aggressive. FATALITIES = vicious.
Yet, you say that they are not born vicious… Funny stuff. I might print this out and put it in my OFM “Silly Wisdom” notebook…
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(13)00292-X/abstract These data suggest that although general characteristics of dogs and owners may be a factor at population level, it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about an individual animal’s risk of aggression to people based on characteristics such as breed.
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/mean_dogs.htm Bad dogs are not born, there is no genetic mutation present in certain dog breeds that make them turn against their owner or reach out and bite their latest victim. Bad dogs are created, usually by the people who raise them, less often by unscrupulous breeders who deliberately or unknowingly breed unsound temperaments to another unstable temperament. Every dog is a product of his environment.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so
"In 2006, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence published a study that focused on Ohio dog owners.23 The results showed that criminals are more likely to own vicious dogs. For the purposes of the study, researchers used agreed definitions of “vicious dogs” found within local ordinances. All ordinances included pit bulls because during this period Ohio state law automatically declared all pit bulls “vicious.”
“Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises … are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence … and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs.”
Pit bulls are at the top of the list at 116… They outnumber fatal dog attacks almost double rottweilers (67). and 14.5 times greater than labrador retrievers (8)…
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996…[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during t
When you get a moment, look up “statistical sampling” in your google… I don’t care about knowing finite numbers. I only care about relative values. I will agree that the AKC numbers are probably skewed to breeds like the labrador retriever since people who purchase dogs want to see the “AKC paperwork” and I would think that pit bull owners just want a dog that makes them look tougher next to their $100 .38 revolver… But, to say there is no accurate way is hogwash. Almost everything we know in life about statistics is a sampling of some sort. Dogs aren’t special.
But OFM, don’t be an idiot. You know that labs outnumber pit bulls. You are just trying to hide behind a technicality that we all know doesn’t exist. Just because you can’t find something that proves you are wrong, doesn’t mean you aren’t wrong.
Besides, when are you going to tell me how pit bull owners train their dogs to be more vicious? You told me that they weren’t born that way. Please, I am waiting on that answer… Nothing else you say matters to me…
Besides, when are you going to tell me how pit bull owners train their dogs to be more vicious? You told me that they weren’t born that way. Please, I am waiting on that answer… Nothing else you say matters to me…
Obviously, you didn’t read the articles I cited, all 3 gave examples.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(13)00292-X/abstract These data suggest that although general characteristics of dogs and owners may be a factor at population level, it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about an individual animal’s risk of aggression to people based on characteristics such as breed.
Thanks for giving proof that you were wrong. This clearly says “general characteristics of dogs and owners may be a factor at population level”. That’s EXACTLY the argument. Nobody every said, “ALL PIT BULLS ARE EVIL”. We are pointing out issues at the “population level”. Thanks for clearing that up for YOURSELF!!!
quote:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201206/understanding-aggression-in-dogs
Contrary to popular opinion, pit bulls, German shepherds, and Rottweilers are not inherently aggressive. A dog?s breed has far less to do with aggression than owner-dependent factors such as how a dog is trained.
This goes the OPPOSITE of what you said earlier. Look at your defintions. You clearly said they were BRED to be more aggressive. Do you not understand that breeding a trait is giving them an “inherent” predisposed characteristic? Wow, are you trying to win this argument for me? You are doing a great job contradicting yourself…
quote:
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/mean_dogs.htm
Bad dogs are not born, there is no genetic mutation present in certain dog b
Besides, when are you going to tell me how pit bull owners train their dogs to be more vicious? You told me that they weren’t born that way. Please, I am waiting on that answer… Nothing else you say matters to me…
Obviously, you didn’t read the articles I cited, all 3 gave examples.
“Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so.” Thomas Jefferson
So, why would you post the quotes that contradicted your points? I've never heard of that kind of debate tactic before. You threw yourself on the sword. Why would I read your references when you pulled the important quotes from them? Your expectations are a little silly, don't you think?
