Replies

Yeah a lot of really great communities and governments have banned certain dog breeds. Places like England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Scandinavian nations, Australia, and Ottawa are some of the shining examples of nations and places that have banned certain dog breeds. I won't leave out those well-run liberal sewers in the US either. They include DC, Detroit, Boston, LA, Chicago, Denver, PG County MD, and basically any other place were moron liberal politicians try to divert attention from the fact that their cities are overrun by criminals who sell drugs, murder people, and train dogs to attack. Banning dogs is just a diversion from the real problem. Pit bulls are the most common dog in the country by many estimates. They are also trained as guard and attack dogs more than any other breed. The statistics that reflect pit bull attacks are inaccurate for several reasons many of which are pointed out by the organization that keeps the statistics, the CDC.

1) External factors that are always present in human fatalities caused by attacks that have lead an overwhelming number of the researchers in this field to conclude that no evidence exists that breed is a decisive factor in these attacks. The factors include:

a) Almost all dogs involved in fatal attacks were the direct result of the dogs training. Either they were bred as guard dogs, or these dogs were abused, tortured, and poorly socialized. In many instances the dogs were used as a murder weapon by someone ordering it to attack. There are also instances of people in these horrible ghettos throwing their babies to attack dogs and these instances go down in CDC stats.

b) An overwhelming number of the dogs were kept chained on short chains which has been proven to be a major factor and a common tactic used to make a dog ferocious.

c) Gross negligence is always a factor in the attack. Either dogs escape from their owners because they are not properly housed, or they are present but not properly supervising or adequately controlling the dog.

d) And perhaps most importantly, 90% of all documented fatal attacks are caused by an unneutered male dog. Of the 10% that are not cause by unnetured males. There has never been a documented attack by a neutered male pit bull.

2) The statistics are not adequately put into context. First of all, pit bulls are possible the most common breed in the US. There are millions of them. The statistics never refer to any specific breed when they bring up pit bulls. They refer to pit bull type dogs in which include: American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire Terrier (AMST), Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers, Bull Mastiffs, Canary Island Dogs, Brazilian Mastiffs, Argentine Dogs, and any other type of bulldog or bull dog mix, all put under the generic word pit bull. So You are comparing the statistics of 10+ breeds with an enormous to the statistics of single breeds with much smaller populations. If all these bull dogs are the same group, then why aren't Malamutes and Huskies in the same group. If they were they would both move way up on the list. The stats compare apples to oranges and then change the definition of pit bull somewhere in between defining them and blaming them for other dogs actions and trying to figure out what breeds to ban. So most dogs blamed in pit bull attacks are actually not the breeds that the misinformed and uneducated politicians try to ban. The breeds they try to ban are the APBT and the AmStaff, which are only responsible for all fraction of the attacks labled under the pit bull category.

3) The statistics do not include descriptions of the people who were responsible for the dogs involved in the attacks. The fact is that these an overwhelming majority of these instances occur in run-down ghettos, were crime runs rampant. This doesn't happen in nice neighborhoods very often. It usually happens in public housing were tenants are not even allowed to own dogs, but no one enforces the rules.

So I hope people take those attack percentages with some skepticism because all reasonable people know what can happen with stats. The primary thing people should realize is that it is always the person's fault when a dog attacks. These people choose breeds like pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds disproportionately for obvious reasons. It is because these are strong, athletic, intelligent dogs. One reason I believe pits are extra popular in urban areas is because of their small size that helps people fit them in these small ghetto places.

Most of these people use the tactics I mentioned above of torturing theses dogs in order to make them ferocious, insane attack dogs. They use them for their various criminal enterprises. When their dogs escape and kill someone theses people do not come out and say, yeah he was a trained attack dog. So the liberal media believes these low-life thugs and calls the dog "family pets" and tarnishes the images of all real family pets that happen to be pit bulls, Rotts, GS, Chows or any other dog that really is a socialized family pet. Liberals love anything that diverts attention from the fact that democrats run cities into the ground and make excuses for minorities who turn to crime. The liberal media scapegoats white people, the police, guns, and dogs when the real problem is poor leadership from democrats and a society that is afraid to address the real problems in urban areas.

The media loves to frighten people and judging by the responses on this thread the do a good job. These inflated statistics that say pit bulls cause 5 of these attacks a year are still small despite being exaggerated. That is 5 out of a population of millions of dogs which are disproportionately located in heavily populated urban areas with lots of people. A lot of things kill more than 5 people a years. More than 5 out of a few million people commit murder. I wonder why so many of you have such high faith in NBC from Delaware.

The only problem with Pit bulls is the the fact that a large number of criminals and irresponsible people own them because hip hop thug culture glorifies the fighting aspect of the breed. These people have taken a breed that was once the most respected breed in America and dragged its reputation down into its low level.If pit bulls were no longer available then they would just ruin another breed's reputation.This great breed pays the price along with the many good and responsible people who love the breed. These people do not get good ratings on the news.

All the people who attacked the character of all pit bull owners are ignorant. Pit bulls are very popular in sports like Schutzhund, and are a respected breed among people who are knowledgeable about dogs. They are rated as excellent dogs by the AKC and UKC and by many Veterinary organizations. Most people who own the breed are responsible owners, despite the fact that the bad owners get all the media attention. I have been around a variety of dog breeds and like them all for their various traits. Pit bulls are my favorite. I own an APBT who is very loving, obedient, and well-trained. Many people I know and am involved with through pit bull and dog organizations own APBTs and AmStaffs. These people include Republican politicians, Vietnam War Veterans, Gulf War Veterans, business professionals and various other good people who pay welfare to the ghetto criminals who align themselves with their friends the media to destroy our reputations and those of our dogs. I myself am a former law enforcement officer who worked in one of the worst cities in the country. I still do consulting work for the Federal Government and have a security clearance. I don't appreciate uninformed, ignorant people attacking my chracter or my dog. Pit bulls are not what makes this country dangerous.