Woman mauled to death by pit bulls in New Mexico

Al-Reuters ^ | 25 APR 11 | (Reporting by Zelie Polon; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Jerry Norton)

[AppyPappy]

“I’m asking for scientific evidence. “

Ask any gangsta. That’s why they have them.

[Mr. Silverback]

Agree.

Loose dogs should get one or two chances max, then get shot. I remember a case where a kid got killed by a rottweiler that the owner allowed to roam the neighborhood during the day...law enforcement, animal control, the neighbors, nobody took care of it, and then the kid was mauled to death because he took the time to boost his little brother out of reach of the dog. One good animal control officer, one good cop or one bullet fired by a concerned citizen and that kid would have lived. of course, if the idiot owner had bought a dang lock for her gate the kid would have lived, too.

[Mr. Silverback]

Can you cite any scientific evidence that this breed is more dangerous than other breeds? See the math in post 37 before you respond. I haven’t cheked merc’s data fully yet, but I doubt it’s far off.

[Mr. Silverback]

Do you have any scientific evidence that this breed is more dangerous than others?

Google images is not a scientific source, BTW.

[Mr. Silverback]

Most “pit bull” attacks aren’t even carried out by pit bulls. People/police just use that as a catch-all phrase for a large dog.

I heard the director of a pit rescue group on NPR talk about this issue. She said that the media in Chicago reflexively identified any dog that had attacked people as a pit bull. In some cases they were relying on eyewitnesses because the dog was gone, in others the reporters saw the dog but failed to identify the breed.

She said one time she responded to a report of a pit bull attack by going to the pound to get the dog. When she asked the officers about the dog that had been involved in an attack the day before, they looked at her like she was nuts, then showed her the culprit: a Golden Retriever.

[Mr. Silverback]

So...you have none.

Thanks for playing. Don’t forget to check your apples for alar, and avoid driving GM trucks...they have model rocket motors attached to the gas tank.

[wendy1946]

The stat I’m not seeing is the percentages of cases in which one or more humans die.

[AppyPappy]

Despite the lack of scientific evidence in this thread, we really did go to the moon.
If you don’t want to know, no one is going to make you know.

[Mr. Silverback]

BTW, where did you get those estimate numbers? I’d say that pit figure is way, way high, I misread it on the first pass.

[Kenny Bunk]

You know who can help with stats and percentages?

Insurance underwriters.

[Mr. Silverback]

Despite the lack of scientific evidence in this thread, we really did go to the moon.

If I asked you to provide me with a peer reviewed paper that proved we went to the moon, you could cite a hundred with no problem.

You cannot cite a peer reviewed paper or any other scientific evidence that this breed is more dangerous than other breeds.

That says something. It says something you should be able to comprehend easily. But, if you don’t want to know, no one is going to make you know.

Like I said, keep realying on the media to guide your perception of the world. They always have your best interests at heart.

[CedarDave]

Chet99 met his FR demise from JimRob himself last year on November 6.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2622544/posts

[Mr. Silverback]

The stat I’m not seeing is the percentages of cases in which one or more humans die.

Cases of what?

I asked if you have scientific evidence that pits are more dangerous than other dogs. You haven't shown me any. Got any?

I asked if we should ban other breeds because the owners almost certainly don't use them for what they were bred for. you didn't answer that question either.

If you're going to advocate an intrusion on property rights, you need to have something more solid to defend that position than searching your feelings like Luke Skywalker. So, please answer my questions.

[allmendream]

Do I need scientific evidence to know that a Tiger is more dangerous than a Bobcat? Personality aside, a bobcat may be meaner than a Texas tick - but it just doesn't have the same potential to do damage.

A firecracker may be more liable or just as liable to go off as a stick of dynamite. But one has MUCH more destructive potential.

Scores better on personality than a beagle is nice - but a beagle going psycho isn't much of a threat to me, while a psycho Pitbull would be.

[Kenny Bunk]

Doughty, there you go again, a-causin' trouble. My Uncle Leroy had him a cute pit bull out a-watchin his still and meth lab. That dog was nice as pie. He dint hardly hurt nobody that weren't a-askin for it or didn't deserve it. OK, the mailman. But he was some kinda Federal agent, weren't he?

My girlfrien's Yorkie done tear up my socks somethin awful jes las week! Doan see you get your knickers in a knot over that! Be fair!

Please send money to my non-profit- www.frenz'o'pits.org. We raise money to care for pit bulls when their owners are doing time for drugs an stuff. Which is ofen.

[Tammy8]

Then there is also the issue of people calling so many dogs Pits that are not. Any big dog that bites is now considered a Pit by the media and many folks.

I do think the owner of the dogs that did this attack needs to have the book thrown at him/her and hope they are nailed to the barn door. I don’t think ANY dog gets this mean without a person absolutely making them mean. I know some will argue with me...but I really have never seen a truly mean dog that wasn’t made that way by someone.

[Moonman62]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Fatal attacks by these breeds of dogs (1979-1998):

You're picking a time period before Pit Bulls became so popular.

[Mr. Silverback]

You know who can help with stats and percentages? Insurance underwriters.

1. Great! Got any information any of them have published? Actuarial tables aren't exactly state secrets.

2. Though they are fair for the most part, insurance companies aren't (a) immune to press reports and conventional wisdom or (b) above an excuse to raise rates. Statistically, I would would be more likely to die driving to work in any given month than I would be in 100 recreational scuba dives, but there are life insurance companies that charge certified divers a higher premium than other customers.

Scientific evidence, please.

[SJSAMPLE]

I have been told, repeatedly, that attacks like this are rare.

[DoughtyOne]

I executed a Google search and came up with two resources quickly.

This, the first link, provides some information from a dog trainer's perspective regarding put bull attacks.

At the first link the individual provides the following information.  He states, "Pit Bulls and Rots account for 67% of fatal dog attacks"

That's in impressive statistic from my point of view, but we have to consider what it fully means too.  For instance, if all Pit Bulls and Rots were destroyed, "Lassie's" percentage of contribution to the fatal dog attacks would rise substantially.  (I'm using Lassie as a generic name here.  I'm not sure that Collies contribute at all actually.)  The point is, that then some other less agressive dog would show up as the greatest contributor to fatal attacks.  The numbers would go down, but then another breed would take over the 'most agressive' dog title.

Do we then eliminate that dog too based on statistics?  It's certainly open to debate.  And to be honest, it's a fair debate with regard to Pits and Rots too.

I believe that it would be reasonable for you to point out something like there are millions of this breed of dog, and there are only 'X' amount of attacks per year, and only 'X' of them being fatal.

The problem as I see it, and this is based on additional comments by the trainer at the link, this dog MUST be trained with specific goals in mind, to keep him from turning violent.  Where this falls apart for me, is when you consider the population base we have today, and thinking that people who can't be responsible for themselves, let alone a dog, are going to fulfill their duty.  Then you have the problem of peope showing up who haven't been trained to be around this type of dog.  They can make mistakes that cause the dog to feel threatened.  Then what?  "Ooops?"

I don't think owners posess these dogs thinking they're going to kill or seriously mame a family member, friend, or neighbor.  None the less it happens over and over again.

That's my take on it.  I'm not convinced the world is a better place for Pits and Rots being on the face of it.  Hey, some people probably don't think this world is a better place for me being on the face of it.  Different strokes...

DO NOT CLICK ON THIS SECOND LINK UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO SEE SOME SERIOUSLY DISTRUBING PHOTOS
EMBEDED WITH MANY PHOTOS THAT ARE NOT NEARLY AS DISTRUBING

This, the second link, provides a photo resource that was found by looking at the images related to putbull attacks.

I don't know man.  I wouldn't keep one of these animals around any of my family members, let alone children.  And as for the legal liability one could face, I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to subject themselves to having their fortune tapped due to a wild animal going postal and hurting someone seriously.  And yes, I'm going to state, 'wild animal', because tame domesticated animals don't do this.

Once gain, different strokes...

Take care.