S/O If you have a pit bull...why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Pitbulls cause the vast majority of severe dog attack injuries and nearly all of the dog attack deaths.

The proportion of violent attacks by pitbulls compared to their percentage of their population compared to all other breeds combined is staggering.

If only pit bull advocates would recognize and accept this fact, we would all be much safer.

If only pit bull advocates would display a little rational honesty and own up to the fact that these are NOT good family dogs or safe dogs to have around children or smaller, unskilled adult owners (like doberman, german shepard, rottweiler owners etc) do then maybe people would not be so fearful and resistant to this dangerous breed.

It is the blatant dishonesty and stupidity of pit bull advocates and the pitbull lobby that makes people so fearful of these dangerous dogs and their idiotic owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

Are you familiar with math? Even if all 44 of the deaths were due to pitbulls (and they are not) 44 out of 3000000 means that .001 percent of pit bulls are involved in such attacks, or that 99.9 percent of pit bulls are not involved in fatal attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Pitbulls cause the vast majority of severe dog attack injuries and nearly all of the dog attack deaths.

The proportion of violent attacks by pitbulls compared to their percentage of their population compared to all other breeds combined is staggering.

If only pit bull advocates would recognize and accept this fact, we would all be much safer.

If only pit bull advocates would display a little rational honesty and own up to the fact that these are NOT good family dogs or safe dogs to have around children or smaller, unskilled adult owners (like doberman, german shepard, rottweiler owners etc) do then maybe people would not be so fearful and resistant to this dangerous breed.

It is the blatant dishonesty and stupidity of pit bull advocates and the pitbull lobby that makes people so fearful of these dangerous dogs and their idiotic owners.

What is staggering to me is that you cannot grasp that 99.9 percent of pitbulls are not involved in fatal attacks,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend and her husband adopted a full pit bull from a shelter. They had a toddler at the time. He is great with all of them, and other humans. They recently had a baby, and he is great with the baby too. He is not, however, great with other dogs or animals.

See, this is what sets pitbull owners off as a special kind of stupid.

They are so desperate to prove to the world that their pitbull is gentle as can be that they do things like take zero precautions to keep their pits away from children, or worse allow their own kids to walk their pits unsupervised, have their babies sleep on their pitbulls and allow their toddlers unattended with and or to climb allover their pits.

They cannot reason at all when it comes to basic animal safety and their pitts because "he's such a big goofy cuddlebug"

How can dog owners of such a dangerous breed be so deliberately stupid?

I'm the person you quoted. They have never done or said any of the bolded. You have an active imagination, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Pitbulls cause the vast majority of severe dog attack injuries and nearly all of the dog attack deaths.

The proportion of violent attacks by pitbulls compared to their percentage of their population compared to all other breeds combined is staggering.

If only pit bull advocates would recognize and accept this fact, we would all be much safer.

If only pit bull advocates would display a little rational honesty and own up to the fact that these are NOT good family dogs or safe dogs to have around children or smaller, unskilled adult owners (like doberman, german shepard, rottweiler owners etc) do then maybe people would not be so fearful and resistant to this dangerous breed.

It is the blatant dishonesty and stupidity of pit bull advocates and the pitbull lobby that makes people so fearful of these dangerous dogs and their idiotic owners.

What is staggering to me is that you cannot grasp that 99.9 percent of pitbulls are not involved in fatal attacks,

Oh, the logic fail!!!

[Anonymous]

All I know is that over 700 cities have outlawed them; they are statistically more dangerous than any other dog, and you guys that have them are putting others at risk. I hope you are sued when that happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that over 700 cities have outlawed them; they are statistically more dangerous than any other dog, and you guys that have them are putting others at risk. I hope you are sued when that happens.

You've got 700 cities to choose from....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

Are you familiar with math? Even if all 44 of the deaths were due to pitbulls (and they are not) 44 out of 3000000 means that .001 percent of pit bulls are involved in such attacks, or that 99.9 percent of pit bulls are not involved in fatal attacks.

So you’re trying to say... it means nothing that of the 40 or so fatal dog attacks per year, 38 of them involve pit bulls? And that means nothing in regards to the traits of that breed? And you think this is insignificant because... there are a lot of pit bulls out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

Are you familiar with math? Even if all 44 of the deaths were due to pitbulls (and they are not) 44 out of 3000000 means that .001 percent of pit bulls are involved in such attacks, or that 99.9 percent of pit bulls are not involved in fatal attacks.

So you’re trying to say... it means nothing that of the 40 or so fatal dog attacks per year, 38 of them involve pit bulls? And that means nothing in regards to the traits of that breed? And you think this is insignificant because... there are a lot of pit bulls out there?

Pitbulls are not responsible for 95 percent iof fatal dog attacks, but even if they were, the fact that 99.9 percent of the pitbull population is not involved in fatal attacks means that it is an extreme rarity even among pitbulls. Your fears are disproportionate to the actual risk. I don’t even like pit bulls, but I can see that your fears are not really rational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

Are you familiar with math? Even if all 44 of the deaths were due to pitbulls (and they are not) 44 out of 3000000 means that .001 percent of pit bulls are involved in such attacks, or that 99.9 percent of pit bulls are not involved in fatal attacks.

So you’re trying to say... it means nothing that of the 40 or so fatal dog attacks per year, 38 of them involve pit bulls? And that means nothing in regards to the traits of that breed? And you think this is insignificant because... there are a lot of pit bulls out there?

Pitbulls are not responsible for 95 percent iof fatal dog attacks, but even if they were, the fact that 99.9 percent of the pitbull population is not involved in fatal attacks means that it is an extreme rarity even among pitbulls. Your fears are disproportionate to the actual risk. I don’t even like pit bulls, but I can see that your fears are not really rational.

You're right. Pitbulls are responsible for 82% of fatal attacks.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2015.php
Vs 9% by next most deadly bree, rotweiler.
Pitbulls should be banned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. ALL dogs can bite, maim or kill (small dogs have killed infants, for ex).

2. Focusing on the breed is a red herring, because there are lines in each breed that can have very different personalities.

3. Focus on the lineage of each individual dog. Some lines have been bred to fight, and those dogs are the most dangerous, because their escalation time from warning signs to killer lunge can be less than a second.

4. Focus on the environment of the puppy. Bite inhibition develops only when the dog is part of a litter that stays with its mother for at least 6 weeks, because that is when puppies learn that hard bites are socially unacceptable and will be met with pain and maternal correction.

5. Conclusion: adopt or rescue at your own risk and advocate for spaying and neutering. If you don't know the parents of the dog, and the puppy history, or worse, if you know that the dog was bred as a fighting dog or that the dog was born in a puppy mill and never socialized, you are putting people at risk. The risk is greater if you adopt a supposedly aggressive breed, but again, this is a red herring. A Golden can kill as well.

6. In a perfect world, people would get their companions from reputable breeders who breed not only to the physical standard, but also for mellow personalities.

Yet you would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, unlike the many horrifying examples with pits. Breed does matter, and anyone owning a pit is taking a risk.

Are
I was just coming to say this. Pit bull defenders love to point out that there are other breeds with stronger jaws, etc... but I don't see any news stories about them killing their owners. Capability does not translate to reality.[/ l
Rottweilers, german shepherds and mastiffs also have been responsible for fatal attacks in recent year. But fatal dog attacks are incredibly rare (generally less than 40 a year) spread among millions of dogs.

But did you look at the numbers? Because the vast majority of those 40 are pit bulls. Consistently. Every year.

Are you familiar with math? Even if all 44 of the deaths were due to pitbulls (and they are not) 44 out of 3000000 means that .001 percent of pit bulls are involved in such attacks, or that 99.9 percent of pit bulls are not involved in fatal attacks.

So you’re trying to say... it means nothing that of the 40 or so fatal dog attacks per year, 38 of them involve pit bulls? And that means nothing in regards to the traits of that breed? And you think this is insignificant because... there are a lot of pit bulls out there?

Pitbulls are not responsible for 95 percent iof fatal dog attacks, but even if they were, the fact that 99.9 percent of the pitbull population is not involved in fatal attacks means that it is an extreme rarity even among pitbulls. Your fears are disproportionate to the actual risk. I don’t even like pit bulls, but I can see that your fears are not really rational.

According to this, they’re responsible for 75% of fatal dog attack’s in 2016. So compared to allllll the other breeds out there... you still want to argue that’s not significant? That it is not indicative of a hereditary trait? Even though there are breeds out there with an even or higher population who do not hold this record?

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php

[Anonymous]

If we were arguing about the LIKELIHOOD of getting attacked, I see your point. But we are arguing about whether this is something that “all dogs” do, or if there is something unique about pit bulls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we were arguing about the LIKELIHOOD of getting attacked, I see your point. But we are arguing about whether this is something that “all dogs” do, or if there is something unique about pit bulls.

We aren’t arguing about anything, you do not have a basic understanding of statistics and probability.

[Anonymous]

My question is why do you choose a pitbull over other breeds that are just as loving and cuddly as you claim your pitbull breed to be? Especially since you have to be aware that pit bulls have a very negative reputation and people will fear your dog? What is it about you that you want to purchase a dog that other people obviously fear and do not trust?