Two dogs killed & two women injured

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

?? You’re really claiming that news orgs are reporting pit bull attacks to make money?? Or are you insane?? Talk about complicit. Something is seriously wrong with you.

Are you new to the internet? Do you know what "clickbait" means? Or do you honestly think the sensationalize articles without supportive citation are #trufax just because you read them on the internet?

Trying to get a sense of what kind of stupid I'm up against...

I worked in news for a decade, so yes, I know. No news org is doing that, sorry

No reputable news organization is posting drama as facts, no. But the overwhelming majority of what the anti-pit bullies use to substantiate their nonsense isn't from reputable news orgs, and many people online today really can't tell the difference. For example, the article in moco360 that's talking about this incident? Specifically states that the police report didn't ID the breed of the dogs involved. But what does the header say?

Clickbait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

And all their mixes, and any dog that "looks pit" or has even a drop of "pit bull blood" or is "pit bull type".

It's not even a real statistic, so don't stress about it. It's a statistically-nonsensical range pulled out of PP's imagination to justify 'eliminating' 5 distinct breeds of dogs and all their mixes because clickbait gave some people paranoia and nobody taught them how statistics and citations actually work. There are no stats that say this, and there never will be, because nobody to date has run a survey/study on the total number of dogs getting lumped into the "pit bull/pit-bull type" category vs. the actual number of those dogs that bite vs. the total number of dogs and bites from all other breeds.

The relevant statistics to support this argument DO NOT EXIST. Instead, people misread and misuse medical bite studies and flawed case law to support an argument that boils down to a nonsensical premise: that if "pit bulls" didn't exist, there would be no bite incidents.

It's a red flag for low-intelligence, high-hysteria people.

And it derails any sensible conversation about practices that WOULD reduce bite incidents, like more thorough licensing requirements for owners and breeders, higher penalties for off-leash and uncontrolled dogs (of any breed), better basic dog handling information and classes, more animal control officers to monitor all the idiots who think their dogs can be off-leash anywhere, as long as there's nobody already there...

We can't have actual conversations and make plans to implement those strategies because anytime we try, some anti-pit bully will come on the thread and start screaming hysterically about "bloodthirsty beasts OMG!11" and derail the whole thread with made up statistics and links to clickbait "news".

The "news" on this article says it's a pitbull without any formal citation. Why? Because "pit bull attack" generates revenue. But nobody wants to look at how gullible they are, why that works, and how they're complicit in the problem.

?? You’re really claiming that news orgs are reporting pit bull attacks to make money?? Or are you insane?? Talk about complicit. Something is seriously wrong with you.

Are you new to the internet? Do you know what "clickbait" means? Or do you honestly think the sensationalize articles without supportive citation are #trufax just because you read them on the internet?

Trying to get a sense of what kind of stupid I'm up against...

I worked in news for a decade, so yes, I know. No news org is doing that, sorry

No reputable news organization is posting drama as facts, no. But the overwhelming majority of what the anti-pit bullies use to substantiate their nonsense isn't from reputable news orgs, and many people online today really can't tell the difference. For example, the article in moco360 that's talking about this incident? Specifically states that the police report didn't ID the breed of the dogs involved. But what does the header say?

Clickbait.

It's right there in the URL: https://moco360.media/2024/12/18/pitbull-fatally-shot-wednesday-after-attacking-two-women-in-bethesda/