Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like we should ban water pails, cribs, palm trees, bath tubs and parents.

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

5) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

6) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!

These stats are on deaths. What about stats on injuries from pitbulls (ones that don't result in death)? What are the stats on those?

Bite statistics are difficult to obtain accurately. Dogs that are referred to as “pit bulls” in
statistical reports actually are a variety of breeds and mixes all lumped
together under the “pit bull” heading. Also, many people have a difficult
time properly identifying a true Pit Bull, so added to the statistics are
those dogs that have been misidentified. Considering these factors, the
actual number of attacks attributable to American Pit Bull Terriers is
considerably lower than represented. Also important to understand is
the extreme popularity of the Pit Bull and pit bull-type breeds. By some
estimates, numbers-wise they are the most popular of all dog breeds. It
is only logical to assume that the breed with the higher number of
individual dogs would be represented with a higher number of bites.
Viewing older statistical reports for the Center of Disease Control, one
will see that trends in breed popularity reflect in the number of bites
attributed to a specific breed during a specific period of time.

Think about the facts before you judge. Pit Bull Statistics are truthful, with no bias.

According to the American Temperament Test Society, temperament evaluations of American Pit Bull Terriers shows that this breed has a very high passing rate of 82.6% The average passing rate for the other 121 breeds of dogs in the tests: 77%. Better temperament, means less likely to bite.

If you are TRULY worried about pit bulls attacks, and aren't just trying to fight, contact your local government about cracking down on backyard breeders and dog fighting rings. In just about every case of a pit bull attack, the dogs was found to be undernourished, abused, chained up, etc. These are the people doing this, not the vast majority of responsible owners who love their pit bulls. As stated before, if pit bulls were such a liability, rescue leagues and shelters would not adopt them out because they would go broke from law suits. Think about it, people!! Use some logic!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the pit bull defenders here are in a state of denial.

why do they think dogfighters choose that breed? a german shepherd or even a wolf wouldnt last two minutes in a dogfight with a pit bull - something about the breed makes it very effective when provoked to attack or defend. i imagine it is some combination of jaw strength, instinct, tenacity and build, so i tend to dispute the jaw strength "research". look at the size of their head and jaw compared to similar dogs - much bigger.

anyways, again, there is no need for these breeds. despite whatever you want to say, they WERE designed to fight and they are the best at it. why try to defend something so pointless? there are hundreds of other dog choices.

You dispute National Geographic's research and choose to go on your gut instinct that a bigger head means a stronger bite...okay. Um, do you know what National Geographic is ??? Seriously!! I guess bigger heads mean bigger brains too. So, based on your logic, pits much be the smartest dog too. Something we agree on!!

Do your research (wait, "research" is silly, according to you!), pit bulls love humans and are eager to please and train, that is why dog fighters use them. They were breed to be easily handled and are not human aggressive. Low life idiot dog fighters wouldn't mess with a breed that actually challenged them and would turn on them. Did you even read about why they are great search and rescue dogs? Of course not, you ignore research on jaw strength and choose to be blissfully ignorant when it comes to facts about pit bulls. Based on your outrageous statements and out right willingness to ignore "research," I have to assume you are a troll and I will no longer feed you. Move along, troll. Go find a bridge to guard

hah, yes. the reason dogfighters use pit bulls is because of their loving nature and eagerness to please. nothing to do with certain favorable physical characteristics that were selectively bred into them over dozens of generations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legit question here: Are you pit lovers also gun owners? I associate pit bulls with people who are into weaponry.

WTF?

No. I do not own guns. I'm also a white female, in case you have anymore odd stereotypes.

Notice how the anti-pit bull people are not only stereotype dogs, but people to? Cognitive economy - too little space in their brains and too hard for them to think, do research, etc. They'd rather just make blanket judgements.

Racism is the pits.

Anonymous wrote:the pit bull defenders here are in a state of denial.

why do they think dogfighters choose that breed? a german shepherd or even a wolf wouldnt last two minutes in a dogfight with a pit bull - something about the breed makes it very effective when provoked to attack or defend. i imagine it is some combination of jaw strength, instinct, tenacity and build, so i tend to dispute the jaw strength "research". look at the size of their head and jaw compared to similar dogs - much bigger.

anyways, again, there is no need for these breeds. despite whatever you want to say, they WERE designed to fight and they are the best at it. why try to defend something so pointless? there are hundreds of other dog choices.

You dispute National Geographic's research and choose to go on your gut instinct that a bigger head means a stronger bite...okay. Um, do you know what National Geographic is ??? Seriously!! I guess bigger heads mean bigger brains too. So, based on your logic, pits much be the smartest dog too. Something we agree on!!

Do your research (wait, "research" is silly, according to you!), pit bulls love humans and are eager to please and train, that is why dog fighters use them. They were breed to be easily handled and are not human aggressive. Low life idiot dog fighters wouldn't mess with a breed that actually challenged them and would turn on them. Did you even read about why they are great search and rescue dogs? Of course not, you ignore research on jaw strength and choose to be blissfully ignorant when it comes to facts about pit bulls. Based on your outrageous statements and out right willingness to ignore "research," I have to assume you are a troll and I will no longer feed you. Move along, troll. Go find a bridge to guard

the pit bull defenders here are in a state of denial.

why do they think dogfighters choose that breed? a german shepherd or even a wolf wouldnt last two minutes in a dogfight with a pit bull - something about the breed makes it very effective when provoked to attack or defend. i imagine it is some combination of jaw strength, instinct, tenacity and build, so i tend to dispute the jaw strength "research". look at the size of their head and jaw compared to similar dogs - much bigger.

anyways, again, there is no need for these breeds. despite whatever you want to say, they WERE designed to fight and they are the best at it. why try to defend something so pointless? there are hundreds of other dog choices.

Anonymous wrote:Legit question here: Are you pit lovers also gun owners? I associate pit bulls with people who are into weaponry.

WTF?

No. I do not own guns. I'm also a white female, in case you have anymore odd stereotypes.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like we should ban water pails, cribs, palm trees, bath tubs and parents.

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

5) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

6) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!

These stats are on deaths. What about stats on injuries from pitbulls (ones that don't result in death)? What are the stats on those?

Sounds like we should ban water pails, cribs, palm trees, bath tubs and parents.

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

5) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

6) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!

If pit bulls were so dangerous, rescue leagues, humane societies and shelter would not adopt them out - they would be too much of a liability and this organizations would go broke from lawsuits. That's a fact. When responsible pet owners own pits, attacks do not occur. It is a proven myth that pit bulls suddenly "snap."

Attacks occur when drug dealers and dog fighters abuse and torment these dogs. Just like any dog, they then are scared and bite out of fear or have been trained to do so.

If you are truly worried about pit bull attacks, instead of focusing on BSL (banning pit bulls), which is costly and is proven not to work, contact your local government and representatives about cracking down on backyard breeders and dog fighting rings.

I own two pits and am terrified of guns and would not allow one in my house. I also have friends who have adopted pits and are not gun owners. In my experience, there is a weak association between owners of pit bulls and people who are into weaponry.

Legit question here: Are you pit lovers also gun owners? I associate pit bulls with people who are into weaponry.

^^^

That first sentence should have questioned, "There is no downside??!!!" Just seems like such an absurd statement. But, I guess for someone who has no experience with pits and lacks empathy, that is about as far as you can take your argument.

Anonymous wrote:but it would show that such a dog would cause much greater damage in the event it had such a bad owner. so why take the chance? just eliminate the breed. i don't understand the opposition. there is no downside.

you dont NEED to have this kind of dog. just choose a greyhound or a lab or whatever.

There is no downside. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not read this (instead of assuming you read it and chose to ignore it):

"Tests that have been done comparing the bite pressure of several
breeds showed pressure PSI (per square inch) to be considerably lower
than some wild estimates that have been made. Testing has shown that
the domestic dog averages about 320 lbs of pressure per square inch.
Recently Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic conducted a comparative
test between a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, and a German Shepherd. The Pit
Bull had the LOWEST PSI OF THE THREE.

The highest pressure recorded from the Pit Bull was 235 lbs PSI. The
highest from the GSD was 238, and the highest from the Rott was 328.
Dr. Barr states that as far as he knows, the PSI tested in the Rott is the
highest on record for any domestic canine."

So, based on a test conducted by National Geographic, pit bulls actually have a lower PSI than the average domestic dog.

Do you now suggest we kill all dogs that have a PSI equal to or greater than a pit bull?? Because that means you would be killing off about half of the dog population.

Also, suggesting you kill off any breed is terribly insensitive. You do realize you are talking about killing beloved, adored pets. Pets who are considered family members and dogs who serve as service dogs to disabled people and search and rescue teams ( learn more about a world famous pit bull search and rescue team, if you care to educate yourself - http://www.forpitssake.org). So, if you really think there is no downside, you obviously don't care about people and the devastating losses they would experience having their beloved pits executed. The world sure would be a better place if people who lacked empathy were eliminated. Don't know if I see a downside to that. Though, I hold on to a thread of hope that even the most anti-pit "kill them all!" person will finally actually meet one and their minds will be changed.

but it would show that such a dog would cause much greater damage in the event it had such a bad owner. so why take the chance? just eliminate the breed. i don't understand the opposition. there is no downside.

you dont NEED to have this kind of dog. just choose a greyhound or a lab or whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous and there is no need for them. You can get the same level of affection and devotion and companionship from dogs that (i) do not have the strength of jaw tenacity and (ii) were not bred for the specific purpose of fighting other animals. Dogs are highly adaptable creatures given the # of chromosones and the large litters. Just get a different kind of dog.

Once again - spewing stereotypes. And once again - I saw prove it. Prove they are inherently dangerous (and no, personal anecdotes and over-hyped media reports don't count).

And prove they were bred just for fighting (although, I guess first you need to clarify what a pitbull is since several breeds tend to be referred to as pitbulls). And prove/explain "jaw tenacity". FYI: the "lockjaw" myth was disrupted earlier in the thread.

I too am curious to hear the answers to these questions and for people to back up these allegations.

they can test jaw strength. there are statistics showing the # of severe maulings that come from pit-bull type breeds. not sure what more facts you need.

if they tested jaw strengths and found that a pit bull has X PSI, which is greater than a wolf and greater than any other domestic dog breed, would that change your opinion?

That does nothing to prove that pitbulls are inherently evil dangerous and vicious and evil like so many others have claimed. Its been said before bad dogs=bad owners. The breed is irreverent and so are stereotypes.

Jaw strength probably could be tested. Feel free to show the results. However that once again would do nothing to prove that pitbulls are inherently evil.