The ghetto retards and a pitbull

[Gypsiyee]

I wish you jackanapes would keep the gun conversation in the gun thread and stop bringing up moot and irrelevant points just to be confrontational. They're two completely separate things, and you seriously lack reading comprehension if you think I "rally against guns."

For the millionth time, my issue with guns is the lenient regulations that allow unstable and uneducated people to purchase them with ease. For the second time, I believe that just as you should prove yourself stable enough to own a gun, you should have to prove yourself able to care for a dog. And to repeat myself on one more point--since this is NT and the brain capacity for rationale or reading comprehension is lower here than most places apparently--this is not exclusive to pits, and pit bulls--or any other breeds--are not weapons. Treated the same way and given the same circumstance, the reactions of dogs of any other breed would be the same. Guns: inanimate objects--weapons--that serve to injure. Pit bulls: living and breathing beings with feelings, both emotional and physical that serve as an integral part enriching many family's lives. How you can relate the two and equate them to hypocrisy is baffling; the two subjects are on opposite ends of the spectrum and have nothing to do with each other. Even in the likeness that you're connecting, I've already said I'm for similar rules on both.. so uh, where's the hypocrisy? Because I'd personally own one and not the other? That's a preference, not a stance.

Hey look, Zan, I can post links too:

http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/2010/09 ... the-media/

http://www.pitbulls.org/blog/pit-bull-n ... t-1st-2010

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/feature ... reeds.html

Well there's a reason there are more death related to pools and cars and bikes, there are just a lot more of them.

Guess what. There are more mistreated pits than any other breed.

And in addition to the mistreatment, tell me--what do you notice about the information in this cdc report? http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalS ... eeds-a.pdf

Pit bulls and huskies are the only "purebred" listed as a "type" rather than the breed. Any idea why? Two reasons: 1. because the average person doesn't know the difference between an American Pit Bull Terrier and other bull breeds that look similar so all of them are lumped into the same "pit bull" category and 2. when an attack occurs, if there are any similar physical characteristics to that of an APBT, it's assumed to be a pit bull. There are several breeds that have similar physical characteristics that are mistakenly assumed and reported to be pits that are most likely mixed or other bully breeds; for the sake of reporting them, it's easier to lump them into the "pit bull type", which is not actually exclusive to American Pit Bull Terriers, which are a distinct breed.

So, you have a bunch of mixed breeds and virtually any 50-60 pound breed of bulldog (and there are several) accounting for pit bulls exclusively because they may look similar. When these issues are reported, do you honestly think every stat comes from a vet going and finding the dog and certifying the breed? No, that's not plausible. They come from victims or witnesses making assumptions about what they think the breed is. You couple this with being the most abused breed, and yeah, you're going to see some inflated statistics.

Everything we know from examining the APBT in personality tests shows that it's a loyal, loving, courageous breed with a big goofy personality. Any fact sheet you find on the American Pit Bull Terrier on any reputable site by people who actually *know* about dogs will list traits such as these; they will not list bad temperament because it simply is not inherent to the breed.

I agree with you on regulating breeding--but in general, not just on pits. Pits are probably the most overbred breed currently, but as a general rule breeding in needs to be curtailed altogether. It just leads to thousands of neglected and abused pets that become scared, defensive, and dangerous.

[Zanchief]

From your own link

Until now, research into canine aggression has almost exclusively involved analysis of dog bite statistics. But the researchers said these were potentially misleading as most bites were not reported. Big dogs might have acquired a reputation for being aggressive because their bites were more likely to require medical attention.

Well what else matters? Nibbles that aren't reported aren't important statistics except to try and exonerate a breed who justly has a reputation for violence.

Maybe we can move cat swats ahead of dog bits.

[Gypsiyee]

You're saying the breed is a violent breed. Then you're using a quote that essentially says that they, or any other large breed, aren't violent, but receive a bad reputation because they're bigger and so they're the only ones reported. You're proving my point for me. It has nothing to do with pits, it has to do with the size of the dog inflicting the injury. If bigger is your problem, then your problem isn't with pits. Your problem is with any dog larger than 30 pounds.. and yet you're misdirecting your hostility at a breed that you--and most people for that matter--know very little about just because they look scarier.

Labs, goldens, chows, great danes, mastiffs, germans, ridgebacks, mutts, [insert large breed here] can and will all do just as much damage as a pit can if provoked, mistreated, or feels threatened. The thing about stats is they never account for circumstance. They put things in black and white that are very rarely so. Children account for the majority of dog bites.. don't you think there's a reason for that? You're intelligent enough not to draw the conclusion that dogs are simply inherently evil toward children. The reason they account for most bites is that children aren't taught to behave around them--they poke, prod, hit, and yank until a dog snaps. It's incredibly rare a dog will attack completely unprovoked, and pits are no exception.

Unless you want to do away with all medium to large breeds, your argument makes no sense.

[Zanchief]

There are plenty of large breeds that don't rank high at all in cases of violence. Pits are violent because they can inflict damage, not only because they are aggressive. You continue to site aggressive studies to equate danger. A cat is aggressive but isn't dangerous at all. Plus some pitbulls aren't even that big. They're dangerous because of their jaw strength.

[Zanchief]

You're intelligent enough not to draw the conclusion that dogs are simply inherently evil toward children. The reason they account for most bites is that children aren't taught to behave around them--they poke, prod, hit, and yank until a dog snaps. It's incredibly rare a dog will attack completely unprovoked, and pits are no exception.

I never said the dogs are evil sheesh, I said they are violent. All dogs do that when scared Gyps. And when a Pit gets scared what happens? They do a lot of damage because they are bred to fight and kill. Those other dogs aren't as dangerous, they are also dangerous.

[Gypsiyee]

They're dangerous because of their jaw strength.

This is where it shows that you're basing your argument on hearsay and urban legend.

Pits have no more jaw strength than any other comparable sized breed, nor do they have unique jaw anatomy and some magical lockjaw. They have a tendency to hold because they're stubborn, but that's the extent of it. Their stubborn nature is another reason they're so abused in dog fighting rings--they'll fight through tremendous pain in order to do what they're asked to do. Oddly enough, it's also why they make great dogs to responsible families with children--they're stubborn enough to deal with a lot of bullshit from kids before they get agitated.

You're taking a very small category of pits and applying it to the entire population. All pits are not bred to fight, and well-raised ones would sooner lick to death than bite. And by well-raised, I don't mean perfect owners who spend every waking moment making sure their dog is a saint. None of us are perfect owners except maybe Cesar Milan. I just mean a well adjusted household that makes sure they're fed, loved, socialized, and know basic rules. Raised in that environment, they're no different than any other dog beyond appearance and some of the breed standard personality traits, which for the APBT don't include a aggressive tendencies.

[Zanchief]

You have any stats on jaw strength or is this all based on hearsay of your own from sources like pitbull.com.

Caesar Milan is an assface, no one should listen to him.

I'm not taking a small percentage, I'm taking all percentages. They are more likely to hurt and kill then any other breeds. This can't all be attributed to handling. If they are as stubborn as you say, then this characteristic makes them dangerous.

[Zanchief]

Here's a fun FAQ about pitbulls rife with junk data...

http://dogs.about.com/od/dogbreeds/a/pit_bull_faq.htm

No! No! No! There is no accurate test to measure the PSI (pressure per square inch) of a Pit Bull or any other breed of dog. It has been shown that other breeds of dogs actually may (as there still is no conclusive test) have a harder bite.

Nice quote, so in one hand they say it's impossible to test (likely in order to discredit a large amount of conclusive data) and then they say, well it's impossible to test, but there are test that say that Pitbulls aren't the strongest...that sends a red flag to me of journalistic bias.

[Harrison]

Man breeds an animal solely for violence for hundreds of years. You're really going to try and act like this breed doesn't exist solely because of this?

[Gypsiyee]

SPCA, Wiki, a number of expert witnesses in court cases filed regarding pits. I have a friend who works for a pit rescue in NY who's been a wealth of information on the subject. In fact, she's who prompted me to research more on the breed. A quick google search turned up the Toledo v. Tellings case, if you're actually interested in fact-based evidence: http://www.canismajor.com/orgs/ovdo/pdf/tellings.pdf - you can look on the Ohio supreme court's website for more info and the judgment on it, if you like. The entire case was kind of a travesty.. the guy's dogs had done nothing wrong, but he had more than the allowed amount of "vicious dogs" for his household. He challenged the law as unconstitutional and won, but then it was appealed. The final outcome was that breed specific legislation was not unconstitutional, but the consensus from the expert witnesses was that pits have no different anatomy or jaw strength than any other dog, nor are they more dangerous. The judges agreed, but it was deemed constitutional essentially because of the threat in an "urban setting", ie, where ghetto-ass retards horde and fight them.

Anyhow, I digress. The specific quote that you can pull from this particular case to answer your question:

Dr. Brisbin, as well as other experts, testified that pit bulls do not have locking jaws. Based on actual dog dissections and measurement of their skulls, the evidence demonstrated that pit bull jaw muscles and bone structure are the same as other similarly sized dogs. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that a pit bull's bite is any stronger than other dogs of its size and build. He stated that, contrary to information relied upon and perpetuated by earlier case law and law review articles, assertions that a pit bull can bite with a "force of 2,000 pounds per square inch" have absolutely no basis in fact or scientific proof. The testing of dog bite strength has never been done, and would be difficult if not impossible to perform."

It doesn't matter what website you choose to rely on from a search. If you ask a knowledgable subject matter expert who actually knows what they're talking about and base their stance on facts, their answer will be consistent with the above.

[Zanchief]

Oh here we go with fact based arguments Gyps. Let's forget that you were stating that there was no evidence that Pitbulls were statistically more likely to cause harm to people, when I cited a number of stats you never retracted those claims.

That doctor didn't say a pitbulls bite wasn't weaker then other breeds, he said that they can't test it. Well I guess we'll have to rely on stats to determine the danger of Pits then. They fail miserably.

If your friend works for a pit rescue I'm sure he's a wealth or propaganda and misinformation. Please claim more of it as fact based evidence in your crusade to skew the matter.

[Drem]

To say a type of dog should be exterminated because of a few fluke deaths is retarded. Accidents and tragedies happen but its foolish to act as if they are the norm.

Your totally full of shit is pretty much what im getting at. The fact that the only pit youve ever known you felt safe around further proves my point.

I never said anyone should kill these dogs, but limiting ownership would go along way to eliminating over 80 percent of all serious dog injuries. Seems like a no brainer. Just regulate breeding so less new dogs are born.

On to the Corgi debate. My parents have one. She’s a real pain in the butt but she has mental problems and pees all over the place when ever anyone gets near her. She was probably severely abused by her past owner. She also had a tumor in her head and almost died last month. Now she can only see out of one eye.

yeah the worst dogs i've ever met were the ones with bad pasts. the only dog that ever bit me was a dog we owned that was some insane terrier/chow/shepard mix with crazy feral eyes

not letting retards own pits would go a long way. kinda like guns /gasp

[Gypsiyee]

God damnit internet fail, lost my post.

That doctor didn't say a pitbulls bite wasn't weaker then other breeds, he said that they can't test it.

Yes, he did. Read the first half of the quote. He said that anatomy shows their jaws are no different and that there's no evidence suggesting that pit bulls have stronger jaws than any other breed of the same size. He mentioned being unable to test it to show that "omgz 2000 PSI!" is a claim pulled out of nowhere and not based in reality.

Are you really saying that people who have devoted their lives to educating themselves on the APBT breed and who live and work with hundreds of them every day have less knowledge than you do from a few google searches? Come on, dude.

I did not refute the stats. I said that the problem with the statistics is that a) they don't account for circumstance and b) mistaking the breed plays a huge factor. If I were bit by a black lab tomorrow and called 911 and reported the attack as one from a pit bull, guess what goes in those stats? Pit bull, because that's what's in the accident report. Certifying a breed is a process that takes a lot of work, and something that is not done in bite incidents. Can you honestly say that if you were bit tomorrow by a purebred or mixed breed that had similar face features to a pit that you'd know if it were a pit or not? I'd venture a guess that you'd be like most people who aren't familiar with or educated on the breed and go with the assumption that it's probably a pit and report it as such. Most pit attacks aren't going to be attacks by registered dogs, so not only is proving the breed is going to be highly speculative, but you're also going to be factoring in the fact that "pit types" have a high population due to overbreeding and are the most abused.

And I believe I started in this thread talking about stats on the temperament, which you immediately disregarded. We're arguing nature vs. nurture, and I'm telling you that nature has nothing to do with any dangerous problems with the breed. You eliminate the breed, T-Money Thuggington will move onto the next tough-looking dog to overbreed and abuse and then you'll have the same debate about that breed.

[Zanchief]

Are you really saying that people who have devoted their lives to educating themselves on the APBT breed and who live and work with hundreds of them every day have less knowledge than you do from a few google searches? Come on, dude.

No, I'm saying someone who devotes his life to protecting a breed of dog which is vicious and dangerous can't be trusted to present objective arguments. He or she clearly has an agenda. I have none.

And I believe I started in this thread talking about stats on the temperament, which you immediately disregarded. We're arguing nature vs. nurture, and I'm telling you that nature has nothing to do with any dangerous problems with the breed. You eliminate the breed, T-Money Thuggington will move onto the next tough-looking dog to overbreed and abuse and then you'll have the same debate about that breed.

That's fine, it won't be as dangerous.

[Drem]

you're just not being fair and including other dogs that are "statistically" just as dangerous (killing kids or maiming people for life) like rotweillers and presa canarios. it doesn't help your argument

[Gypsiyee]

That's fine, it won't be as dangerous.

Completely untrue. Your argument is that pits are dangerous and the only substantiating evidence you have are statistics with questionable breed association and a breed that's known to be abused, neglected, over-bred, and manipulated for nefarious purposes. You're using that to surmise that another breed given the same circumstances would yield different results, and I'm challenging you to justify what the hell makes you draw that conclusion given that all signs point to a problem with the environment and not the breed itself. The problem is that you have nothing to back up that assumption and have resorted to point blank sentences that are unfounded and simply false.

[Arlos]

I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that Pit Bulls, as a breed, were specifically created and bred for aggression and to be a fighting dog.

Of course many instances of the breed are perfectly lovable dogs. That is also indisputable.

What the issue is, though, is given their purposed breeding, the breed has a higher than baseline tendency towards aggression than other equally well-bred dogs. Yes, dogs of any breed that are overbred or come from bad breeders may have an inordinate tendency towards aggression, and cruel owners CERTAINLY can predispose dogs that way. My point simply is, that given equal breeding and equal ownership, you are more likely to get aggressive behavior from a pit bull than you are from most other breeds, and given their size and strength, such aggression is more dangerous than similar aggression would be in a 5 pound rat-dog.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

My point simply is, that given equal breeding and equal ownership, you are more likely to get aggressive behavior from a pit bull than you are from most other breeds

This isn't true. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it more true. Show me one legitimate source of information that shows temperament testing done on multiple breeds and reflects the APBT as consistent aggressor when compared to other breeds of the same size. Show me one piece of evidence that validates this statement.

People tend to casually avoid the fact that though dating back centuries pit types were bred with aggressive traits in mind for the purposes of bull-baiting and dog fighting after that, they were also bred to be people-friendly.

such aggression is more dangerous than similar aggression would be in a 5 pound rat-dog.

I don't think anyone is disputing that a bite from a large dog can cause more damage than that of a small dog. But a big dog is a big dog, so using that argument to justify distrusting pit bulls (or any breed that may fall under the pit bull generalization) is faulty.

[Gaazy]

hey leah i heard over 80% of corgis are homosexual is that true?

[Zanchief]

This isn't true. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it more true. Show me one legitimate source of information that shows temperament testing done on multiple breeds and reflects the APBT as consistent aggressor when compared to other breeds of the same size. Show me one piece of evidence that validates this statement.

If you want to ignore mountains of statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence then yes, there is nothing to prove the pit bulls are more violent.

It is true, Gyps. You know why all the thugs want pit bulls in the first place? It's not because of vast media conspiracies. It's because they're capable of being very vicious and violent.

[Spazz]

See why i was frustrated arguing about guns with you now gyps ? When people make up they minds that something is dangerous no amount of arguing or making sense is going to change their minds. These arguments are all based on feelings and facts tend to get thrown out the window.

Zanchief prolly couldnt pick a pit out of a lineup if his life depended on it but hes a fuckin expert on them. He has never been attacked or knows anyone who has yet still these dogs are a menace just waiting to kill some one. Yet other large breeds that could rip your face off are fine because they arent called pitbulls.

[Spazz]

Thugs want pits because of the hype these dogs have and because they are in style. Every rapper has one every gangster has one so if you want to be cool in that circle you get one. If it wasnt the pit it would be a doberman or a rottweiler or a boxer or some other huge muscle dog and you would be saying the same shit about that breed.

[Zanchief]

Thugs want pits because of the hype these dogs have and because they are in style.

And where did the "hype" come from?

[Spazz]

Word of mouth in the ghetto from people who train them to fight, rap music and movies, and last but not least the news media . If any other dog bites or attacks it isnt half as sensational but a PIT ATTACK now thats exciting news right there.

If some of the other breeds i mentioned were bred as often or as abused as often as pitbulls we would hear about them. Also money has a lot to do with it. As far as pure bred muscle dogs or " bully breeds" as some people call them go pits are a lot cheaper than say a Presa Canario or a cane corso. So pits are going to be a lot more common.

[Drem]

i imagine zanchief being afraid of pitbulls when he passes one on the street

so many other mean dogs out there that are just as bad if not worse

spazz has a good point too, they're cheaper than the really badass dogs