namelesstavern.net

hmm. i'd like to see these FACTS.

mofish wrote:Lemme add another cute pic to the thread :

lol is this like anti-abortion tactics? show a dead fetus to sway people to your opinion?

Yeah, I bet the pictures of the little boy who had his face mauled off by a Pomeranian were just as pretty. A dog bite is a dog bite, no matter what breed it comes from.

Oh and as someone who always wanted to be a veterinarian I have studied a lot of animal related things. Pitbull's jaws are no differently designed than other dogs, that is a common and ignorant myth.

By the way you "facts" on the majority of dog bites being caused by those breeds are incorrect. Go look at the Center for Disease Control. They monitor and collect data on all dog bites and incidents.

Tuggan wrote:hmm. i'd like to see these FACTS.

You could google 'dog bites' but thats ok, Ill do it for you :

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

Tuggan wrote:

mofish wrote:Lemme add another cute pic to the thread :

lol is this like anti-abortion tactics? show a dead fetus to sway people to your opinion?

Yeah that's exactly what it is. Such excellent debate skillz!

Nice scary pics still not convinced banning anyones dog is a good idea. Useing scary pictures to hype up a point is something anti abortionists and peta members do its not a good arguement tactic.

spazz wrote:Nice scary pics still not convinced banning anyones dog is a good idea. Useing scary pictures to hype up a point is something anti abortionists and peta members do its not a good arguement tactic.

Actually its simply a response to those ridiculous pics Crielle posted. Nice try though, you and Tuggan got me!

wait a minute, youre posting pictures of a maimed child and telling me about "debate skillz"?

Try reading the entire article. Pitbulls accounted for 66 fatalities over a period of 20 years. Crossbreeds of unknown breeds accounted for 238 over 20 years, if you want to work it out that is more than rotties and pits combined. If anything that tells you mutts are a menace to society, but we know thats not true.

Leaving work now btw, so bye bye bye

spazz, go sit with Tuggan at the kid's table. Writing to your congressman can have an effect. I know first hand. Its negative people like you that say its all about the money that cause other people to NOT do what they want to do or should do. The system would work if people used it properly and we didn't have so many nay-sayers like you. When you get old enough to vote and actually take an interest in your government, you may come to realize that.

Adivina, you should realize that this country has become extremely vaginized. Do you honestly think that a cop would shoot an illegal pitbull without just cause in this country? Think of the media this would generate. The news stations would be all over him in a heartbeat. He wouldn't ever be able to do his job or, for that matter, get another job.

I'm sure that the law will have a grandfather clause in it stating that if you have a pitbull you will be able to keep it as long as it is registered until it passes. God forbid it chews up a child during that time, though!

you honestly think that a cop would shoot an illegal pitbull without just cause in this country?

RIght on the police would never do anything outta line

Darcler wrote:When I was 5, I was walking in between my house and the house next door to get to my back yard. There was a huge Standard sized Poodle that came running up to me. Stopped a couple yards and charged at me. Bit my shoulder and just below my elbow on the underneath where I was trying to shield my face.

Ban poodles!

Poodles are actually known to be aggressive despite their faggoty look.

Ive heard that from a lotta people but i think i refused to beleive it cuz they look so wack. Ive never really known anyone with one though so i really dont know anything about them. Id feel like a fool if i got owned by a poodle though.

AdivinaDarkfyre wrote:Pitbulls accounted for 66 fatalities over a period of 20 years. Crossbreeds of unknown breeds accounted for 238 over 20 years

66 from Pitbulls as compared to 238 from a bunch of different breeds of dogs?

66+238=304
66 is 21.71% of 304

That is 1 in every 5 dog bite is a pitbull. Not good odds, ehh? What would you do if your computer from Dell crashed 1 in 5 times you turned it on? You wouldn't use that brand anymore, right?

spazz wrote:

Quote:

you honestly think that a cop would shoot an illegal pitbull without just cause in this country?

RIght on the police would never do anything outta line

Once again, you focus on the few and far between. Once in a while a police officer does something stupid in the public eye. It gets televised and narrow-minded people like you think all police are like that.

Please, stop writing in this thread, homie. You have no idea what you are saying.

P.S. Is "homie" spelled correctly? I am not down with the thug speak.

thats 1 in 5 dog attack related deaths. which means 80% of the time its not a pitbull. #s are funny that way, ya know... depending on how you want to look at them.

dog bites are far more common, and i would guess the most popular breeds lead the stats in actual dog attacks/bites.

So one in a few cops is bad. So should we ban them

Agrajag wrote:Once again, you focus on the few and far between. Once in a while a police officer does something stupid in the public eye. It gets televised and narrow-minded people like you think all police are like that.

haha, that couldnt have worked out better.

so its sorta like how pitbulls are portrayed in a negative fashion on TV, so dipshits like yourself have a negative image on the whole breed.

Actually it is not one breed versus many, a pitbull is a generic term, referring to several different dog breeds that have common looks. This covers everything from the Alphapha Blue Blood Bulldog, to the American Stafordshire Terrier, to the Standard Staffordshire terrier. If you would like to be technical it is a large group of dogs put in a similar catagory.

Anyway - there is not a grandfather clause in many states they have proposed just what I am opposed to, rounding up the current pitbulls that are pets in the state and having them euthanized.

Tuggan wrote:

Agrajag wrote:Once again, you focus on the few and far between. Once in a while a police officer does something stupid in the public eye. It gets televised and narrow-minded people like you think all police are like that.

haha, that couldnt have worked out better.

so its sorta like how pitbulls are portrayed in a negative fashion on TV, so dipshits like yourself have a negative image on the whole breed.

Back to the kiddie table, Tuggan. Reading comprehension is not your friend. I never actually said I was for or against the banning of a specific breed of dog. I am only defending the right to vote on the subject.

On a personal note, I am not narrow-minded about pitbulls. I hate all dogs and would like to see them all burn. So, if it was my decision it wouldn't be just one breed that gets banned...

How ya gonna mate mans best friend.

It's real simple man. Force the owners to go through the same scrutiny as gun owners go through, actually put more scrutiny on them since my guns aren't capable of escaping my house on four legs and running down the street and shooting whoever walks in their path.

AdivinaDarkfyre wrote:Anyway - there is not a grandfather clause in many states they have proposed just what I am opposed to, rounding up the current pitbulls that are pets in the state and having them euthanized.

That right there would be a perfect reason for you and people who believe in that to write to your/their congressman. Have that law changed. It is very possible.

I am sorry to hear that they are gathering up dogs and euthanizing them. I don't like dogs but they are still people's pets. People form strong bonds with their animals and the way they are just taking them is wrong. They should just put restrictions on the animal's territory and let the owners have their time with their pet until it passes.

AdivinaDarkfyre wrote:You don't see the issue with going about a law the completely wrong way?

If anything all this ban will do is take the dogs away from the responsible owners. Making the dog itself illegal is not going to stop people who already participate in an illegal "sport" and alongside said sport generally are in illegal gangs, commit crimes which are oh yeah illegal, and have a tendancy to deal illegal drugs and make illegal gambling bets on the outcome of the illegal fights. WAIT DO WE SEE A TREND WITH THE WORD ILLEGAL!? God damn, if you are going to try to fix a problem, at least go about it in a way that will actually change things. If anything outlawing the breed will only cause a rise in dog fighting.

This law will do nothing but cause the dog breed to only be owned by irrisponsible assholes, seeing as those people who are responsible enough to own the breed and care for it correctly will not be willing to break the law in order to own the animal.

is this how you feel about gun control laws as well? because this is the exact same argument a lot of anti-gun-law people use. "taking ______ away from the responsible ______ owners and leaving them in the hands of ______ who break all kinds of laws anyway"

i'm not saying you're wrong, in fact i'm not going to pick a side in this argument at all. i just wanted to comment on the parallels between your perspective and that of many anti-gun-control people.

there's one big difference, of course.. dogs have minds and emotions and instincts, whereas an unheld gun is simply a paperweight.