James Harrison did not learn from Vick

[TD Ryan2 314]

this shouldn't be about pitbulls exclusively...

 

it should be about horrible parents

and

the 10 (or so) dog breeds that are known to be "aggressive"

 

 

you take a jackass owner/parent with a German Shepard, and the outcome is the same.

 

 

bottom line here, I don't want ANY aggressive dog breeds around my kids because I have to assume that their owners are incompetent idiots.

[Ray_T 590]

You are the ignorant one on this subject. MOST pitbulls are bred to be KIND. The American pitbull is the #1 registered dog breed in the US. There are an estimated 5-6 million pitbulls in the US. Perhaps their owners think that they have some sort of value??

 

Pitbulls were bred to be a working dog, and bred to be an all-around family dog.

 

are you out of your head?

 

Pitbulls were bred to fight. not to be kind.

 

and because they are so dangerous it NEEDS a good dog owner and good training for them to not be dangerous. Even so, just like any animal (and some people) Temperment and/or mental health can be a large factor. No matter how good the owner is, a dog with a chemical imbalance in the brain (which causes mental health problems in people) will be dangerous regardless of the training they receive.

 

There is a reason why pitbulls are banned in so many cities. (that and the fact that a lot of dog owners do not have the knowledge to train their dogs properly)

 

I'm the first to admit that a well trained and obedient dog is unlikely to be a problem in most cases. But every dog has their limits, and a lot of children do not know when they are crossing the line with animals and some kids will tease a dog when they shouldnt.

 

so kids and pitbulls = not a smart idea

 

that's the bottom line.

[NewbieJr 540]

this shouldn't be about pitbulls exclusively...

 

it should be about horrible parents

and

the 10 (or so) dog breeds that are known to be "aggressive"

you take a jackass owner/parent with a German Shepard, and the outcome is the same.

bottom line here, I don't want ANY aggressive dog breeds around my kids because I have to assume that their owners are incompetent idiots.

I am 100% in agreement with the Bad dog= Bad owner reasoning, but that doesn't explain why pitbaulls only account for 2%-9% of the dog population, but are accountable for 15 of 23 dog attack fatalities last year. Do the math.

[Dan 59]

I am 100% in agreement with the Bad dog= Bad owner reasoning, but that doesn't explain why pitbaulls only account for 2%-9% of the dog population, but are accountable for 15 of 23 dog attack fatalities last year. Do the math.

 

This is deliberately ignorant, and you know it.

[NewbieJr 540]

This is deliberately ignorant, and you know it.

What are you talking about? I gave actual figures. It's not ignorant, it's the facts. Sounds really bad when you see it in writing, huh?

[ff07 2]

What are you talking about? I gave actual figures. It's not ignorant, it's the facts. Sounds really bad when you see it in writing, huh?

 

 

Soooo, by your reasoning, you would say that all African-Americans are inherently violent since they account for a much larger percentage of crimes committed in the U.S. versus their percentage of total population?

 

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the above statement, however, that's what it sounds like

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Soooo, by your reasoning, you would say that all African-Americans are inherently violent since they account for a much larger percentage of crimes committed in the U.S. versus their percentage of total population?

 

I wouldn't expect you to agree with the above statement, however, that's what it sounds like

 

Are you equating the social situation of African Americans with pitbulls? Holy crap, this is like the 3rd or 4th time in this thread where I just have to say, "Huh?".

[Dan 59]

What are you talking about? I gave actual figures. It's not ignorant, it's the facts. Sounds really bad when you see it in writing, huh?

 

Merely pointing out the fact that this was already addressed. I'm a little disappointed, Newbie, that you decided to completely ignore that and put that same statistic out again as though there were no refuting it. Avoiding an argument because you don't have an answer to it . . . comes across belligerent . . . or ignorant . . .

 

I'm not worried about looking bad. And I'm certainly not worried about addressing facts. I just really didn't feel like doing it twice.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Merely pointing out the fact that this was already addressed. I'm a little disappointed, Newbie, that you decided to completely ignore that and put that same statistic out again as though there were no refuting it. Avoiding an argument because you don't have an answer to it . . . comes across belligerent . . . or ignorant . . .

 

I'm not worried about looking bad. And I'm certainly not worried about addressing facts. I just really didn't feel like doing it twice.

 

I know that you made your point earlier in the thread, but I was not convinced. I also know that you are addressing this to Newbie, but are you really convinced that the pitbull is not an instinctively aggressive animal? I have spoken with law enforcement (canine officers), veternarians, and folks from the local shelter (we recently adopted another pet) about these animals and I have come away with completely different info. It is hard to dispute that pitbulls were historically bred to fight (each other or other larger animals) and it is also hard to dispute their loyalty to their masters (or territory).

 

If people really think that this particular breed is good with children even with proper handling, then I just don't get it. I can't imagine someone thinking, "Hey, I have a toddler, let's get a pitbull".

[Dan 59]

Are you equating the social situation of African Americans with pitbulls? Holy crap, this is like the 3rd or 4th time in this thread where I just have to say, "Huh?".

 

I think, actually, he simply pointing the obvious fallacy of Newbie's stat . . .

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think, actually, he simply pointing the obvious fallacy of Newbie's stat . . .

 

I don't think so. It sure seems like, rather than giving an explanation, the poster used hyperbole that was so far over the top that I had to go "huh?" I believe the term is "strawman"

[ff07 2]

I don't think so. It sure seems like, rather than giving an explanation, the poster used hyperbole that was so far over the top that I had to go "huh?" I believe the term is "strawman"

 

I don't remember this question being directed towards you, as you have rarely brought any constructive comments to this topic.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, I am merely defending Dan's position that people are throwing out a statistic without giving any thought to what it means. I can throw out plenty of statistics about any topic I want and say "look at this stat, this completely proves my point and you're an idiot if you don't agree with my side."

 

I mentioned the African American statistic as it is one that is thrown around frequently in the news/social commentary circles, and is one that many people like to quote when talking about that issue.

 

It's not difficult to see the parallels in both issues, however. The question is, does this statistic mean this group is inherently violent/aggressive in nature, or is it that this group is a product of their environment. It's not rocket science.

 

You're right, the current state of African Americans has little to do with this thread. However, if you would take a minute to think about the question and the point of the post, you would realize that I was trying to make a point about throwing empty statistics around and claiming they're gospel.

[NewbieJr 540]

I think, actually, he simply pointing the obvious fallacy of Newbie's stat . . .

What is the fallacy in my stats? I'm seriously not understanding what your stance here is? The stats are overwhelming.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I don't remember this question being directed towards you, as you have rarely brought any constructive comments to this topic.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, I am merely defending Dan's position that people are throwing out a statistic without giving any thought to what it means. I can throw out plenty of statistics about any topic I want and say "look at this stat, this completely proves my point and you're an idiot if you don't agree with my side."

 

I mentioned the African American statistic as it is one that is thrown around frequently in the news/social commentary circles, and is one that many people like to quote when talking about that issue.

 

It's not difficult to see the parallels in both issues, however. The question is, does this statistic mean this group is inherently violent/aggressive in nature, or is it that this group is a product of their environment. It's not rocket science.

 

You're right, the current state of African Americans has little to do with this thread. However, if you would take a minute to think about the question and the point of the post, you would realize that I was trying to make a point about throwing empty statistics around and claiming they're gospel.

So, let me add another to the list. Your argument was a strawman. Look up the definition sometime. If you need further clarification, ask a guy named Recliner Pilot.

 

If you love pitbulls, great for you. I have not seen one statistic or argument in the thread that contradicts the number of documented incidents with this breed. Put some forth and you will be making an actual contribution. TIA.

[Dan 59]

I know that you made your point earlier in the thread, but I was not convinced. I also know that you are addressing this to Newbie, but are you really convinced that the pitbull is not an instinctively aggressive animal? I have spoken with law enforcement (canine officers), veternarians, and folks from the local shelter (we recently adopted another pet) about these animals and I have come away with completely different info. It is hard to dispute that pitbulls were historically bred to fight (each other or other larger animals) and it is also hard to dispute their loyalty to their masters (or territory).

 

If people really think that this particular breed is good with children even with proper handling, then I just don't get it. I can't imagine someone thinking, "Hey, I have a toddler, let's get a pitbull".

 

Actually, if you read my post from earlier, I didn't deny what you've said here. I stated baldly in that post that they were naturally aggressive. I further extrapolated that because of that aggressiveness and their inherent strength, that they are more "feared." They are not, however, a less family-oriented dog. I pointed out that, from a "nature" standpoint, pit bulls are friendlier than many other breeds - cocker spaniels are a perfect example. I never stated that they were the perfect pet, and I will be the first to concede that they ought not to be brought into a family situation without having an understanding of dogs beforehand. But that does not make the dog dangerous "inherently." Gun owners aren't foolish for having a gun in the house; they're foolish if they don't know how to use them.

 

Yes, pit bulls have been bred to fight, in a manner of speaking. I'm not sure how far you'll get with a suggestion that there is a "vicious" gene that they are trying to exemplify. They merely continue the pattern and feed that aggressive nature into viciousness from the time they're born.

 

Fox terriers were "bred" to carry messages across battlefields (true, not making that up). I'm not worried about them taking off cross country.

Rat Terriers were "bred" as an alternative to cats, with the bonus of being able to take out small woodland creatures. We have one . . . my money's on the rabbit.

Incidentally, terriers are by nature a "mean" breed. Oh, well. So much for stereotypes.

 

Greyhounds were "bred" to race, but you're not going to worry about them running away as fast as they can. They actually are among the friendliest breeds of dog . . . and they have the added bonus that they are extremely docile.

 

Dogs that are trained for specific purpose certainly have to be looked at differently. Shepherds trained for K-9 duty in police units will never be suitable for family life (according to my boss), and pit bulls are obviously worse. Police generally don't use them because they are too aggressive when that is fed.

 

I'm not afraid of facts, PFB. I'm just sharing a view from an actual expert, which my boss is.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Actually, if you read my post from earlier, I didn't deny what you've said here. I stated baldly in that post that they were naturally aggressive. I further extrapolated that because of that aggressiveness and their inherent strength, that they are more "feared." They are not, however, a less family-oriented dog. I pointed out that, from a "nature" standpoint, pit bulls are friendlier than many other breeds - cocker spaniels are a perfect example. I never stated that they were the perfect pet, and I will be the first to concede that they ought not to be brought into a family situation without having an understanding of dogs beforehand. But that does not make the dog dangerous "inherently." Gun owners aren't foolish for having a gun in the house; they're foolish if they don't know how to use them.

 

Yes, pit bulls have been bred to fight, in a manner of speaking. I'm not sure how far you'll get with a suggestion that there is a "vicious" gene that they are trying to exemplify. They merely continue the pattern and feed that aggressive nature into viciousness from the time they're born.

 

Fox terriers were "bred" to carry messages across battlefields (true, not making that up). I'm not worried about them taking off cross country.

Rat Terriers were "bred" as an alternative to cats, with the bonus of being able to take out small woodland creatures. We have one . . . my money's on the rabbit.

Incidentally, terriers are by nature a "mean" breed. Oh, well. So much for stereotypes.

 

Greyhounds were "bred" to race, but you're not going to worry about them running away as fast as they can. They actually are among the friendliest breeds of dog . . . and they have the added bonus that they are extremely docile.

 

Dogs that are trained for specific purpose certainly have to be looked at differently. Shepherds trained for K-9 duty in police units will never be suitable for family life (according to my boss), and pit bulls are obviously worse. Police generally don't use them because they are too aggressive when that is fed.

 

I'm not afraid of facts, PFB. I'm just sharing a view from an actual expert, which my boss is.

 

So, if you have a toddler, are you going to be starting out with a pitbull as your dog of choice or are you looking for a different breed?

[NewbieJr 540]

Bottom line is, with hundreds and hundreds of breeds out there, to choose a pit bull, knowing that they were bred to be fighters and would be uncontrollable if they 'snapped', then you are obviously trying to make a tough-guy statement. I can see no other reason for it. You might as well hang a set of rubber nuts on your back bumper. Talk about having a small ###### complex!

 

Harrison wanted to be "hood" and have a badass dog and it almost got his daughter killed.

 

When will dooshbags learn? Just get teh rubber nuts if you need to feel manly. Then buy a golden retriever.

[Dan 59]

What is the fallacy in my stats? I'm seriously not understanding what your stance here is? The stats are overwhelming.

 

The fallacy is in the way you use it, as I explained before.

 

The more interesting stat would be the number of dog bites or attacks. You point out the fatalities and stand on it as an end-all. That doesn't answer the question, though, of whether they are more vicious.

 

Can they do more damage? Of course they can. But if 100 pit bulls attacked humans and 100 cocker spaniels attacked humans, would there be more deaths from the pit bull attacks or the cocker spaniel attacks?

 

Your stat goes from the end, and presumes an understanding. It doesn't build from the base. All your stat proves is that pit bulls can be more deadly. Duh. I never denied it. But it doesn't make the animal evil.

[ff07 2]

So, let me add another to the list. Your argument was a strawman. Look up the definition sometime. If you need further clarification, ask a guy named Recliner Pilot.

 

If you love pitbulls, great for you. I have not seen one statistic or argument in the thread that contradicts the number of documented incidents with this breed. Put some forth and you will be making an actual contribution. TIA.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll certainly take that into account. I wasn't exactly trying to disprove against anyone's argument though, just pointing out the fact that statistics are often useless on their own. You should have supporting facts to compare/contrast with, and the context from which statistics are taken before attempting to say that it proves your argument

 

If you don't like pitbulls, great for your too. I'm not trying to change the world through a fantasy football website.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll certainly take that into account. I wasn't exactly trying to disprove against anyone's argument though, just pointing out the fact that statistics are often useless on their own. You should have supporting facts to compare/contrast with, and the context from which statistics are taken before attempting to say that it proves your argument

 

If you don't like pitbulls, great for your too. I'm not trying to change the world through a fantasy football website.

 

I agree that many statistics are not conclusive in their own right. However, this particular stat is the number of fatalities caused by a particular breed of dog. You can say that the stat is not show a completely causal relationship, but to ignore that it is statistically relevant is rather foolish. Either you are dead from the attack or you aren't. Seems rather significant to me.

 

I am thinking that anyone who has a child and they have an ounce of brains in their heads would steer clear of having that particular breed of dog in their house. I would say the same for about 20 other breeds. We aren't talking about Lassie here.

[Dan 59]

So, if you have a toddler, are you going to be starting out with a pitbull as your dog of choice or are you looking for a different breed?

 

 

*deep sigh* (they need an emoticon)

 

Would I, personally? No. But that really isn't the point, is it? Oh, and that has nothing to do with having three kids in my house; it's a preference. You talk about strawman arguments . . . I wonder if that's worse than diversionary arguments.

[Dan 59]

I'm going to go kill zombies now . . . with my son.

 

There . . . I will definitely bring my pit bull.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

*deep sigh* (they need an emoticon)

 

Would I, personally? No. But that really isn't the point, is it? Oh, and that has nothing to do with having three kids in my house; it's a preference. You talk about strawman arguments . . . I wonder if that's worse than diversionary arguments.

 

I really expected more from you on this one. This entire focking thread is about whether James Harrison learned from Vick's mistake because he had a pitbull in his house with his 4 year old son. The dog mauled the kid. That is not diversionary, that is bringing the argument to the point of the thread in the first place.

 

A rational person does not have a dog that (regardless of the ultimate cause) has caused (great) physical harm to quite a few folks around a small child that is likely to poke, prod, tease, and otherwise irritate that dog. It is reason that shelters pull a dog's tail, step on their feet, or otherwise annoy them to see how they might react and why the AKC has a section on "temperament" for each breed.

 

Regardless of what you think this thread was about or how it has been twisted, this is a thread about questioning the decision making of an individual who just so happens to be in the NFL.

[Dan 59]

I really expected more from you on this one. This entire focking thread is about whether James Harrison learned from Vick's mistake because he had a pitbull in his house with his 4 year old son. The dog mauled the kid. That is not diversionary, that is bringing the argument to the point of the thread in the first place.

 

You're right. I apologize. I was focused on the point I was making, and not really the tenor of the whole thread. I interjected because of the way pit bulls were being discussed, which didn't mesh with my boss' stories. It's very easy to grind one's own axe.

 

A rational person does not have a dog that (regardless of the ultimate cause) has caused (great) physical harm to quite a few folks around a small child that is likely to poke, prod, tease, and otherwise irritate that dog. It is reason that shelters pull a dog's tail, step on their feet, or otherwise annoy them to see how they might react and why the AKC has a section on "temperament" for each breed.

 

I understand your point, but I don't think I can completely agree. A lot of people own pit bulls. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that at least some of them are rational, and that some of them even have small children. That said, they ought to know how to handle the dog if they're going to get that kind of dog. I cannot fall into the mindset of "it's a dangerous dog, they shouldn't be pets" anymore than I can suggest that guns should be outlawed because they're dangerous weapons. Are some people irresponsible? Yes! But that doesn't mean the gun or the dog are the core issue.

 

Regardless of what you think this thread was about or how it has been twisted, this is a thread about questioning the decision making of an individual who just so happens to be in the NFL.

 

James Harrison has already shown that he is a bit of a knucklehead. I'm not sure that we needed this incident to prove it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You're right. I apologize. I was focused on the point I was making, and not really the tenor of the whole thread. I interjected because of the way pit bulls were being discussed, which didn't mesh with my boss' stories. It's very easy to grind one's own axe.

Fair enough. I do the same thing many times.

 

I understand your point, but I don't think I can completely agree. A lot of people own pit bulls. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that at least some of them are rational, and that some of them even have small children. That said, they ought to know how to handle the dog if they're going to get that kind of dog. I cannot fall into the mindset of "it's a dangerous dog, they shouldn't be pets" anymore than I can suggest that guns should be outlawed because they're dangerous weapons. Are some people irresponsible? Yes! But that doesn't mean the gun or the dog are the core issue.

I don't think that you need to outlaw the breed, but there is an inherent risk in that breed that I think would make a parent far more cautious when choosing a pet. Same for Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, etc. If you want to lay blame on the owners rather than the dog itself, I can't really argue with that.

 

James Harrison has already shown that he is a bit of a knucklehead. I'm not sure that we needed this incident to prove it.

 

See, that is definitely one that we can all agree on.

[jdswan922 0]

Just a little tidbit.

 

Pit bulls score better on temperment testing than most dogs. the breed is gentle, but they are loyal, possibly to fault in some circumstances. And they are freakishly strong. I bet those stat hounds would find that there are more bite incidents involving chiuauas, but they don't make the news because they cannot do much damage unless they are biting a baby.

[redtodd 7]

The 2-year-old son of Steelers OLB James Harrison was finally released from the hospital late Tuesday after being attacked by the family pit bull.

 

Agitated by the 2-year-old's crying, Harrison's pit bull took a chunk out of the infant's thigh five days ago. Luckily, the boy avoided nerve damage. His mother and the family's massage therapist were also attacked, with the latter needing stitches. Harrison still hopes to avoid euthanizing the dog.

 

The Dog nearly kills his kid......and he wants to keep it. Dumbass.

[TD Ryan2 314]

the issue here is a bit of a moving target...

 

but do any of you clowns actually have children?

are any of you parents yet?

 

your #1 job as a parent is to keep your kids out of harm's way.

I'm just not sure why ANY parent needs to have a large, aggressive dog around their children... pittbull or not, this isn't just about pitbulls for me.

 

Some would say it's for protection.

I try to understand this. I guess I can see how some people don't feel like they can protect themselves... OK.

ex. my buddy and his wife moved into a rural area, the wife was nervous when home alone. I get that.

 

But most the people who own pitbulls don't fit into that category (see: James Harrison).

 

James Harrison is an ass hole, a scab on society's sphincter.

USUALLY parents will fail to keep the children out of harm's way because they lack resources (i.e. money).

Harrison has all the resources in the world... he doubly fails.

 

Dan, I appreciate a lot of what you've brought to the thread here, but the bottom line is you can't argue FOR any parents with small children having a pet pitbull and to your credit, you've pretty much stated this.

 

Every dog has a purpose.

They are all bred for specific reasons.

They all have traits that make them good at their particular jobs.

If you have a family, get a family dog.

That's your dog's purpose.

It's really common sense.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

The Dog nearly kills his kid......and he wants to keep it. Dumbass.

 

If my dog took a chunk out of my 2 year old, I'd euthanize him myself, right on the spot.

[NewbieJr 540]

The fallacy is in the way you use it, as I explained before.

 

The more interesting stat would be the number of dog bites or attacks. You point out the fatalities and stand on it as an end-all. That doesn't answer the question, though, of whether they are more vicious.

 

Can they do more damage? Of course they can. But if 100 pit bulls attacked humans and 100 cocker spaniels attacked humans, would there be more deaths from the pit bull attacks or the cocker spaniel attacks?

 

Your stat goes from the end, and presumes an understanding. It doesn't build from the base. All your stat proves is that pit bulls can be more deadly. Duh. I never denied it. But it doesn't make the animal evil.

I know that my stat proves that pit bulls can be more deadly. That was the exact reason for me posting it.

I could care less about total dog bites. I was bitten by dogs numerous times in my life. It's the deadly ones that rub me the wrong way.

[Phurfur 70]

You're right. I apologize. I was focused on the point I was making, and not really the tenor of the whole thread. I interjected because of the way pit bulls were being discussed, which didn't mesh with my boss' stories. It's very easy to grind one's own axe.

I understand your point, but I don't think I can completely agree. A lot of people own pit bulls. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that at least some of them are rational, and that some of them even have small children. That said, they ought to know how to handle the dog if they're going to get that kind of dog. I cannot fall into the mindset of "it's a dangerous dog, they shouldn't be pets" anymore than I can suggest that guns should be outlawed because they're dangerous weapons. Are some people irresponsible? Yes! But that doesn't mean the gun or the dog are the core issue.

James Harrison has already shown that he is a bit of a knucklehead. I'm not sure that we needed this incident to prove it.

 

There is a big difference, guns don't pick their victims and go off by themselves.

[shutdown 40]

The fallacy is in the way you use it, as I explained before.

 

The more interesting stat would be the number of dog bites or attacks. You point out the fatalities and stand on it as an end-all. That doesn't answer the question, though, of whether they are more vicious.

 

Can they do more damage? Of course they can. But if 100 pit bulls attacked humans and 100 cocker spaniels attacked humans, would there be more deaths from the pit bull attacks or the cocker spaniel attacks?

 

Your stat goes from the end, and presumes an understanding. It doesn't build from the base. All your stat proves is that pit bulls can be more deadly. Duh. I never denied it. But it doesn't make the animal evil.

 

 

I found this topic intriguing and did some casual research. From what I read, German Shepards account for the most attacks by breed. Pit Bull attacks account for 32% of dog attack fatalities (the most by breed) the majority of pitbull victims were between the ages of 9-14.

 

I have one personal experience with this breed of dog. I had a friend that had a pit bull. By his own account a very well behaved dog. I went to his house a couple of times and this dog was, as he said, a very friendly typical family pet. It even played with other dogs and never showed any sign of aggressiveness toward me or other dogs that were in its presence. He did mention one time that he had a roommate with a German Shepard and they fought one time with the pit bull being pulled off of the Shepard before anything serious happened - there were no problems after this incident.

 

Later, his wife was pregnant and after talks with his wife he made the difficult decision to give his dog away. After reading about what this breed is capable of when it does attack children, they simply did not feel they could risk their child's life, no matter how small the risk. Any breed of dog can act erratic when a new variable is introduced into their environment, but a pit bull acting erratically with a child was too much of a risk for them despite the dog's history of being a good dog and never being vicious towards people.

 

I certainly understand your questioning of the true danger of these animals when treated properly and I understand that stats are easily misused. But I have to think there is something hardwired in these dogs that makes them fight to the death and thus because of their strength, makes them more dangerous than most breeds. This would also attract owners who value these traits and would then attempt to enhance them, thus giving pit bulls an even worse image than they may deserve.

 

Personally, I'd never own one and before meeting my friend's dog, I never even wanted to be around one. But seeing Friday (the dog) in a family environment made me rethink the notion that they are nothing but hardwired killing machines. However my friend, who loved that dog, still chose to be 100% sure his child would never be the victim of a pit bull attack and made the decision to eliminate the risk. I think his decision was one that a parent should make given the information on this particular animal.

[ff07 2]

I found this topic intriguing and did some casual research. From what I read, German Shepards account for the most attacks by breed. Pit Bull attacks account for 32% of dog attack fatalities (the most by breed) the majority of pitbull victims were between the ages of 9-14.

 

I have one personal experience with this breed of dog. I had a friend that had a pit bull. By his own account a very well behaved dog. I went to his house a couple of times and this dog was, as he said, a very friendly typical family pet. It even played with other dogs and never showed any sign of aggressiveness toward me or other dogs that were in its presence. He did mention one time that he had a roommate with a German Shepard and they fought one time with the pit bull being pulled off of the Shepard before anything serious happened - there were no problems after this incident.

 

Later, his wife was pregnant and after talks with his wife he made the difficult decision to give his dog away. After reading about what this breed is capable of when it does attack children, they simply did not feel they could risk their child's life, no matter how small the risk. Any breed of dog can act erratic when a new variable is introduced into their environment, but a pit bull acting erratically with a child was too much of a risk for them despite the dog's history of being a good dog and never being vicious towards people.

 

I certainly understand your questioning of the true danger of these animals when treated properly and I understand that stats are easily misused. But I have to think there is something hardwired in these dogs that makes them fight to the death and thus because of their strength, makes them more dangerous than most breeds. This would also attract owners who value these traits and would then attempt to enhance them, thus giving pit bulls an even worse image than they may deserve.

 

Personally, I'd never own one and before meeting my friend's dog, I never even wanted to be around one. But seeing Friday (the dog) in a family environment made me rethink the notion that they are nothing but hardwired killing machines. However my friend, who loved that dog, still chose to be 100% sure his child would never be the victim of a pit bull attack and made the decision to eliminate the risk. I think his decision was one that a parent should make given the information on this particular animal.

 

This is exactly my point that I did a terrible job of explaining in the beginning of the thread. You can't blame the dogs for how they were raised/bred. They are inherently friendly/loyal dogs who have certain traits which make them a target for people to manipulate to make them more aggressive. If you have a little child, it's probably not the best idea to have a pitbull in your house, same for a few other breeds. Blame the people who bring these dogs in the environment that they're in, not the dogs. It's frustrating to see comments like "pitbull = ", or that pitbulls are cold-blooded killers. Those types of ignorant comments are part of what makes our society as a whole suck-a$$

[TD Ryan2 314]

I found this topic intriguing and did some casual research. From what I read, German Shepards account for the most attacks by breed. Pit Bull attacks account for 32% of dog attack fatalities (the most by breed) the majority of pitbull victims were between the ages of 9-14.

 

I have one personal experience with this breed of dog. I had a friend that had a pit bull. By his own account a very well behaved dog. I went to his house a couple of times and this dog was, as he said, a very friendly typical family pet. It even played with other dogs and never showed any sign of aggressiveness toward me or other dogs that were in its presence. He did mention one time that he had a roommate with a German Shepard and they fought one time with the pit bull being pulled off of the Shepard before anything serious happened - there were no problems after this incident.

 

Later, his wife was pregnant and after talks with his wife he made the difficult decision to give his dog away. After reading about what this breed is capable of when it does attack children, they simply did not feel they could risk their child's life, no matter how small the risk. Any breed of dog can act erratic when a new variable is introduced into their environment, but a pit bull acting erratically with a child was too much of a risk for them despite the dog's history of being a good dog and never being vicious towards people.

 

I certainly understand your questioning of the true danger of these animals when treated properly and I understand that stats are easily misused. But I have to think there is something hardwired in these dogs that makes them fight to the death and thus because of their strength, makes them more dangerous than most breeds. This would also attract owners who value these traits and would then attempt to enhance them, thus giving pit bulls an even worse image than they may deserve.

 

Personally, I'd never own one and before meeting my friend's dog, I never even wanted to be around one. But seeing Friday (the dog) in a family environment made me rethink the notion that they are nothing but hardwired killing machines. However my friend, who loved that dog, still chose to be 100% sure his child would never be the victim of a pit bull attack and made the decision to eliminate the risk. I think his decision was one that a parent should make given the information on this particular animal.

that's a quality post right there.

[thatcrazyartguy 0]

Harrison wanted to be "hood" and have a badass dog and it almost got his daughter killed.

 

YOU NAILED IT.....

[DeaLerZ 0]

About six years ago, my poodle got mad and started barking and snapping at my nephew. You know what I did? I grabbed the poodle and pinned it to the ground, holding it's mouth shut and put my face in his face and yelled , "No!..Bad!". You know what he did? He whimpered away and and sat in the other room.

 

Now, let's replay that entire scenerio with a pit bull. How do you think that ends up for my nephew and me?

 

 

You have a poodle?