Why all states should ban pit bulls

[Patriotic Voter]

You make my point. Ever see a bigot change his stripes?

They also don't realize...

They will defend their dogs to the death... even more than gun owners would defend their guns. I certainly would. Try to take my pit away and see what happens.

Yep. One day while I was walking with my mom at a botanical gardens park, we saw a couple with a pit bull sitting in a gazebo. The way that park is designed, people have to walk through the gazebo to continue on the path. The dog growled. The man told me to "keep going," then added, "You're OK We love her."

 

[uptower]

Ninety-nine percent of the problem is bad owners. I've been around pit bulls that were nothing but nice.

Sadly they attract the wrong people. Like certain weapons it's easier to legislate bans rather than legislate a whole demographic or two or three out of existence.

Simply banning breeding and mandating neutering is the humane way. Eventually those left will just die off happily in their owners arms, unaware of the laws at all.

 

[maquiscat]

Exactly! So, why do you keep insisting on recent data? And why is it that what you present as recent data isn't?

You refer to the need for recent data again. What do you think happened to pitbull type species during the last five years that merits such a need?

Without the data, how would I know what happened?

How is 2008 better than 2000? Did something happen to pitbull types in 2008 that didn't happen in 2000?

If you don't have the 2008 data, how would you know if there was a change? You keep avoiding this question (previously presented in several different ways).

About the absolute and relative numbers, the latter are more accurate because higher numbers of bites can be driven by higher populations. That means pitbull advocates are right.]

That's an opinion, as some feel that absolute higher numbers matter. And I see their logic. So for example, if I put equal numbers of malamutes, pit bulls (any type), Dobermans, and rottweilers in a room, my odds are being bitten by the malamutes because they have the higher attack rate. But if I were to make the numbers of those breeds proportional to the actual population, then my odds of being bit move to the pit bulls because my encounter rate will go up dramatically. So even while the malamute breed is more likely as a breed to bite, there are better odds of me encountering a biting pit bull.

At the same time, using non-recent data is not only correct but needed so that one can see trendlines.

I already said as much. But the shown trend ends at where the data ends. If the data starts in 1970 and ends in 2000, we have no real idea what the trend in 2010 or 2020 is. Sure we can extrapolate, but we don't know if that extrapolation is accurate to reality or not, because we don't have the data. Thus presenting data that ends too far back fails to show what the current trend is, which is what we want if we are discussing a problem for today. Naturally, if the issue is looking at what happened back then, we only need the data from back then. But we're discussing now. So we need to most current data, especially to see if there have been any changes.

And I think they show that pitbull types have higher numbers of biting incidences but lower numbers when seen in light of population.

My only reason for sharing the link to the CDC page is that it's the only one I found about pitbulls in their website. I was trying to look for the data sets used in the study cited by in the pro-pitbulls site.

I understand that. I was only pointing out that the data you found, cannot by itself point us to any current trend. I even noted that in another post criticizing the conclusions the pro-bit bull site made.

 

[ralfy]

Without the data, how would I know what happened?



If you don't have the 2008 data, how would you know if there was a change? You keep avoiding this question (previously presented in several different ways).



That's an opinion, as some feel that absolute higher numbers matter. And I see their logic. So for example, if I put equal numbers of malamutes, pit bulls (any type), Dobermans, and rottweilers in a room, my odds are being bitten by the malamutes because they have the higher attack rate. But if I were to make the numbers of those breeds proportional to the actual population, then my odds of being bit move to the pit bulls because my encounter rate will go up dramatically. So even while the malamute breed is more likely as a breed to bite, there are better odds of me encountering a biting pit bull.



I already said as much. But the shown trend ends at where the data ends. If the data starts in 1970 and ends in 2000, we have no real idea what the trend in 2010 or 2020 is. Sure we can extrapolate, but we don't know if that extrapolation is accurate to reality or not, because we don't have the data. Thus presenting data that ends too far back fails to show what the current trend is, which is what we want if we are discussing a problem for today. Naturally, if the issue is looking at what happened back then, we only need the data from back then. But we're discussing now. So we need to most current data, especially to see if there have been any changes.



I understand that. I was only pointing out that the data you found, cannot by itself point us to any current trend. I even noted that in another post criticizing the conclusions the pro-bit bull site made.

Exactly! Why, then, do you think recent data is important? Why is data from 2008 more important than data from 2000?

I'm not arguing that 2008 data is not needed. What I'm saying is that all I could find from the CDC site is what I shared in the thread. Anything else claimed in various websites showed a 404: the page linked is missing.

My understanding is that when you use per capita data, you're normalizing population sizes and thus seeing what would happen if there was the same population for each breed.

What do you think happened in 2010 or 2020 that would make looking for data from those years relevant? Keep in mind that you can answer that question without knowing if biting incidences went up or down.

Finally, I shared that link not to prove a point. Rather, I shared it because it's the only thing I could find from the CDC website. Anything else that was linked in other sites to the CDC shows a 404, or the page linked is missing.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, that is all wrong. People use firearms to kill by using them correctly.

And sometimes there’s nothing wrong with that

If a pit bull kills someone, it is either rabid (like any other breed dog) or not trained and restrained (like any other breed dog).

if pitbulls need to be restrained at all times to prevent them from killing someone they’re too dangerous

 

[poppopfox]

And sometimes there’s nothing wrong with that

if pitbulls need to be restrained at all times to prevent them from killing someone they’re too dangerous

Too cute!

 

[maquiscat]

Please do me a favor a break down my posts to precisely what part each response is to, because I don't understand what part "exactly" refers to

Exactly! Why, then, do you think recent data is important? Why is data from 2008 more important than data from 2000?

Recent data tells you want the current trend is. Past data either only relates to the past (as in you are studying it), or sets the context of the current data to show if the trend is continuing or changing. You can't show what the current trend is doing currently without that current data. And you also can make a reliable claim on what is currently happening with only old data.

I'm not arguing that 2008 data is not needed. What I'm saying is that all I could find from the CDC site is what I shared in the thread. Anything else claimed in various websites showed a 404: the page linked is missing.

I don't know what is wrong with your search engine. Every link posted that I followed including those within linked articles, I got to. Can you tell me specifically which post numbers had failed links for you?

My understanding is that when you use per capita data, you're normalizing population sizes and thus seeing what would happen if there was the same population for each breed.

True enough. But that does not negate the fact that with a higher population, you increase the encounter change and thus the change of being bit/killed by that breed. Let me try an example. There is a type of bee, let's call them A for aggressive, that will sting you for looking cross eyed at it. Bee type R, for reluctant, will only sting you if you touch it. However, in the location that I am at, there are only 1000 A bees, and 1 million R bees. My chances of getting stung by an A bee is much less than by an R bee, simply because of the encounter rate. I'm more likely to touch an R bee than even see an A bee. This is why both aspects are important. Neither should be dismissed, and neither makes an absolute case.

What do you think happened in 2010 or 2020 that would make looking for data from those years relevant? Keep in mind that you can answer that question without knowing if biting incidences went up or down.

Yes, someone could ask that question if they observed something that makes them think that something changed. But there is also wanting the data to confirm or disprove a claim made, such as number or rate of attacks/kills, or simply to monitor the rates to so as to catch a change when it happens, or shortly afterwards. One doesn't have to assume that something has changed to want to monitor for changes, and keep up to date on what is actually happening.

Finally, I shared that link not to prove a point. Rather, I shared it because it's the only thing I could find from the CDC website. Anything else that was linked in other sites to the CDC shows a 404, or the page linked is missing.

I'm not sure what else to tell you, at least with regards to why you can't connect to the other links. But the fact remains, and I was only pointing it out (note that I have made no assumption on your position one way or the other, and I don't recall you making one) that the data is too old to show what the current trend is, and is thus useless for making those determination.

 

[maquiscat]

if pitbulls need to be restrained at all times to prevent them from killing someone they’re too dangerous

If any dog needs to be restrained at all times to prevent them from killing someone, they are too dangerous. By your logic, that would make all breeds too dangerous.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If any dog needs to be restrained at all times to prevent them from killing someone, they are too dangerous. By your logic, that would make all breeds too dangerous.

Yada Yada Yada

 

[maquiscat]

Yada Yada Yada

Yeah, we've been saying that to you all thread. What's your point? Besides the one you haven't proved yet.

 

[ralfy]

Please do me a favor a break down my posts to precisely what part each response is to, because I don't understand what part "exactly" refers to



Recent data tells you want the current trend is. Past data either only relates to the past (as in you are studying it), or sets the context of the current data to show if the trend is continuing or changing. You can't show what the current trend is doing currently without that current data. And you also can make a reliable claim on what is currently happening with only old data.



I don't know what is wrong with your search engine. Every link posted that I followed including those within linked articles, I got to. Can you tell me specifically which post numbers had failed links for you?



True enough. But that does not negate the fact that with a higher population, you increase the encounter change and thus the change of being bit/killed by that breed. Let me try an example. There is a type of bee, let's call them A for aggressive, that will sting you for looking cross eyed at it. Bee type R, for reluctant, will only sting you if you touch it. However, in the location that I am at, there are only 1000 A bees, and 1 million R bees. My chances of getting stung by an A bee is much less than by an R bee, simply because of the encounter rate. I'm more likely to touch an R bee than even see an A bee. This is why both aspects are important. Neither should be dismissed, and neither makes an absolute case.



Yes, someone could ask that question if they observed something that makes them think that something changed. But there is also wanting the data to confirm or disprove a claim made, such as number or rate of attacks/kills, or simply to monitor the rates to so as to catch a change when it happens, or shortly afterwards. One doesn't have to assume that something has changed to want to monitor for changes, and keep up to date on what is actually happening.



I'm not sure what else to tell you, at least with regards to why you can't connect to the other links. But the fact remains, and I was only pointing it out (note that I have made no assumption on your position one way or the other, and I don't recall you making one) that the data is too old to show what the current trend is, and is thus useless for making those determination.

The data that you present as recent isn't recent. I also don't know where it came from.

I used Google and searched the CDC site directly. I clicked on links in other sites that linked to CDC data and they came up with 404s.

I think data is needed to show that the number of bites goes up per capita given higher population. Have you found such data from the CDC?

Now, you understand why I shared that link from the CDC, as it's the only thing I could find on the matter.

 

[The Mark]

I was delighted last month when the Arkansas legislature roundly defeated a bill that would repeal local breed specific laws.

Bill intended to prohibit local bans of specific dog breeds fails in Arkansas House | Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

A bill intended to bar municipalities from issuing bans targeting specific dog breeds failed to advance from the House on Tuesday.

www.nwaonline.com

This doesn’t go far enough however, because it allows cities to permit people to own these dangerous animals. States should ban them outright.

Pit bulls and any true bulldog or bully breed should be illegal for general ownership as a pet. This is for several reasons

1) they are evolutionary adapted to cause permanent injury and death.

These dogs stem from an English sport called “bull baiting” where dogs would be arranged to kill bulls, as Bull baiting fell out of favor then new blood sports such as dog fighting and ratting emerged, for which bulldogs were crossed with terriers to make a strong and agile dog with a ferocious bite and high pain tolerance. This is the origin of modern pitbulls.

2) pitbulls are the least wanted dog in America, many pitbulls are given to shelters quickly as naive people realize these animals are dangerous. The pit Bull is the most euthanized dog in America and I this overpopulation is in part because insufficient bsl exists to prosecute breeders for making this animals
3) pitbulls are indisputably the most dangerous animals in America, 2/3 of all serious dog attacks on humans and over 90% of serious dog attacks on domesticated animals are from pit bulls, which are less then ten percent of dogs. The next dog after pitbulls are dobermans which are trained to be actual property guard dogs and it’s less than a quarter of pit Bull numbers. https://coloradoinjurylaw.com/dog-b...higher morbidity,than attacks by other breeds.

3) pit bulls have high prey drive, they will attack their own owners, their owners children, their owners parents, sometimes even strangers and they do it without warning. Pit bulls will attack infants for crying because it triggers their prey drive
4) pit bulls have locking jaws which cause serious injury. Lucas County Ohio Dog Warden Tom Skeldon once presented a video in court of a dog that wouldn’t release its grasp on a cable after being tranquilized. Even pit Bull activists recommend carrying “break sticks” to pry the jaws of the dog when it attacks another dog.

5) existing lesser laws are inadequate. Most laws involving dangerous animals are meant to deal with normal dog breeds which are nuisances, not for fatal attacks by dogs like pit bulls. Breed specific laws allow accountability for people who choose to adopt dangerous animals

Tell you what, I'll trade a complete and total ban on pit bulls for a complete and total ban on firearms.


Oh, is that too broad and blanket-like?

Why yes, I'm glad we agree.

 

[donhughesmusic]

Tell you what, I'll trade a complete and total ban on pit bulls for a complete and total ban on firearms.


Oh, is that too broad and blanket-like?

Why yes, I'm glad we agree.

Since when was a dog the weapon of choice in a mass shooting?

 

[The Mark]

Since when was a dog the weapon of choice in a mass shooting?

I would assume never.
Not that it matters.