Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[franklin]

That's because the vitriolic argument against this example has less to do with banning dangerous animals, and more to do with allowing kids to garnish themselves with open containers of food while sleeping in tents in bear country. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but it's only barely on the same playing field as raising pit pulls as pets and keeping them in our homes. Maybe if we were to capture black bear cubs and raise them in our homes, though-- I mean, the parallel would be to believe they would then become less dangerous, raise them as sweet, non-violent pets, and then be suprised when they eat us. Right? Or would that only happen because bad bear owners equal bad bears? I dunno.

Look, both are animals with violent instincts. The difference is we have bred those instincts into one of them, chosen to place it in our homes, and then debate the situation like it defies logic when one of them instinctively rips someone's face off. Is it really overprotective, etc. to suggest that putting ourselves in the path of violent animals-- whether they're bred for violence or violent because they are wild predators-- is a pretty bad idea...?

Olden, I have not yet had the pleasure to meet your acquaintance. I see you are a very sensible person and likely well rounded in most areas with a couple intricate hickups that make you seem slightly bat **** crazy just like everyone else of your high composure. I gladly kiss your ***, suck up, and rain praise upon you with this post. Welcome, and I look forward to learning of your hickups.

 

[Stoked]

I wonder if any pitbull bans have been challenged in court and how high they have gone. Aside formt he pittbulls themselves it raises an interestign question.

At what point does society get to tell you what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot own. At what point do they lose that right?

 

[Gameface]

I wonder if any pitbull bans have been challenged in court and how high they have gone. Aside formt he pittbulls themselves it raises an interestign question.

At what point does society get to tell you what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot own. At what point do they lose that right?

There are a lot of animals that are not allowed in residential areas. Usually you can own them if you jump through the hoops, but you need to keep them on property that is appropriate and/or zoned accordingly.

 

[Stoked]

There are a lot of animals that are not allowed in residential areas. Usually you can own them if you jump through the hoops, but you need to keep them on property that is appropriate and/or zoned accordingly.

Oh I am sure one can list numerous examples on both sides of the fence. Just interesting to me at where different people feel the line is for them to tell others how to live their life.

 

[♪alt13]

That's because the vitriolic argument against this example has less to do with banning dangerous animals, and more to do with allowing kids to garnish themselves with open containers of food while sleeping in tents in bear country. Why anyone would do that is beyond me, but it's only barely on the same playing field as raising pit pulls as pets and keeping them in our homes. Maybe if we were to capture black bear cubs and raise them in our homes, though-- I mean, the parallel would be to believe they would then become less dangerous, raise them as sweet, non-violent pets, and then be suprised when they eat us. Right? Or would that only happen because bad bear owners equal bad bears? I dunno.

Look, both are animals with violent instincts. The difference is we have bred those instincts into one of them, chosen to place it in our homes, and then debate the situation like it defies logic when one of them instinctively rips someone's face off. Is it really overprotective, etc. to suggest that putting ourselves in the path of violent animals-- whether they're bred for violence or violent because they are wild predators-- is a pretty bad idea...?

Did you read the thread? We have already gone over whether pit bulls are inherently more violent(hint:they're not).
https://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-pit-bulls/

Bears becomes an apt comparison as soon as we decide to make laws on an emotional/subjective level. I do not think a pit bull is similar to a bear but both have killed and so some may call for the removal of either. We have already removed grizzlies and wolves which I think is a great shame. If we were to reintroduce them it would definitely mean that more people would die. I do not think that is justification enough to ban anything. For something to be even considered to be banned it must (imo) be shown to create an excessive risk. Although some may have you believe that pit bulls do represent an excessive risk the statistics do not bare this out.

In 2012 the us rate for murder and non negligent manslaughter was 4.7/100k
There were 23 total fatal pit bull attacks.
The population of pit bulls was 4 million
If we adjust the human population to 4 million(now there are 4 million Pits and 4 million people)
188 people will be purposefully killed by other human beings while only 23 will be killed by pit bulls.
ps The statistic I used for the dogs was from a pro pit bull ban site(so if it is biased it is surely overestimating the # of deaths rather than under)
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

 

[♪alt13]

It's surprising how many pit bull advocates defend the breed despite not owning one personally and having never interaction much with one. Put your money where your mouths are and go out and buy one and trust your children's lives with it. I guarantee you will see these dogs in a whole new light after finding out first hand just how ruthless they are capable of being.
I have plenty of experience with the breed. I do not feel that I currently have the time or space required to be a good dog owner.
The difference between a pit bull and every other breed is that an 80 pound pit barely gets warmed up in a dog fight after 15 minutes with a breed 3 to 4 times its weight is completely exhausted. There's something unnatural about animals being able to easily dominate larger animals of the same build. Comparing a pit bull's fighting ability is like comparing a black bear to a grizzly bear, only the pit bull is the size of the black bear and will have no problems dominating the grizzly's size. I don't think most people realize how quickly an 80 lb pit will tear apart a 120 lb Rottweiler, it's not even close to a fair match. Large Dogo Argentino's, which are also mastiff based, very lean and built and bread to individually kill 600 lb wild boars, are nothing compared to a pit. The Chinese fighting dogs were wiped out by pits. There is a damn good reason pit bulls are known for fighting and underground rings don't even bother toying around with other dog types: pit bulls are nothing short of natural born killers.

On top of the sheer muscle and energy these dogs carry, pit bulls are also unnatural in that they were specifically bread to fight to the death and nothing more. In the natural world, no predator is willing to fight to the death. Every action is a calculated risk based on potential rewards. If any other animal gets injured or feels the threat of it, it will retreat. Pit bulls are the only exception to this rule that I know of outside the motherly instinct -- which even then many mammals are not willing to lay their life on the line for a born child if the risk is too great -- they were bread willing to die losing a fight.

You cannot back up anything that you have said above^(as I have) I would also inquire to your obviously extensive experience with the breed.

 

[franklin]

Did you read the thread? We have already gone over whether pit bulls are inherently more violent(hint:they're not).
https://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-pit-bulls/

Bears becomes an apt comparison as soon as we decide to make laws on an emotional/subjective level. I do not think a pit bull is similar to a bear but both have killed and so some may call for the removal of either. We have already removed grizzlies and wolves which I think is a great shame. If we were to reintroduce them it would definitely mean that more people would die. I do not think that is justification enough to ban anything. For something to be even considered to be banned it must (imo) be shown to create an excessive risk. Although some may have you believe that pit bulls do represent an excessive risk the statistics do not bare this out.

In 2012 the us rate for murder and non negligent manslaughter was 4.7/100k
There were 23 total fatal pit bull attacks.
The population of pit bulls was 4 million
If we adjust the human population to 4 million(now there are 4 million Pits and 4 million people)
188 people will be purposefully killed by other human beings while only 23 will be killed by pit bulls.
ps The statistic I used for the dogs was from a pro pit bull ban site(so if it is biased it is surely overestimating the # of deaths rather than under)
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You suggesting banning pitbulls from society is equivalent to attempting to ban dangerous people from society is clever, really. Please go on with this.

 

[♪alt13]

You suggesting banning pitbulls from society is equivalent to attempting to ban dangerous people from society is clever, really. Please go on with this.

That's not what I said at all. Do some reading about excessive risk(legal). I was showing that pit bulls do not represent an excessive risk as shown through this little statistical exercise.

 

[LogGrad98]

Log I am really sorry that that happened but I have addressed it and much more thoroughly than your ban would. Please see post #54. As for my cry baby comments that were not directed at any particular case rather at a society that is over reactive, over bearing, and over protective.

A few years ago an 11 year old boy was eaten by a black bear in one of our local canyons. You don't seem to have the same vitriolic arguments against bears. Does this mean that you don't have concerns for his family, of course not.

To me the difference is that the 11 year old boy went into the bear's territory. And actually there are already processes in place for this, and when they find wild animals that have been attacking people they relocate or kill the animal, and no one says boo. I would be in favor of putting down a bear that attacked a human even if it was in the bear's territory. But you can't exactly ban bears from the woods now can you?

But if a guy's pitbull kills a neighbor or family member even then hundreds of people get all up in arms when they put the animal down as dangerous, saying the blame should be on the owner. Yet in this case a dangerous animal is not in a natural habitat. It is being kept purposely where people live as well. This is a danger that can, and imo should, be mitigated somehow.

But these are fundamentally different scenarios. If you go where wild animals are, you could reasonably expect to have some contact with said wild animals. So if you don't want to be attacked by a bear, stay out of the woods, so to speak. But, as in the case of the lady attacked in her back yard by dogs that were not hers, she reasonably did not have a reason to fear an animal attack there. It is a different situation that requires different guidelines and reactions.

EDIT: I wrote this then read the response by olden, which was way better than mine.

 

[LogGrad98]

I wonder if any pitbull bans have been challenged in court and how high they have gone. Aside formt he pittbulls themselves it raises an interestign question.

At what point does society get to tell you what you can and cannot do, what you can and cannot own. At what point do they lose that right?

This is the endless debate. It happens all the time. Guns, abortion, legal age of consent, even taxes etc. etc. all are examples of this. And this is what a responsible society does is consider the different sides of these actions and activities and risks and dangers and tries to come up with reasonable solutions to help improve our society and our abilities to exercise our freedoms to the fullest while not impinging on the freedoms of others any more than necessary, and allowing us to seek happiness where we find it while minimizing the pain we cause others in the process.

It is tough to get right, and we rarely if ever get it even close to perfect, but it must be done in a civilized society.

 

[LogGrad98]

Did you read the thread? We have already gone over whether pit bulls are inherently more violent(hint:they're not).
https://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/the-truth-about-pit-bulls/

Bears becomes an apt comparison as soon as we decide to make laws on an emotional/subjective level. I do not think a pit bull is similar to a bear but both have killed and so some may call for the removal of either. We have already removed grizzlies and wolves which I think is a great shame. If we were to reintroduce them it would definitely mean that more people would die. I do not think that is justification enough to ban anything. For something to be even considered to be banned it must (imo) be shown to create an excessive risk. Although some may have you believe that pit bulls do represent an excessive risk the statistics do not bare this out.

In 2012 the us rate for murder and non negligent manslaughter was 4.7/100k
There were 23 total fatal pit bull attacks.
The population of pit bulls was 4 million
If we adjust the human population to 4 million(now there are 4 million Pits and 4 million people)
188 people will be purposefully killed by other human beings while only 23 will be killed by pit bulls.
ps The statistic I used for the dogs was from a pro pit bull ban site(so if it is biased it is surely overestimating the # of deaths rather than under)
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

So what is the cost of banning pitbulls vs the benefit? Benefit, potentially 23 people will not die. Cost? Thousands of people cannot own them as pets. The same, reversed, is the cost/benefit of not banning them. Put another way, is it reasonable to sacrifice 23 people a year so someone can have a particular breed as a pet? Is the need or right of thousands of people to keep a pet more important than the lives of those 23 individuals? Now it is out of the realm of stats and into the realm of philosophy and morals. How do you put a value on a human life? The government does it monetarily, can we apply the same logic here? Does it change if that life is one close to you, or even your own? If you knew that someone you knew would die this year from a pitbull attack, and let's say just for gits and shiggles every year after, just so other people can own them as pets, would you be just fine with that? Tough questions to answer IMO. It is much easier to answer when the number is nameless and faceless. Put a name and a face to it and the answers will tend to change as well. They did for me.

 

[♪alt13]

To me the difference is that the 11 year old boy went into the bear's territory. And actually there are already processes in place for this, and when they find wild animals that have been attacking people they relocate or kill the animal, and no one says boo. I would be in favor of putting down a bear that attacked a human even if it was in the bear's territory. But you can't exactly ban bears from the woods now can you?
Yes you can ban dangerous animals from the woods and we have.
But if a guy's pitbull kills a neighbor or family member even then hundreds of people get all up in arms when they put the animal down as dangerous, saying the blame should be on the owner. Yet in this case a dangerous animal is not in a natural habitat. It is being kept purposely where people live as well. This is a danger that can, and imo should, be mitigated somehow.
Yes if a dog attacks someone it should be put down, I agree with that. I am even ok with a registry which by the way I proposed. I am simply against an all out ban and I am sorry but as I said the facts simply don't show that pit bulls have a worse temperament than other dogs.
But these are fundamentally different scenarios. If you go where wild animals are, you could reasonably expect to have some contact with said wild animals. So if you don't want to be attacked by a bear, stay out of the woods, so to speak. But, as in the case of the lady attacked in her back yard by dogs that were not hers, she reasonably did not have a reason to fear an animal attack there. It is a different situation that requires different guidelines and reactions.
I understand that they are different scenarios but a ban on pits or removing bears from our canyons is (imo) motivated by over blown fears. I already stated that I am ok with a registry and testing of all large dogs I just feel that a ban is way too far. If pit bulls were proven to be inherently much more dangerous than other dogs you may have an argument for a ban, but they are not.

.