Pit bull jumps 6-foot fence, attacks 9-year-old Birmingham boy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;48781355]Dog bites are preventable when both parties involved - i.e. the owner and the person bit - actually know what the fuck to do. First and foremost the owner should always be in control of the dog. Secondly, there are a lot of triggers that will make a dog bite. Think for example of the children that get bit by dogs, then imagine how kids interact with dogs. A 6 year old will just freak out and go "DOGGY!!!" and start basically overwhelming the dog. That is a situation that could make a dog bite the kid.[/QUOTE] Yes, I agree. And I also know that all types of dogs are more or less equally likely to get aggressive and bite. The problem is that bigger dogs cause more damage when they bite, and the question is whether or not this can and should be mitigated by enforcing requirements to owning such dogs.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48781382]if it is such a huge problem, why arent there more people calling for a system like the one you proposed?[/QUOTE] Lack of awareness probably contributes the most, and (I'm going to be hated for this) excessive emotional attachment to dogs. We should continue talking about dog attacks and trying to come up with solutions. Some of you act like it isn't a matter worth any attention, and that's just wrong. It does deserve attention and it deserves discussion. Not just for humans' sake, but for the dogs' sake, too.

[QUOTE=Furioso;48781441]Lack of awareness probably contributes the most, and (I'm going to be hated for this) excessive emotional attachment to dogs. We should continue talking about dog attacks and trying to come up with solutions. Some of you act like it isn't a matter worth any attention, and that's just wrong. It does deserve attention and it deserves discussion. Not just for humans' sake, but for the dogs' sake, too.[/QUOTE] I mean tbh I really [I]dont[/I] think it deserves a whole hell of a lot of attention in the grand scheme of things dog attacks result in less than 50 deaths per year (in the US, a country of over 300 million) so why would we develop and implement a system for registering dogs when it has such a tiny impact on the vast, overwhelming majority of peoples lives?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48781552]I mean tbh I really [I]dont[/I] think it deserves a whole hell of a lot of attention in the grand scheme of things dog attacks result in less than 50 deaths per year (in the US, a country of over 300 million) so why would we develop and implement a system for registering dogs when it has such a tiny impact on the vast, overwhelming majority of peoples lives?[/QUOTE] As I've mentioned previously, dog attacks don't necessarily have to result in deaths to cause problems. 850,000 doctor visits (of which 350,000 require emergency medical attention in a hospital) is pretty significant.

like not be be callous (those 20-30 deaths from dog attacks are obviously still terrible for those involved) but is it really worth dedicating the same amount of effort that we put into regulating guns or cars to regulating [I]dogs[/I] of all things? I'd say that we have bigger fish to fry honestly [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781564]As I've mentioned previously, dog attacks don't necessarily have to result in deaths to cause problems. 850,000 doctor visits (of which 350,000 require emergency medical attention in a hospital) is pretty significant.[/QUOTE] those numbers sound huge and nasty without context, but how many doctor visits and hospitalizations are there total per year? I'd be willing to be that 850,000 doctor visits and 350,000 hospitalizations are a really really REALLY tiny fraction of the total number.

[QUOTE=Last or First;48779585]"Well they aren't as bad as wolves" is not a legitimate argument. Also, thanks for arbitrarily deciding exactly how much nature vs nurture matters, and then redefining what people mean by nature in that. If nurture equally decides what a dog is, then throwing the dog in the air enough will allow it to fly! What, that's redefining nature vs nurture? No way. When people say nature vs nurture, they're only taking into account the nature that affects behavior. You're saying "nature affects a dog's behavior equally as much as nurture, by the way nature doesn't affect the dog at all". And yes, you [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox]absolutely can[/url] breed for or against aggression. I don't think we should ban pit bulls or anything like that. I agree that we need to focus on good owners and proper training. But the breed still is naturally more aggressive and dangerous than other breeds, even when you account for owners specifically choosing them.[/QUOTE] Hmm yes.. To be frank I have little to no experience with dogs. I guess I was just trying to emphasize the fact that these pit bulls have lived in captivity, and are generally owned by humans after all, which is something that most dogs share.

*snip*

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48781277]Then you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. Your bias is based on ignorance-- you're scapegoating an intelligent, sensitive, and beautiful creature based on factors that are one hundred percent human and entirely unrelated to its "nature."[/QUOTE] And once you provide actual data that shows that then everyone will agree with you. Evolutionary psychology and statistical trends don't seem to agree with you. Yeah it's all fine and good that you've owned great 'vicious' breeds, but that says less than nothing about trends. And the trend is that while pitbull owners do statistically have more people with a criminal background than other breeds, there is no reason to think that this is significant enough to account for the amount of attacks they cause. Again, lets take that 75%. Even if you say that 75% of pit bull attacks are caused by bad owners who are criminal murderer gang bangers, the 25% of violent attacks caused by pit bulls (with amazing A+++ owners in the hypothetical) is still a much larger number than the next most violent breed.

If the dog can jump higher than the fence, why not get these? [img]http://www.purrfectfence.com/images/products/6-foot-wooden-fence2.jpg[/img]

For people that say pit's are super nice and cute and all that, I totally understand. I don't doubt your pit is a very nice cuddly dog. The thing is about that the same can be said for any specific breed of dog. I have a Lab-collie mix. She's a bit dopey and thinks with her stomach but I absolutely adore her and wouldn't have her any other way, and even then that's considering I could have done a much better job training her. The thing is though is that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States"]since 2005, there have been ~172 fatal cases that have been due to attacks by pits or pit mixes, give or take. By comparison, take my dog, a Labrador, another very popular dog breed. There have been ~8 fatalities due to attacks by Labs, 2 being pit mixes and 3 under severely cruel circumstances by the owner.[/URL] So why wouldn't you want to have a dog that's just as sweet and cute and all that but is 96% less likely to attack and kill another person? [editline]SECRET MESSAGE[/editline] Also since people like to use anecdotes here's one for you guys [I]against[/I] pits. One of my dad's coworkers at a security gig was making a patrol making sure no homeless people slept on the property. He nudged a pile of blankets that he thought to be a homless man, telling him politely he needs to leave the premises. The man responded by revealing under his bnakets a pit, who he commanded to attack the guard. The man and dog eventually left the premises, but not before the guard got a sizable chunk taken out of his hand and both arms.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48780657]As for 1, yeah, pretty much. The media likes to use Pitbulls for fear mongering for ratings. A lot of dog attacks, even if they're just bites, go unreported. Pitbulls get more widely reported because they stir up controversy like this, and because of how infamous underground dog fighting circles have become. 20, 30 years ago, people were pretty much having discussions like this about Rottweillers, and they got represented very poorly in the media as a result.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about [I]media[/I] reports? Because I'm pretty sure they're talking about [I]police[/I] reports. Sure, the media can be problematic, but that doesn't mean that there will be more or less [I]police[/I] reports based on breed alone. A nasty bite is a nasty bite. [QUOTE=Bat-shit;48781612]Hmm yes.. To be frank I have little to no experience with dogs. I guess I was just trying to emphasize the fact that these pit bulls have lived in captivity, and are generally owned by humans after all, which is something that most dogs share.[/QUOTE] Sorry if I was a little harsh earlier. I definitely agree, mistreatment is the largest issue. I just don't think you should completely discount breed when talking about statistics. Of course, regulations based on specific breeds would only be a temporary solution as criminals and people wanting tough dogs simply move on to another breed or make their own. Regulation would either have to be for general sizes / dog groups, or for all dogs. I guess I just get kind of anal retentive about details sometimes. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;48781566]like not be be callous (those 20-30 deaths from dog attacks are obviously still terrible for those involved) but is it really worth dedicating the same amount of effort that we put into regulating guns or cars to regulating [I]dogs[/I] of all things? I'd say that we have bigger fish to fry honestly those numbers sound huge and nasty without context, but how many doctor visits and hospitalizations are there total per year? I'd be willing to be that 850,000 doctor visits and 350,000 hospitalizations are a really really REALLY tiny fraction of the total number.[/QUOTE] Just because it's a smaller issue than others doesn't mean that we should ignore it. Regulating dogs to the same extent as guns or cars would most likely be unnecessary, but if more (or even just different) regulation could help reduce injuries, then we should do so if it's feasible. One thing that comes to mind is discouraging "pure-breds". The main effect for that would be healthier dogs, but it would also reduce extreme body types like dachsunds, corgis, pugs, etc. If that also reduces the amount of dogs that have extremely strong jaws, then that would be a good side effect. Also, we need less puppy mills. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48782157]If the dog can jump higher than the fence, why not get these? [img]http://www.purrfectfence.com/images/products/6-foot-wooden-fence2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I actually had to make one of those for my dad's dog. He's not the type that would ever attack anyone, but he would always run down to a nearby creek and come back smelling like an entire pack of dogs. edit: not the type that would [B]ever[/B] what I said was completely different statement I originally just had "he would never attack anyone" I need to be more more careful about editing statements

[QUOTE=EcksDee;48781647]And once you provide actual data that shows that then everyone will agree with you. Evolutionary psychology and statistical trends don't seem to agree with you. Yeah it's all fine and good that you've owned great 'vicious' breeds, but that says less than nothing about trends. And the trend is that while pitbull owners do statistically have more people with a criminal background than other breeds, there is no reason to think that this is significant enough to account for the amount of attacks they cause. Again, lets take that 75%. Even if you say that 75% of pit bull attacks are caused by bad owners who are criminal murderer gang bangers, the 25% of violent attacks caused by pit bulls (with amazing A+++ owners in the hypothetical) is still a much larger number than the next most violent breed.[/QUOTE] [url]http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726[/url] Of the sample of 256 Dog-Bite Related Fatalities, four or more of the following factors co-occurred during over 80% of the attacks: 1) The absence of an able-bodied person to help (87% of all cases) 2) The attacking dog did not belong to the victim, was stray or unattended (85% of all cases) 3) The victim of the attack did not appropriately interact with the animal (77% of all cases) 4) The attacking dog was not neutered (84% of all cases) 5) The attacking dog had not been socialized with people, stray or irresponsible ownership (76% of all cases) 6) The dog's owner was abusive and/or neglectful (21.1% of all cases) Valid breed determination of all the attacks was only possible for about 17% of cases. Twenty different breeds were identified. [quote]Conclusion: Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.[/quote] Final verdict: over 80% of all dog-bite related fatalities were resultant from several preventable factors. Breed was found to be largely irrelevant in these statistics. Simply banning certain breeds will do very little to lower the overall incidents of dog attacks. Which is to say, your single-minded approach is based on ignorance, and will have little actual impact on public safety. Instead, all it will accomplish is pulling animals away from loving and responsible families. Your belief is that pit bulls attack people because they are pit bulls, yet in the vast majority of all documented cases of dog attacks, conditional factors proved to be similar and more relevant. Stray dogs, dogs that were not properly socialized, dogs that had not been neutered, dogs that were unattended, lone dogs that were being inappropriately interacted with by children unaccompanied by adults, dogs that had been abused, etc, etc. All of this points to a series of considerably more important solutions to the "epidemic" of dog bite related fatalities: Reduce stray animal populations, teach children proper interactions with dogs, spay and neuter pets, promote responsible pet ownership. Effectively doing these will reduce dog attacks by over 80%.

[QUOTE=TIIIN MAAAN;48778747]There are SO many breeds of dogs. So goddamn many. And at least half of them would be classified as "the nicest damn dogs" by anyone who owns that breed. My theory is that people who prefer pitbulls only do it out of spite and "fight the liberals" bullshit.[/QUOTE] your theory could not literally be more wrong take a step back and really think about how ridiculous your theory is

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;48782181]For people that say pit's are super nice and cute and all that, I totally understand. I don't doubt your pit is a very nice cuddly dog. The thing is about that the same can be said for any specific breed of dog. I have a Lab-collie mix. She's a bit dopey and thinks with her stomach but I absolutely adore her and wouldn't have her any other way, and even then that's considering I could have done a much better job training her. The thing is though is that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States"]since 2005, there have been ~172 fatal cases that have been due to attacks by pits or pit mixes, give or take. By comparison, take my dog, a Labrador, another very popular dog breed. There have been ~8 fatalities due to attacks by Labs, 2 being pit mixes and 3 under severely cruel circumstances by the owner.[/URL] So why wouldn't you want to have a dog that's just as sweet and cute and all that but is 96% less likely to attack and kill another person? [editline]SECRET MESSAGE[/editline] Also since people like to use anecdotes here's one for you guys [I]against[/I] pits. One of my dad's coworkers at a security gig was making a patrol making sure no homeless people slept on the property. He nudged a pile of blankets that he thought to be a homless man, telling him politely he needs to leave the premises. The man responded by revealing under his bnakets a pit, who he commanded to attack the guard. The man and dog eventually left the premises, but not before the guard got a sizable chunk taken out of his hand and both arms.[/QUOTE] Can you and other people understand that by creating a stigmatized breed you cause people to buy that dog for attack purposes this continuing to make them seem even worse and the cycle continues? Like this is what happens.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48782259][url]http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726[/url] Dog stuff.[/QUOTE] Dog bless America

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48782320]Can you and other people understand that by creating a stigmatized breed you cause people to buy that dog for attack purposes this continuing to make them seem even worse and the cycle continues? Like this is what happens.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for making dogs more violent by warning about their violent nature instead of just ignoring it??? ??? ?

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;48783346]I'm sorry for making dogs more violent by warning about their violent nature instead of just ignoring it??? ??? ?[/QUOTE] Step 1) you create an image of a terrifying dog based off an incident or two. Step 2) some people hear this, and buy those dogs BECAUSE they're a supposedly scary breed Step 3) people mistreat those animals. Step 4) those animals fulfil the prophecy you said they would because people intervened. Pit bulls are not scary dogs. People are scary dog owners.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48783456]Step 1) you create an image of a terrifying dog based off an incident or two. Step 2) some people hear this, and buy those dogs BECAUSE they're a supposedly scary breed Step 3) people mistreat those animals. Step 4) those animals fulfil the prophecy you said they would because people intervened. Pit bulls are not scary dogs. People are scary dog owners.[/QUOTE] Be that as it may (and it [I]is[/I] sound reasoning), because of these reasons, I'm more inclined to be wary of a pitbull and its owner than any other dog and its owner in most situations, and I would advise the same caution to others.

[QUOTE=Furioso;48784113]Be that as it may (and it [I]is[/I] sound reasoning), because of these reasons, I'm more inclined to be wary of a pitbull and its owner than any other dog and its owner in most situations, and I would advise the same caution to others.[/QUOTE] And that's a reasonable belief to hold. But don't put it on the dog, or you just feed the machine that makes this an issue.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;48784139]And that's a reasonable belief to hold. But don't put it on the dog, or you just feed the machine that makes this an issue.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48782259]Reduce stray animal populations, teach children proper interactions with dogs, spay and neuter pets, [B]promote responsible pet ownership[/B]. Effectively doing these will reduce dog attacks by over 80%.[/QUOTE] This is the big one here when it comes to pitbulls, I think. Dumbfucks adopt pitbulls for the reasons previously stated, neglect/abuse them to have a mean ass guard dog, and end up creating really pissed off animals. It's just a difficult problem to tackle - how can we tear down a well-ingrained social stigma that leads people to believe pitbull = vicious attack dog? It'd have to be one heck of a PSA. Or series of them.

Totally! And another big issue is that a lot of abused dogs get cycled back into shelters, and then adopted by families who don't understand the work they need to put in with some abused animals. I think education is key, we need more programs to teach people how to raise animals, especially abused ones. Do I think it should be mandatory? Of course not, but more exposure to that kind of thing I feel would drastically lower dog attack numbers

[QUOTE=Furioso;48784152] This is the big one here when it comes to pitbulls, I think. Dumbfucks adopt pitbulls for the reasons previously stated, neglect/abuse them to have a mean ass guard dog, and end up creating really pissed off animals. It's just a difficult problem to tackle - how can we tear down a well-ingrained social stigma that leads people to believe pitbull = vicious attack dog? It'd have to be one heck of a PSA. Or series of them.[/QUOTE] I think that even well-intentioned dog owners can still be in over their heads with breeds they didn't properly research. A lot of people buy dogs wanting a cute fluffy friend and don't realize what really goes in to raising them right. Huskies are a good example of this. There's a lot of huskies in shelters because people buy them thinking it's a cute docile fluffy dog, but they don't realize they will tear your couch to shreds if you don't give them something to do or that they need to run miles a day to stay entertained. Researching the dog you're getting is [I]imperative[/I] for any breed, but even more so if you're buying a stigmatized, powerful breed like a pitbull or German Shepherd.

[QUOTE=OvB;48784241] Researching the dog you're getting is [I]imperative[/I] for any breed, but even more so if you're buying a stigmatized, powerful breed like a pitbull or German Shepherd.[/QUOTE] I don't see why people are so opposed to regulation. If its irresponsible owners and not the fact that these dogs are naturally aggressive and dangerously strong than why not regulate the breed so that only responsible people get to keep these dogs as pets? They attack people, maiming and even killing them.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48784278]I don't see why people are so opposed to regulation. If its irresponsible owners and not the fact that these dogs are naturally aggressive and dangerously strong than why not regulate the breed so that only responsible people get to keep these dogs as pets? They attack people, maiming and even killing them.[/QUOTE] People are afraid of that dreaded slippery slope. I think it's just sound logic, though. We already regulate tons of stuff that can present a danger to people: weapons, vehicles, travel. In some places they regulate power tools and appliances. Why not put dogs on the list?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781352]Okay, you're probably right. Banning dogs is silly and unnecessary. How do we keep dangerous people from owning and misusing dogs then?[/QUOTE] You don't. Life isn't safe, stop pretending it is, you baby.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48784459]You don't. Life isn't safe, stop pretending it is, you baby.[/QUOTE] Nobody's pretending the world is a safe place. We're having a discussion on how to make the world a better place by addressing this specific aspect of it. Why do you look down on a discourse to prevent dog abuse?

I don't. I look down on Headhumpy, because he wants everything that could cause any injury more severe than a papercut banned.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48784278]I don't see why people are so opposed to regulation. If its irresponsible owners and not the fact that these dogs are naturally aggressive and dangerously strong than why not regulate the breed so that only responsible people get to keep these dogs as pets? They attack people, maiming and even killing them.[/QUOTE] One of the main problems with this idea is how much it would cost. Where's all the money required to boot up such a massive government program gonna come from? In the grand scheme of things it's not nearly as big of an issue so people aren't gonna want their tax money going towards it. It's not a bad concept, it's just there's no way it can be done efficiently and cost effectively.

I feel like it would be impossible to enforce without going on a massive dog hunt. Not to mention it's not going to stop anyone that wants a pitbull for illegal purposes anyway. All it'll succeed in doing is stigmatizing the breed even more, outraging animal rights activists, and creating more puppy mills. Not to mention the cost would be too high to do it effectively like Tsyolin mentions.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48784562]I don't. I look down on Headhumpy, because he wants everything that could cause any injury more severe than a papercut banned.[/QUOTE] Again, they attack people, maiming people and even killing them.