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

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48787414] Where is that "40 deaths/year from pit bull attacks in the US" statistic coming from anyway? All data I can find only says ~25 deaths [I]total[/I] from dog attacks, let alone pit bull attacks[/QUOTE] Fuck if I know, just using that other dude's ammo against him.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;48787446]Fuck if I know, just using that other dude's ammo against him.[/QUOTE] Yeah, kinda figured. Maybe its talking about worldwide deaths or something, heck if I know

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48787380]again, what evidence do you have that removing pit bulls will reduce the deaths from dog attacks as OvB has been saying for literally the whole thread, pit bulls are disproportionately represented in dog attack fatality statistics not because they are somehow leagues better than other dogs at killing, but because they are the go-to for people looking for dogs that do damage (because they have a [I]reputation[/I] for being good at killing) if you remove pit bulls from the mix, you will still have shitheads looking for attack dogs. the deaths that occur from pit bull attacks could very well just be replaced by the next best attack dog breed. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] thats true, but we arent arguing against the facts, we are arguing against your biased interpretation of the facts[/QUOTE] The statistics show that they kill over 40 people a year whilst only being 6% of the dog population. This statistic shows us that 2/3 of all fatalities are caused by pitbulls, so pitbulls cause twice as many deaths as all of the other 94% of the dog population. Regardless of the conjecture on the cause of this, it is enough of a reason for the breed to be removed. The argument for "which is to save 40+ lives a year" far outweighs the argument against which seems to be "they are nice dogs really just not reared very well."

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48787414]I can change it to a russian one if it would make you feel better v:v:v [/QUOTE] I can't help noticing it :v: Also if that is world wide deaths I'd like to remind you all that 14 people have died due to selfies this year so far, should we ban those too?

I must be really tired because I read the title and thought the artist Pitbull climbed a fence and attacked a boy. [img]https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/pitbull.png?w=446&h=299&crop=1[/img]

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787467]The statistics show that they kill over 40 people a year whilst only being 6% of the dog population. This statistic shows us that 2/3 of all fatalities are caused by pitbulls, so pitbulls cause twice as many deaths as all of the other 94% of the dog population. Regardless of the conjecture on the cause of this, it is enough of a reason for the breed to be removed. The argument for "which is to save 40+ lives a year" far outweighs the argument against which seems to be "they are nice dogs really just not reared very well."[/QUOTE] Dude if you get rid of pitbulls those 40+ lives a year will just be taken by a different breed. That's sort of the point. Sucks to be those 40+ people but they are simply a statistic we cannot remove.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787467]The statistics show that they kill over 40 people a year whilst only being 6% of the dog population. This statistic shows us that 2/3 of all fatalities are caused by pitbulls, so pitbulls cause twice as many deaths as all of the other 94% of the dog population. Regardless of the conjecture on the cause of this, it is enough of a reason for the breed to be removed. The argument for "which is to save 40+ lives a year" far outweighs the argument against which seems to be "they are nice dogs really just not reared very well."[/QUOTE] Except you're exterminatin an entire breed. Are you thick in the head? Humans kill humans too, do we eradicate them as well? I don't get where you come off thinking millions of lives are out weighed by 40 because they are a different species. It's bad that many die, and I don't excuse those deaths on part of the dogs who committed those killings nor their owners but condemning a sub species to extinction like that is fucking psychotic

2014 statistics for the U.S For fatal attacks: 42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population. Ok 42 is the total, 27 by pitbull. Nevertheless 2/3 are pitbull attacks. [URL="http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php"]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php[/URL] [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ghghop;48787505]Except you're exterminatin an entire breed. Are you thick in the head? Humans kill humans too, do we eradicate them as well? I don't get where you come off thinking millions of lives are out weighed by 40 because they are a different species. It's bad that many die, and I don't excuse those deaths on part of the dogs who committed those killings nor their owners but condemning a sub species to extinction like that is fucking psychotic[/QUOTE] Comparing animals lives to human lives is psychotic, are you vegetarian?

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787467]The statistics show that they kill over 40 people a year whilst only being 6% of the dog population. This statistic shows us that 2/3 of all fatalities are caused by pitbulls, so pitbulls cause twice as many deaths as all of the other 94% of the dog population. Regardless of the conjecture on the cause of this, it is enough of a reason for the breed to be removed. The argument for "which is to save 40+ lives a year" far outweighs the argument against which seems to be "they are nice dogs really just not reared very well."[/QUOTE] here's another interesting statistic, out of all breeds 25% of all dog abuse/neglect cases involves a pitbull

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787508]2014 statistics for the U.S For fatal attacks: 42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population. Ok 42 is the total, 27 by pitbull. Nevertheless 2/3 are pitbull attacks. [URL="http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php"]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php[/URL][/QUOTE] And that's warrant for extinction?

42 is still a really low sample size though, and as I said earlier, raw statistics is useless for stuff like this. You need to look at why it is like that. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, people say pitbulls are agressive, so people who want agressive dogs get them and train them to be agressive(if I remember right they're really popular in gang circles due to this), thus making people think they're agressive by default.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;48787498]Dude if you get rid of pitbulls those 40+ lives a year will just be taken by a different breed. That's sort of the point. Sucks to be those 40+ people but they are simply a statistic we cannot remove.[/QUOTE] No the point being is that pitbull attacks outweigh all other breeds combined by 2. Are you saying that if they were not here that the other breeds would start attacking more to pick up the slack?

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787508] Comparing animals lives to human lives is psychotic, are you vegetarian?[/QUOTE] Im not comparing, im not vegetarian I don't get how that is relevant, im saying you can't compare then, and give one value over the other like that. You are promoting t the eradication of an entire sub species of over 4-fucking-million in population over the deaths of 40 of a species [B][I]7 billion[/I][/B] strong and growing

[QUOTE=ghghop;48787542]And that's warrant for extinction?[/QUOTE] For sure, they are a dangerous dog regardless of the reasons.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787467] Regardless of the conjecture on the cause of this, it is enough of a reason for the breed to be removed. The argument for "which is to save 40+ lives a year" far outweighs the argument against which seems to be "they are nice dogs really just not reared very well."[/QUOTE] that is a bogus argument though, because banning pit bulls ISNT going to save 40 lives per year as Ive said multiple times, if you kill off the pit bull, those deaths wont just stop happening, they will just occur due to attacks from a different attack dog breed. pit bulls are not leagues better at killing than other dogs are, people looking to do damage with a dog will simply use the next best breed.

[QUOTE=ghghop;48787571]Im not comparing, im not vegetarian I don't get how that is relevant, im saying you can't compare then, and give one value over the other like that. You are promoting t the eradication of an entire sub species of over 4-fucking-million in population over the deaths of 40 of a species [B][I]7 billion[/I][/B] strong and growing[/QUOTE] You cannot compare human life to animals. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;48787584]that is a bogus argument though, because banning pit bulls ISNT going to save 40 lives per year as Ive said multiple times, if you kill off the pit bull, those deaths wont just stop happening, they will just occur due to attacks from a different attack dog breed. pit bulls are not leagues better at killing than other dogs are, people looking to do damage with a dog will simply use the next best breed.[/QUOTE] read the thread, the other breeds do not kill anywhere near as much, so they won't change this.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787587]You cannot compare human life to animals.[/QUOTE] We are animals you dolt, did you skip your first science class?

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787564]No the point being is that pitbull attacks outweigh all other breeds combined by 2. Are you saying that if they were not here that the other breeds would start attacking more to pick up the slack?[/QUOTE] You're missing out on the factors that lead to dog attacks. #1: Environment. The shitty environments will then take in other dog breeds that will pick up similar aggressive traits.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;48787603]You're missing out on the factors that lead to dog attacks. #1: Environment. The shitty environments will then take in other dog breeds that will pick up similar aggressive traits.[/QUOTE] So why are pitbulls killing twice as many people as all of the other breeds of dogs collectively? The same questions arise over and over, read the thread.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48787621]you know what he means, you can't value the life of a dog over a human or make any actual comparisons with human races with dog species since humans cannot be selectively bred for behavioral traits[/QUOTE] Sorry, just more than a little pissed off that he would see so many things killed based off pure stats. No background information behind those fatalities, just kill them off

[QUOTE=ghghop;48787664]Sorry, just more than a little pissed off that he would see so many things killed based off pure stats. No background information behind those fatalities, just kill them off[/QUOTE] Stop breeding, not killed. [url]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php[/url] 42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.2 Together, pit bulls (27) and rottweilers (4), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 74% of the total recorded deaths in 2014. This same combination also accounted for 74% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2014. The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 10-year period. From 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans, about one citizen every 18 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 38, about one citizen every 96 days. This is pretty conclusive, you can bury your heads all you like.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787650]So why are pitbulls killing twice as many people as all of the other breeds of dogs collectively? The same questions arise over and over, read the thread.[/QUOTE] I... uh... sort of explained that in the post you quoted, and in one of my posts a up the page.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787676]Stop breeding, not killed. [url]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php[/url] 42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.2 Together, pit bulls (27) and rottweilers (4), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 74% of the total recorded deaths in 2014. This same combination also accounted for 74% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2014. The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 10-year period. From 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans, about one citizen every 18 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 38, about one citizen every 96 days. This is pretty conclusive, you can bury your heads all you like.[/QUOTE] And you can continue to miss the point everyone in the thread has made pro-pits

[QUOTE=ghghop;48787664]Sorry, just more than a little pissed off that he would see so many things killed based off pure stats. No background information behind those fatalities, just kill them off[/QUOTE] The answer to poor statistics isn't "all statistics are useless", it's "we need more, and better statistics".

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48778809]I have a beef with allowing anyone to own dangerous breeds like pit bulls, German shepherds and Rottweilers without restriction.[/QUOTE] ... how much do you actually know about dogs, because german shepherds are amazing dogs that basically want to be trained.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;48787927]... how much do you actually know about dogs, because german shepherds are amazing dogs that basically want to be trained.[/QUOTE] Clearly not much.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;48780312]If they're living weapons, do I need to go to the sheriff's office and apply for a license if I want one? I havery to do that every five years with my CCW permit, so I was wondering[/QUOTE] You should have to. It's not the case in most countries including the US because they don't care enough about these issues and the distribution of attack dogs is far too liberal to be healthy for anyone. France basically legally obligates owners to put a muzzle on any dog that's qualified as an attack dog (rottweilers and pitbulls, essentially) 24/7 as long as it's out of the owner's property.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787650]So why are pitbulls killing twice as many people as all of the other breeds of dogs collectively? The same questions arise over and over, read the thread.[/QUOTE] I've read past threads, and this question has been answered many times before. Assholes love pitbulls due to their strength and general image. They're a scary, big, bulky and strong as fuck breed that can jump really high. People who are well-prepared to own such dogs usually go for german shepards and other classic breeds, hence why these are not as problematic. [QUOTE=karlosfandango;48787676]Stop breeding, not killed. [url]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2014.php[/url] 42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.2 Together, pit bulls (27) and rottweilers (4), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 74% of the total recorded deaths in 2014. This same combination also accounted for 74% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2014. The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 10-year period. From 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans, about one citizen every 18 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 38, about one citizen every 96 days. This is pretty conclusive, you can bury your heads all you like.[/QUOTE] And you could unbury yours from your ass if you will. All these numbers show me is that stupid people like pitbulls due to their strength. That's the power of statistics, without proper research it can be interpreted anyhow you want. If you want to be taken seriously, bring me a proper research proving me that they're born evil, and not that "hurdur they're bred for killing" fud that people keep shitting. If breeding is outlawed they'll gain even more status as 'bad dog' which leads to illegal breeding. It'll only worsen the image of the breed. Well-raised pitbulls are amazing dogs, great with children (very playful, sweet breed, can take quite a few punches without feeling it and are very protective of their owners). They also take great care of your home and family (big, scary breeds have a deterrent effect- their sole presence is enough to scare wrongdoers).

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;48788036]And you could unbury yours from your ass if you will. All these numbers show me is that stupid people like pitbulls due to their strength. That's the power of statistics, without proper research it can be interpreted anyhow you want. If you want to be taken seriously, bring me a proper research proving me that they're born evil, and not that "hurdur they're bred for killing" fud that people keep shitting.[/QUOTE] Pitbulls were bred for [I]two hundred years[/I] because they're exceptionally strong and brutal. Their name itself is a reference to the fact they were originally bred for [I]pit[/I]fighting, and it took far more than one generation of these to be bred before blood sports were banned - and even after they were banned, the dogs were still being bred (which included liberal use of inbreeding, by the way) in order to select and cultivate their strength and violence. Pits weren't just bred because of raw strength, they were bred because they had the temper to roll along with it. After two hundred years of constant breeding to only select the strong and violent dogs is [I]bound to create a breed of strong, violent dogs[/I]. You're the one who's being asinine by refusing the historical proof that pit bulls were ever since their first appearance in pit fighting bred to be killing machines. That's literally their sole reason to exist. Furthermore, the bulldogs upon which the pitbulls are based are not nearly as violent towards humans and temperamental, despite still being damn strong canine brickhouses. It's only when they started being bred to select the more violent offspring that, surprise, [I]the breed turned violent[/I]. Statistics are one hell of a backup on this situation but even without them you could just look at history and see that the fuckers have always been bred for violence. Two centuries of inbreeding and selective breeding is bound to lead to some defects which will worsen over time due to the way selective breeding works and how recklessly it's been done concerning pits, and when you breed an animal for its brutality, then these defects are bound to eventually be complete mental instability. A dog that wasn't bred for attacking and killing things that look at it funny won't randomly attack children.

[QUOTE=ghghop;48787664]Sorry, just more than a little pissed off that he would see so many things killed based off pure stats. No background information behind those fatalities, just kill them off[/QUOTE] As far as I can remember, I haven't seen anyone in this thread seriously advocating the slaughter of all existing pitbulls, it's the pro-pitbull people who keep bringing that up.