Tiny terrier saved kids from pit bulls

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by watermock

What a classic example of deflection.

not really i'm just pointing out there are lots of things that cause death and are dangerous. We don't outlaw pools because we feel the benefits of the activity outweigh the danger they pose. The statistics are obvious. Pools=death. You can't go outlawing them though because they are part of life. Just like dogs are part of our lives. You can ban pit bulls, but I bet the number of dog deaths and attacks wouldn't even go down.

[-Slap-]

Mock as a child.

[Steve Sewell]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The evidence is that pools by there nature are very dangerous. They claim lives every year no matter what you do to try and make them safe. I have given you stats to back up how dangerous pools really are. Under your thinking they should be banned. You just don't want to admit your argument just got smoked. Either that or you support the death of 4000 people every year.

Pools don't attack kids and maim/kill them. I'd also venture to guess that there are 100s of thousand more pools in the US than pit bull dogs. Your analogy is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Steve Sewell

Pools don't attack kids and maim/kill them. I'd also venture to guess that there are 100s of thousand more pools in the US than pit bull dogs. Your analogy is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

How about these apples. By the way when you venture to guess is that scientific or just Sewell BS.

http://www.realpitbull.com/perspective.html

1.) Since 1992, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the Rottweiler, not the pit bull.

2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it a very popular breed. Considering that there were an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the U.S., and assuming that pit bulls make up 10% of that population, there would be approximately 5.3 million pit bulls in our society. In 2000, 13 pit bulls were involved in 8 fatal attacks. That is roughly ONE dog out of 204,000 - or .000385 percent of the pit bull population.

3.) Over the 37-year period from 1965-2001, pit bulls have been blamed for an average of 2.48 human fatalities per year.

4.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a pit bull.

5.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by pit bulls.

6.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a pit bull.

7.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a pit bull.

8.) It is estimated that about 500 deaths per year are caused by aspirin. You are more than 200 times more likely to die from taking aspirin than from a pit bull attack.

9.) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their adult caretaker than by a pit bull.

10.) It is estimated that 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. Since in many places pit bulls make up 30-50% of the shelter population, and are less likely to be considered for placement than any other breed, guessing that 25% of those dogs killed is a reasonable estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that perhaps 1.25 million pit bulls are killed per year.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Steve Sewell

Pools don't attack kids and maim/kill them. I'd also venture to guess that there are 100s of thousand more pools in the US than pit bull dogs. Your analogy is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

I know more people who own pit bulls then pools.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

not really i'm just pointing out there are lots of things that cause death and are dangerous. We don't outlaw pools because we feel the benefits of the activity outweigh the danger they pose. The statistics are obvious. Pools=death. You can't go outlawing them though because they are part of life. Just like dogs are part of our lives. You can ban pit bulls, but I bet the number of dog deaths and attacks wouldn't even go down.

And, instead of officially banning them, the government and insurance companies just make it more expensive to own and insure them. You have a pool, you pay more for homeowners' insurance. You have a ridiculously fast car, you pay more for car insurance. The list goes on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

How about these apples. By the way when you venture to guess is that scientific or just Sewell BS.

http://www.realpitbull.com/perspective.html

1.) Since 1992, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the Rottweiler, not the pit bull.

2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it a very popular breed.

Complete BS as I already have shown!

40% of the dog population is Pit Bull? What a croc of crap!!! And what idioit would take stats from some site called realpitbull.com as gospel?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada


One of the most detailed studies of dog attacks in the USA is Clifton, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006.

[TennBronco]

I only read the first two pages since everything is just going in circles. The bottom line is, owners have to be held responsible for their dogs actions. I do think bulls have a bad rap but look at most the owners. I live in the deep south and most bull owners are lower income "tough" guys that use the dog in attempts to build their own self esteem. Of course not all are lower income jerks, my good friend has a pit and she's a sweetie. I see a huge difference because she was taught something called manners.

I guess my point would be all dogs need to be properly raised, just like a child. You have to teach dogs human manners. They don't know this instinctively, its our responsibility to teach them. Too many owners don't do this and then you have a bad dog. Being properly raised includes rigorous training (for most breeds), heavy socialization, and a healthy alpha dog attitude. Dogs should be praised for the things done well and not beaten for things they did wrong. If not trained properly, several of these breeds will become shy which could be shown by aggression towards people, and other animals. I have this little Dauchsan down the street that's mean as hell. If he was as strong as a Pit or Rott, he would do some serious damage. Thing is the owner doesn't give a damn, he thinks it's "cute".

Some people just shouldn't have dogs and most Pits attacks are a perfect example of bad owners.

[kamakazi_kal]

Originally Posted by watermock

What a classic example of deflection.

ahhhhhh the classic use of bob's deflection argument......briliant!!!!

[Steve Sewell]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Complete BS as I already have shown!

40% of the dog population is Pit Bull? What a croc of crap!!! And what idioit would take stats from some site called realpitbull.com as gospel?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada


One of the most detailed studies of dog attacks in the USA is Clifton, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006.

Thank you for saying what I was going to say.

"realpitbull.com"...LMFAO.

Talk about BS.

And for the record cutthemdown...Slug and I have posted these statistics 4 times in this thread. Why don't you take the time to read the real statistics before saying I'm making things up out of thin air.

[Steve Sewell]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I know more people who own pit bulls then pools.

90% of the people I associate with are Catholic, which means that 90% of the population in the U.S. must be Catholic. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

[cutthemdown]

by the way your dogbitelaw site is run by lawyers who specialize in dog bite tort cases. Of course they are going to skew the stats to make money.

[Steve Sewell]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

by the way your dogbitelaw site is run by lawyers who specialize in dog bite tort cases. Of course they are going to skew the stats to make money.

Click the link above that or don't respond.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Steve Sewell

Click the link above that or don't respond.

OK OK, lol. The thing is Merritt Clifton is only a reporter. Check out the BIO of the woman who runs realpittbull she has far more credentials when it comes to dogs. You can think what you want though.

[cutthemdown]

Merritt Clifton is just a reporter Sewell. It's not like he is a pit bull expert. I do however appreciate his love for animals and he does it without going overboard. Funny thing is I doubt you even know who he is and you are here telling me to go read him. Well I have read his paper/magazine for about 5 years now. What about you?

[Popps]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

We don't outlaw pools .

I'm fairly sure that my neighbor's swimming pool isn't going to run out of his front door.... chase an elderly man onto the top of a car, then drag him off and kill him. (Actual incident.)

That's a grossly inaccurate analogy. Not even in the same universe.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Popps

I'm fairly sure that my neighbor's swimming pool isn't going to run out of his front door.... chase an elderly man onto the top of a car, then drag him off and kill him. (Actual incident.)

That's a grossly inaccurate analogy. Not even in the same universe.

well if it is a Liberal/Democrat pool . you never know

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Popps

I'm fairly sure that my neighbor's swimming pool isn't going to run out of his front door.... chase an elderly man onto the top of a car, then drag him off and kill him. (Actual incident.)

That's a grossly inaccurate analogy. Not even in the same universe.

You are right way more people die in pools. It's not even close. I should of compared the risks we face from dogs to something more like a coconut falling off a tree.

[cutthemdown]

What im trying to get accross is how to best deal with pit bulls not whether they are dangerous. I'm not disputing that there have been alot of attacks I just question the way you all want to go about dealing with it. My analogy to pools was to demonstrate how that issue was dealt with after the 1950's saw a huge surge in pools. Of course along with the surge came tons of children drowing.

What they ended up having was a doctrine called the attractive nusciance. It says that kids will be drawn to certain things that are enticing to them. property owners have to take all reasonable steps to try and make the property safe. So people with pools that don't have a seperate fence around a pool, don't have the pool covered can be in big trouble if a kid jumps the fence and drowns, even if you have told the kid not to do it.

Dogs have also been shown to be an attractive nusciance. Which is why if some kid sticks a hand through your gate and it gets bit off you can be held liable for it. Farm equipment, discarded appliances also are included in this type of thing.

I think people who own breeds such as Pit Bulls, Rotts, Cane Corso, Presa Canrio, Tosa Inu, etc should have to have an area to keep dog where it can't get out. That would mean things like exceptionally tall fences, enclosed dog runs, redundancy in fences etc etc. Then also maybe make a law at the state levels that require the owners of breeds deemed dangerous take their dogs to a certified trainer for a certian amount of time(I'd say like 20 half hour sessions), be over 21, not be a felon, not be an illegal alien, etc etc. I t would add to govt which I don't like, but also it gives a way for responsible people to keep their pets.

[watermock]

No it's toatlly dissasociated with pools.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

What im trying to get accross is how to best deal with pit bulls not whether they are dangerous. I'm not disputing that there have been alot of attacks I just question the way you all want to go about dealing with it. My analogy to pools was to demonstrate how that issue was dealt with after the 1950's saw a huge surge in pools. Of course along with the surge came tons of children drowing.

What they ended up having was a doctrine called the attractive nusciance. It says that kids will be drawn to certain things that are enticing to them. property owners have to take all reasonable steps to try and make the property safe. So people with pools that don't have a seperate fence around a pool, don't have the pool covered can be in big trouble if a kid jumps the fence and drowns, even if you have told the kid not to do it.

Dogs have also been shown to be an attractive nusciance. Which is why if some kid sticks a hand through your gate and it gets bit off you can be held liable for it. Farm equipment, discarded appliances also are included in this type of thing.

I think people who own breeds such as Pit Bulls, Rotts, Cane Corso, Presa Canrio, Tosa Inu, etc should have to have an area to keep dog where it can't get out. That would mean things like exceptionally tall fences, enclosed dog runs, redundancy in fences etc etc. Then also maybe make a law at the state levels that require the owners of breeds deemed dangerous take their dogs to a certified trainer for a certian amount of time(I'd say like 20 half hour sessions), be over 21, not be a felon, not be an illegal alien, etc etc. I t would add to govt which I don't like, but also it gives a way for responsible people to keep their pets.

This is the most rediculous comment yet. Pools have nothing to do with biting dogs. Improper supervision around pools is why kids drown. You didn't make an analogy, you tried to make a pathetic one. You might as well of given drunk driving stats. It's completely irrelevant to the topic.

Farm appliances are not animate animals. Jesus Christ...where are you coming up with this crap. If your too incompetent to know how to manage equipment, you shouldn't be running it. The only analogy I can find is that if your too incompetent to handle an animate object, your also incompetent.

The fact is, few dog owners have high fences. Period. The rottie that bit Beezer had escaped 14 times.

Do you think that most people are going to take their pit to an animal trainer? Are you in dreamland?

That's right...regulate it...don't outlaw it. Expect the instincts to be "teached out" of the animal. That's comical.

[Popps]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

You are right way more people die in pools. It's not even close. I should of compared the risks we face from dogs to something more like a coconut falling off a tree.

I can't imagine how immensely corroded someone's brain has to be to make that kind of argument. This is like a 5 year old trying to convince his parents that cookies are healthy for breakfast because they're made with eggs.

My dog and I have encountered three off-leash dogs, one ended up in an all out fight with my dog being injured. (90 lb German Shep) These all happened in normal neighborhoods. Luckily, none of them were Pit Bulls.

I live two houses down from a Pit who's tried to lunge after us more than one time on our walk. I now carry a 7" hole punch in my pocket on walks.

Growing up, I was attacked 5 different times by dogs ranging from little mutts to Rotts and I sustained injuries ranging from a bit on the stomach to a bloody hand. (Shots, etc.)

That said, I absolutely love dogs... and I've had GREAT experiences with Pit Bulls.

I'm also a rational person.

Hence, I understand that the risk from a swimming pool I'm walking past and an off-leash dog that charges my, my dog or my child are two different things.

Dude, you don't love dogs more than me... trust me, and I own a strong breed. (Boxers, that people often confuse with Pit Bulls.) I've owned animals my whole life, I'm a vegetarian and I'm highly committed to conservation.

But, you're just embarrassing yourself with these horrifically lame, Jr. high school debate analogies. I mean, by your logic, more people die in automobiles than by the hands of serial killers.... so serial killers must be harmless and we should be focused on stopping the use of automobiles.

Seriously, get real.

[kappys]

In late May, George Burgess, director of the Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File and a noted shark researcher, was quoted as saying, "Falling coconuts kill 150 people worldwide each year, 15 times the number of fatalities attributable to sharks."

When I called Burgess, he told me he had gotten this statistic off the Internet--specifically, from a widely reported press release from the British travel-insurance firm Club Direct, saying that "holidaymakers hit by falling coconuts will be guaranteed full cover under their travel insurance policy. The news follows reports from Queensland, Australia, that coconut trees are being uprooted by local councils fearful of being sued for damages by people injured by coconuts. . . . 'Coconuts kill around 150 people worldwide each year, which makes them about ten times more dangerous than sharks,' says Brent Escott, managing director of Club Direct."

So, Brent, do coconuts kill ten times as many people as sharks, or fifteen? No response yet from the UK. However, Club Direct's release also cites an article by Dr. Peter Barss in the Journal of Trauma entitled "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts." (The article received an Ig Nobel Prize, given annually at Harvard by the editors of the Annals of Improbable Research in recognition of research that "cannot or should not be replicated." The award was presented in 2001, notwithstanding that the paper had been published in 1984. Apparently news takes a while to filter through to Cambridge.) The article soberly reported on nine injuries in Papua New Guinea due to falling coconuts, none fatal. Barss notes that a coconut palm tree commonly reaches 25 meters in height, that a coconut can weigh two kilograms or more, and that a two-kilogram coconut falling 25 meters would have a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour on impact and a force of as much as 1,000 kilograms. Several victims suffered fractured skulls, were rendered comatose, etc.

OK, getting hit by a coconut is no laughing matter. But nowhere does Barss say that 150 people get killed by coconuts each year. He provides an anecdotal account of one such death and in a separate paper estimates that over a four-year period five deaths in his hospital's service area were related to coconut palm trees (including climbers falling out of them). A recent report (Mulford et al, "Coconut Palm-Related Injuries in the Pacific Islands," ANZ Journal of Surgery, January 2001), which describes itself as "the largest review of coconut-palm related injuries," also reports no deaths and on the question of mortality merely cites Barss. Given that Barss' hospital in Papua New Guinea served a population of 130,000, one conceivably could project 150 deaths over that portion of the world population living in proximity to coconut palm trees, but I'm not aware of any systematic attempt to do so. Noting that death reports in tropical countries are limited, Barss tells me, "I am surprised that someone has come up with an actual number for such injuries. It must be a crude estimate, and you would have to ask them what methodology they used to verify whether it has any validity." Conclusion: Somebody pulled the figure about 150 deaths due to coconuts out of thin air. Take that, shark lovers.

Barss, incidentally, wrote numerous frightening reports while stationed in the tropics. His subjects included injuries by pigs in Papua New Guinea, penetrating wounds caused by needlefish in Oceania, scombroid fish poisoning at Ala Tau, grass-skirt burns, wound necrosis caused by the venom of stingrays, and inhalation hazards of tropical "pea shooters." He's now teaching at United Arab Emirates University, in a desert city built around an ancient date oasis. Can't blame him for making the switch--who ever heard of getting KO'd by a falling date?

[watermock]

Gilligans Island..A coconut falls on Gilligan and he has a brilliant idea how to get off the island.

[orange 4 life]

Originally Posted by kappys

The most cogent post I've seen so far. People aren't being responsible and this **** has gone on too long. People are frustrated and you can bet I'm more than willing to vote for a ban on the breed if it means my neice and nephew are safer.

actually, it makes no sense at all, though popps is generally right on the money.
i DO understand public perception. unfortunately, public perception is wrong.
public perception does NOT recognize that the reason for the stories is that "theyve become the tough guy breed of choice."

since basically everyone agrees on that (when its pointed out anyway), then kindly tell me what would happen if every city had a pitbull ban. if there were theoretically no more pits in the world, then what?

then these a-holes would just go get a different breed (and one more dangerous by nature, as most everyone in the know also agrees that pits are by nature NOT violent towards humans) and then THAT breed would be the new enemy.
only difference is that the problem would likely be worse as the next "tough guy" breed would likely be worse.

popps, what do you think your neighbor (no doubt a bad owner) would do if your town had a ban?
be content to have no dog at all?
doubt it. he'd just go get a different tough guy breed and you'd have the same (or worse) problem. im floored that you would support any kind of breed specific ban.
make the punishment VERY severe to those that abuse and neglect and you go to the root of the problem.