Posted on 03/17/2014 1:47:38 PM PDT by ransomnote
To: ransomnote
Unfortunately dog attacks on children are not limited to ‘pit bulls’.
__________________________________________
Me:
Unfortunatly no one said dog attacks on children were limited to “pit bulls.”
__________________________________________
Attack from yesterday....
__________________________________________
Me:
Statistics covering attacks over the past several years indicating pitbull type dogs are responsible for most killings and maimings:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php
__________________________________________
I’ve tried to point out to folks here numerous times
that the prevalence of particular types of dogs in a given area
is correlated to the number of attacks by those types of dogs.
__________________________________________
Me:
Well that would be false because the stats I linked pertain to nationwide killings and maimings which prove that pitbulls kill and maim far beyond their presence in the population. Add to that the tendency for owners to report that their dogs “got out” and their victims reporting dogs frequently seen running around the neighborhood and you get unrestricted breeding resulting in crossbreeds, some of which look like pits and some which dont’, that share the pit type genetic propensity for agression.
__________________________________________
It does not mean that all of members of these types of dogs are going to attack.
__________________________________________
Me:
Again, no one said or says that all members of these types of dogs are going to attack. That’s the classic pro pit nutter argument “BUT MY DOGGIE WOULD LICK YOU TO DEATH” as if proving their dog hasn’t maimed or killed eliminates public concern for the damage caused by the breed.
__________________________________________
As the article linked reports...
“The head of the Winnipeg Humane Society said Alaskan malamutes are normally friendly dogs, but any large dogs should be under constant supervision when they’re around children.
__________________________________________
Me:
Typically users post on these threads that children should be closely monitored around pets and contact with large dogs should be avoided.
__________________________________________
“Big dogs are of concern with small children,” said Bill McDonald. “It doesn’t matter the breed, whether it is an Alaskan malamute or any large breed dog from a collie to a German shepherd.”
McDonald said he’s only heard of children being mauled to death in the province by packs of dogs on remote First Nations communities.
“It’s usually the case of an aboriginal community with pack animals running at large,” said McDonald. “When you’re talking about a domesticated situation, this one is a bit shocking and tragic for the whole family.”
RCMP said there was adult supervision the day the incident happened, but they were gone for only a minute when the attack happened.”
___________________________________________
Me:
And? Perhaps you’d like to read this thread (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3103448/posts)
end to end before I explain that the National Canine Research Foundation, and other ASPCA and veterinarian organizatiosn and “experts” who defend the pitbull type have forfeited their credibility. The text you cited immediately above stresses breed is not a factor and that is patently false. Beyond that it’s a sad account of a tragic killing.
___________________________________________
I understand it is easier to react to these incidents than it is to thoughtfully respond
____________________________________________
Me:
Yes - I do believe you have a problem of reacting without thoughtfully responding. I, on the otherhand, spent many hours researching this issue before I realized that the pitbull and their supporters are not trustworthy.
____________________________________________
but doing so ignores common factors involved, knowledge of which
could prevent attacks, injuries or deaths, regardless of type or breed.
____________________________________________
Me: Ironic. Pitbull nutters deny and ignore statistics and documented carnage that could be used to reduce the bodycount.
Very well said. Bravo.
You do realize that none of that reference material contradicts what I said, don’t you?
You do realize your latest is pointless sophistry, right?
This thread has focused on pitbull maimings and killings but you are trying to make the point that small dogs can spontaneously attack but it doesn’t make the news because no one was hurt and everyone lived etc. So unfair...tsk tsk tsk...why aren’t unimportant non injurious attacks reported as often as the pitbull attacks that strip limbs off of people and leave rescue personell in shock? Must be a “bad rap.” Go on...do what you can to redirect this thread to the poodle and chihuahua class of dogs. The rest of us will continue to read stories that indicate the pitbull was “fine” until one day he started killing and maiming. Often no barking or warning at all - just runs up to a person and starts the mauling. Watch the video - that was a pitbull spontanous attack unlike that of the poodle/chihuahua types. Then write me another tangential comment.
Unfair? I neither said or implied anything about unfairness.
What I wrote of was misdiagnosis, and further countered the ill-informed claim on this thread that pit bulls were highly likely - or even most likely amongst breeds - to spontaneously attack. If you can’t properly diagnose the problem, you can’t properly address it.
One person implied that lack of threads from poodle attacks meant something about relative frequency of poodle attacks - which is jibberish.
Frankly, the pit bull argument is a similar argument to the domestic violence one between men and women. Women are FAR more likely to initiate domestic violence, and yet men are far more effective (in a bad way) at carrying it out. A proper response to that situation is different than if men were instigating all of it., or alternately, if women were completely incapable of ever harming men.
Likewise, understanding what the issue is with pit bulls is both required in reaching a sane functional resolution, and a political one. When one wrongly implies or asserts that pit bulls are generally crazy monsters just waiting to maul people, that argument may work on the mentally unstable, but it rightly is rejected/dismissed by owners who have first-hand experience with their own dogs. On the other hand, when one points out the tools that the dogs have - without the obvious dumbassery as the argument - and how effective they are at what they were bred to be able to do, even those owners will often concede that point.
The death of the odd child, mail carrier, jogger, or pizza delivery man is but a small price to pay for the hours of pleasure and protection pet Pit Bulls give their owners in those periods when they are not incarcerated on drug charges, or on trial for welfare fraud.
Furthermore, the Pit Bull being a favorite breed of the 'hood, constant harping on the facts of the matter could be construed as racis.
back off. Don't know how strong this leash is.
LOL! I needed the laugh! Thanks! :)
Ah I see you took me up on my offer when I wrote “Then write me another tangential comment.”
“Misdiagnosis?”It’s not rocket science and does not require a hypothesis with double blind test subjects. Data exists proving that public safety is jeapardized by members of the pitbull type dog population in numbers disproportiate to the presence of the breed in the population (they kill and maim more than all other breeds).
“What I wrote of was misdiagnosis, and further countered the ill-informed claim on this thread that pit bulls were highly likely - or even most likely amongst breeds - to spontaneously attack.” More distortion. I just read through the thread again and it’s clear this thread focuses on pitbull killings and maimings.
Your assertion that poodle attacks are not reported because they are not sufficiently sensational is pathetic. Poodle attacks are not news worthy because they fall within the realm of behavior and wounds considered “normal” among civilized societies and domesticated dogs - it’s just not newsworthy because there is insufficient damage and...DEATH to warrant concern. On the other hand, pitbulls are documented in horrific bloodshed and death causing years of reconstructive surgery if the victim(s) are lucky enough to live. I watched a video of a person in shock relating what it was like to see multiple ambulances and police arrive at a scene of extreme bloodshed, she described it as “a war zone.” Can you see how this use of resources, loss of life and limb and psychological horror might push the unimportant “Fluffy the poodle bit the neighbors kid and he had to have 3 stitches but he’s otherwise fine.”
But hey, let’s just agree that you enjoy pretending to have superior logic more than I enjoy refuting you (easily) with documented facts, and call it a day.
You’ve spent a lot of effort arguing against opinions I neither stated nor hold. Obviously you are going to continue to have your own conversation in your head on this subject regardless of what I say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.