Replies

ansel12, in every other post on FR concerning pit bulls, you'll see that I have NOT been on the side defending 'pit bulls.' Quite the opposite. I've quoted statistics to combat those who defended 'pit bulls' with blanket statements. I've said something needs to be done about 'pit bulls.'

It was within the last couple of weeks, when I started thinking about how to ban 'pit bulls' that I realized with current data, we'd be using a chainsaw and not a scalpel to perform the surgery.

If you look at deaths by breed, certain breeds are a problem. If 8-10 breeds of "pit bulls" are responsible for 40% of deaths (and another 20% by pit bull mixes, such as 'pit bull' and labrador retriever), and each breed is equally responsible, then those pit bull breeds are responsible for 6% of the deaths apiece. Rottweilers beat that, easily. Bull Mastiffs are close. Huskies are close. German Shepherds are close. Boxers are dangerous. English Bulldogs are close. Chows and Dobermans, surprisingly, are not.

It's absolutely clear that some, or all, of the numerous breeds lumped into the 'pit bull' category are a MAJOR problem. The problem's increasing as the number of 'pit bulls' is increasing.

Something has to be done about some or all of the 'pit bull' breeds. I agree completely.

However, if you start asking me to institute a breed-specific prohibition, I ask "which breeds?" I particularly ask that in jurisdictions where a 'pit bull' is described by a generic shape.

I want to know which of the 'pit bull' breeds are responsible for the deaths. If it's all of them, then let's deal with all of the breeds that get lumped into 'pit bull.'

Finally, this quote:

71% of the pit bull fatalities have occurred in the past 10 years; 42% in the past four years; 24% in the past two years.

is in support of your statement that it is a growing problem.