I'm sure the "Pit bulls aren't dangerous" crowd will weigh in on this one, but I came to the conclusion years ago that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and the viciousness of dog breed owned by any particular person. Only idiots own pit bulls. It's a tragedy waiting to occur.
Well, isn't that a coincidence,
I came to the conclusion years ago
that there is an inverse relationship between IQ
and people who hold that opinion.
;~p
That's funny, I thought that people who shoot their mouths off with no SCIENTIFIC FACTS to back up their blanket assertions were the idiots.
"Only idiots own pit bulls. It's a tragedy waiting to occur."
There are between four to six million pit bulls alive today, making them one of, if not the most popular dog right now. The percentage of them that inflict harm on a person is 0.000002%, which is the same percentage compared to population of any other breed of dog. If it really was a breed problem, wouldn't you think there would be many more deaths?
In fact, according to bite statistics, they have between one and three percent of the bites, including the ones that attack, maim, and cause death, but they are about ten percent of the population of dogs. Labs, Dalmations, German Shepherds, and Cocker Spaniels are always the highest percent of bites.
I take offense to your remark because I have two of these dogs, and I am college-educated, successful, responsible, and my IQ score would make your jaw drop. I have these dogs not because I am a thug, and definitely not for home protection. I got them because after four solid years of researching the breed trying to prove to a friend how dangerous his pit bulls were, I came to the EDUCATED conclusion that the evidence is much to the contrary.
These dogs HAVE been bred to be dog-aggressive for years and years, but all the while, they have also been bred for the same period of time to be extremely human-friendly. They had to be that way in order for the dog fighters to stop a heated fight and not get bit. Any dog that showed signs of human aggression was culled, and fast.
You will see if you read the threads, ALL of these incidents have the same pattern, and it isn't the breed. Any dog running loose, constantly chained up, intact, and especially with puppies has a much higher chance of attacking, no matter the breed. You can see this if you look at the pit bull attacks, and also the lesser publicised dog attacks by any other breed. When you add to that mix unsupervised children, THAT spells disaster.
There are 56 breeds of dog that have taken human lives all over the world, and all of them have been reported as that breed when it was known, except for the pit bull. The CDC study so often referred to on this board is a testament to how innacuracies in media reports can turn any popular breed into a monster.
They use every type of Retriever/Lab breed and separate them all, all the spitz-type dogs have their own individual categories, even mixed breeds like wolf hybrids get their own, but any dog even remotely resembling a pit bull, (and some that don't) are all grouped together into "pit bull type". There are at least 16 different pure breeds completely unrelated to the pit bull terrier that can look strikingly similar to it, but they are lumped together. To say that doesn't affect how one type of dog is percieved is nonsense. That is the main reason why the CDC no longer does this study. It was far too inaccurate to be considered meaningful, especially considering the fact that every case was taken from media reports, with no experts involved.