Posted on 09/15/2006 7:47:57 AM PDT by GBA
Boy mauled by pit bulls
STEVE LYTTLE
slyttle@charlotteobserver.com
Police say the boy who was attacked by pit bull dogs Thursday night in northeast Charlotte was seriously hurt but did not suffer life-threatening wounds.
The boy, who police say was 7 years olds, was playing with his brother about 7 p.m. in a neighbor's yard on Eastway Drive. The two boys told police that the dogs escaped from a fenced-in yard, climbing through a hole in the fence.
Witnesses say two of the dogs attacked the boys. A man passing by jumped into the pack of dogs and chased them away from the boy.
Police responded and were forced to shoot and kill one of the pit bulls which had become extremely aggressive.
The other three dogs were captured by the police Animal Control Unit.
Police Sgt. Carl Bannerman told WCNC-TV, the Observer's news partner, that the injured boy "lost a lot of blood."
According to WCNC, Bannerman also said it appeared as if the dog's owner had made sure the animals had current rabies vaccinations and a permit to own four or more pit bulls, which is required by city law.
The dog's owner told police he does not want the dogs back, so they likely will be euthanized.
Let's take it one step further and kill ANY loose dog, thereby eliminating a large percentage of attacks. Nevermind the owners. If you can't keep your dog secured, then you are putting the dog and the public at risk, no matter the breed.
The reason I don't answer your posts is because you're so clearly in denial on this issue that you're beyond hope.
I could say the same for you. However, I believe there is hope for anyone that keeps an open mind. I am always open to the possibility that I might be wrong. The one thing that keeps me from believing so is that no one can present any kind of statistics to back up the claims they make to my contrary. If you have any proof of your opinion aside of google or news articles, (aka something scientific), I would be happy to read it and reconsider my opinion.
My proof is common sense; as you appear to lack it when it comes to dogs, debating this issue with you is futile. You are in denial and prove it again and again on threads dealing with dogs that kill or maim innocent people. All the googling and statistics in the world won't clear that problem up for you because its source is inside your fuzzy head.
Dogs of peace.
You screwed up.
You should have called the police.
After they refused to defend your rights, you should have returned and shot HIM.
You can shoot the dogs later at your leisure.
Small penis syndrome.
The defenders of these killer dogs keep trying to tell US that WE'RE the ones who are the nanny-stater liberals-in-disguise, but I ain't buying it. They, on the other hand, exhibit all the symptoms of the Liberal who puts animal rights on a par with human rights and finds any kind of profiling just too politically incorrect to be tolerated.
I don't need a formal statistical report to prove that some breeds such as pit bulls or rottweilers are generally more vicious than others. I've read and heard enough stories to know that. There are exceptions to every rule, but the rule generally stands. The various dog breeds are specialized for different purposes -- some are more docile than others. I'm still waiting for ANY report of mauling by a poodle or collie. My guess is that Solosmoke owns 2 pit bulls or some other kind of macho, bad-ass dogs that have behaved like angels ... so far. What kind of dog would you leave a 5-year child alone with, a poodle or a pit bull?
Just for the record, both poodles and collies have killed at least one person according to the cdc's stats. You don't need that, though, because it goes against the media gods and you can't possibly prove them wrong. It goes against the "nature" of ignorance to bother researching your claims. So you have "read and heard enough stories to know" that pits and rotts are more vicious. That indeed is the root of the problem. Forget the fact that the vast majority of veterinarians, dog behaviorists, dog trainers, pretty much every animal welfare organization, and the CDC all disagree with your opinion. But you must be an expert at deciphering the meaning behind those all powerfully enigmatic news stories. Either that or you are a psychic.
"My proof is common sense; as you appear to lack it when it comes to dogs, debating this issue with you is futile. You are in denial and prove it again and again on threads dealing with dogs that kill or maim innocent people. All the googling and statistics in the world won't clear that problem up for you because its source is inside your fuzzy head."
So your proof is YOUR "common sense" which is simply your opinion disguised as something else. YOU are the one in denial. Yes, obviously pit bulls and rottweilers have and will kill people. So have 56 other breeds of dogs. You only seem to care if it's a pit bull, which is, sadly, the worst kind of hypocricy.
When Ontario banned pit bulls but did nothing to irresponsible owners of any other breed, two children so far this year and a full-grown man have died from other breeds. They could have improved their current laws (leash laws, spay and neuter, etc.) and three more people would still be alive today. Instead they chose to focus all their energy on one single breed, eliminating the "threat" from them, but ignoring the "threat" from any other kind of dog.
The sources I have used on this forum have all been nationally recognized, trusted organizations. The CDC, the Humane Society of the U.S., and the three main breed registries make it their jobs to know what people like you don't. They are experts in their respective fields, and they spend a lot of time and money making sure the information they give is as up to date and accurate as possible.
The media, on the other hand, has no obligation to bring anything useful to the public. Their main goal is to profit from stories of carnage and any other dramatic event. So when you say that you choose to trust journalism graduates over doctors, ecologists, zoologists, behaviorists, and other professionals who spend their lives on this one subject, it really speaks volumes about your common sense.
I would suggest you look at insurance company data regarding breeds that they don't want to insure. They are in the risk business and are very conservative in their risk estimates. For example, they don't like to insure male teenage drivers. That is not to say that all male teenage drivers are irrepsonsible and a bad risk, but rather that many more than the norm are involved in situations that end up costing insurance companies money.
You'll find that insurance companies also view certain breeds of dogs with a similarly cautious eye. Why do you suppose that is?
What I have noticed is that many dogs retain their original breed's characteristics. I have springer spaniels and they are very typical for that breed, very birdie and bouncy. I've seen pointers go into a pointing stance even though they are house dogs that are never used in the field. I could go on and on with examples of other breeds' characteristics, but I'm sure you see the point I'm making.
And that point is, that given the correct circumstances, many and perhaps even most dogs will be true to their nature and their breeding. You can certainly be in denial about that simple fact if you want to be, but you will be wrong. What were pit bulls breed for?
Instead of daddy long legs and garter snakes, how about this example" "Not all mulsims are terrorists, but just about all terrorists are muslims."
Solo has been a member since March with the sole purpose of dispensing Pit lobby kool aid. In that time 9 more Americans have been shredded to death. For some folks it is acceptable collateral damage to keep selling dogs.
Good one.
The question has been asked before, but in light of what you have posted it should be asked again. Given all of the possible breed choices, including mutts, aka Heinz 57, American Woofer, etc, why would someone need to have a pit bull?
I'd say to have a dog with the most vicious reputation. From my admittedly subjective observations in Houston, it appears to be a status thing among the lower social classes to own a bad-ass dog. There, that ought to stir things up!
After reading your comment, I reviewed ALL of her posts. Every one of them dealt with dogs and the defense of pit bulls in particular. What struck me was the condescending, insulting, know-it-all tone in most of them. She sounds just like a Liberal, don't you think?
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.