I don't know if he wants the breed banned or if he is simply trying to warn people about the breed, which is a public service if that is what he is trying to do. People need to know that Pit Bulls, regardless of the fact some of them never hurt anyone, are the most likely dog to turn on their master and savage them. I say this as a person whose daughter owned a pit bull that never harmed a fly and died in his sleep peacefully after 13 years of life.
Regardless of that, pit bulls will attack/kill more frequently than other breeds. Chet 99 does nothing more than post news articles, he doesn't make them up, he posts truthful articles, something liberals don't do.
It is NOT a liberal tactic to tell the truth. If Chet lied about pit bulls and posted articles of his own invention then you could call him a liberal.
You, OTH, are using liberal tactics by attacking Chet for simply posting the articles, regardless if you want to face the facts of those actions or not.
1) Only the government can censor
2) Over 20 breeds are mistaken for Pitt Bulls
Pit bulls do not attack more frequently than other breeds, but their attacks garner much more attention from the media, however, and this is evidenced by the fact that just today, there were an average of 13 thousand dog attacks in this country, but you only heard about the ones involving pit bulls.
Reporters are not required to notify the public of every dog attack, just as they are not obligated to ensure their source information is reputable. They simply see ratings and most have no sense of ethics any longer. They are one of the main reasons that generation after generation, the public moves from breed to breed, both villifying and popularizing them with the wrong crowds. A few decades ago, we saw the same thing happen with German Shepherds, and it was at the same time they were experiencing extreme popularity. There was also a time for Rotties and Dobies, also when those breeds were extremely popular, and even in the 1800’s there was a time for Bloodhounds, a breed made popular by playhouses that used the most vicious-looking dogs they could find to draw in crowds for Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This kind of sensationalism and subsequent hysteria (and popularity with the wrong crowd, making things worse) has been going on as long as we have paid enough attention to make note of it.
As for Chet spreading the word about pit bulls, I really don’t think that is necessary considering the amount of notoriety they already have from irresponsible owners and the media. It’s not like he’s the underdog here, as most people not involved in biology or animal behavior tend to share the same view.
Also, pit bulls have never been shown to be more likely to attack their owners compared to other breeds. In fact, even though they are the most popular breed in many places right now, they are still not topping the charts as the number one biter. There are close to ten million pit bulls alive in this country right now, yet less than a half of a half of a percent of them end up on the news.
Why would anyone want to take the most miniscule percentage of them and consider that the rule? Not to mention that before pit bulls were popular, there were the same average number of fatalities every year from dogs. The numbers have been slowly rising for decades due to the increase in both human and dog populations, but other than that they have remained consistently rare. And even with pit bulls representing around 60% of the medium to large breed dog population, last year 19 people were killed by dogs that were not pit bulls.
If we decided to ban pit bulls, as some places have done, we would find attacks from pit bulls decline, while attacks by other dogs rise. This happened in Denver, a place that boasted about pit bull attacks declining while hiding the fact that the overall attack numbers did not change, and in the UK, their attack numbers have risen quite a bit since their bans.
Several countries that have already been through that have seen that bans do not work and are now repealing them and implementing responsible ownership laws instead. Calgary is an excellent example of a place that decided to pass the right laws to fix the problem. They did not ban pit bulls or any other breed. They passed laws making pet owners more responsible, and have since seen attacks by all dogs decline dramatically, as well as having over 90% of their population of dogs licensed, which is unheard of.
If you are still reading, here are some links that might be of interest to you:
www.cdc.gov - This one has a pretty comprehensive study done over a period of a couple decades, and goes into great detail about the ineffectiveness of breed bans and the effects of irresponsible dog ownership relating to dog bite fatalities.
www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com - This has an entire book available free of charge that delves into the history of the dog bite epidemic, all the way back to the 1800’s, along with the social and economic issues that are always so prevalent in these situations.
www.atts.org - This is a site that shows the statistics for dogs of every breed that are tested yearly for unprovoked aggression. You can see where your breed of choice ranks among the others, as well as where pit bull-type dogs rank. You might be surprised by this, as they do score pretty well. Of course, the people testing their dogs are probably not going to be your run-of-the-mill ignorant dog owners either, but I guess that is the point after all.
www.kcdogblog.com - This site is a great resource for dog attacks, current legislation being passed, positive pit bull press, and everything in between. You can also see last year’s total number of fatalities, broken down by breed, the situation the dogs were in, the condition of the dogs, and the median income level of the area, as these have been found to correlate, no matter the breed involved.