Agree.
How about the facts breed by breed. I don’t want to hear how many sweet pit bulls there are after another innocent person is horribly maimed or killed by one.
A lot of other dog owners fail to train their dogs..but I don’t hear time after time other bad dogs killing people.
You have a choice.
Go to a Norski thread and rail against 'pitbulls;' to your hearts discontent.
I, for one, pledge not to invade your hate zone.
That will not be what you find on these threads.
If you don't want to 'hear' or see positive stories about 'pitbulls' presented
or partake in civil discussions on preventing dog attacks without killing millions of innocent dogs,
you'll likely not enjoy these threads.
Here ya go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
The list goes back to 1887. Notice the pattern. Hardly any were Pit Bulls until the 1980s when they started becoming popular with certain people. Namely the type of people who lack responsibility and lack obedience training themselves. Also the type of people who like dog fighting, are druggies looking for protection etc etc.
>>>University of Texas Study: 1966–1980
A study[10] conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School identified 74 fatal dog bites during the period 1966–1980 from news media and medical literature.
Most fatalities were young children, including 23 infants under 1 year old. In most cases, the dog was owned by the victim’s family. In only 3 of the incidents was the dog reported to have been provoked by kicking, hitting, or having stones thrown at it. However, several incidents involved a child attempting to pet or hug the dog.[10]
In 6 of the incidents, there was no information available about the kind of dogs involved. In ten fatal attacks, the dogs were only described as “mixed-breed”.
Many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six Bull terriers, six Great Danes, two Boxers and a Rottweiler. In contrast to the time period covered in other studies, the researchers FOUND NO FATAL ATTACKS ATTRIBUTED TO PIT BULLS AT ALL.
Spitz and primitive dogs committed a significant minority of the attacks, mostly sled dog breeds (nine Husky breeds and five Malamutes), one Chow Chow and a Basenji.
Fatal herding and working breed attacks numbered sixteen, twelve German Shepherd attacks, two collie attacks, and two involving a Doberman pinscher.
There were multiple retriever attacks, including three Golden Retrievers and a Labrador, and two attacks by very small breeds: one Dachshund, and one Yorkshire Terrier, which is among the smallest of all dogs.[10] <<<
ALL CAPS BY ME
Pit bull attacks in 1945, 1965, 1976, 1981 and after that, it starts becoming a regular occurrence and then around 2000 they’re definitely the predominate breed involved in fatal attacks.
I’ve said it here before because it’s something I’ve observed. In the 70s, it was German Shepherds, 80s - Dobermans - 90s Rottweilers. The list at wikipedia corroborates this.
So for a breed that’s been around for hundreds of years, why is it that they don’t become the predominate killer dog until around 2000? Because there’s 10 pit bulls for every doberman these days. Pit bulls are the latest breed of choice for tough guys, druggies and general jack asses now.
Outlaw pit bulls and they’ll find another breed.
Outlaw assault rifles and people will use shotguns.
Outlaw guns and people will use knives.
When you consider that FR people are supposed to believe in freedom, small government and personal responsibility and that we’re not the type to just make up our minds due to what the MSM puts out, you have to see the irony in those three statements?
It’s a rare thing for the MSM to show/tell who the owner of these pit bulls are, although they did show a white guy with tats all over his neck and head. magineThat. I’d bet half of the owners are Hispanic which id why the MSM won’t show them. Dog fighting is very popular in Ctrl and South America.