Posted on 11/19/2006 11:23:41 PM PST by Omega Man II
Pit bull owners more likely to be criminals
Washington
November 17, 2006 - 12:23PM
People who own vicious dogs such as pit bulls have significantly more criminal convictions - including crimes against children - than owners of licensed, gentler dogs such as beagles, American researchers report.
A study of 355 dog owners in Ohio showed that every owner of a high-risk breed known for aggression had at least one brush with the law, from traffic citations to serious criminal convictions.
And 30 per cent of people who owned an aggressive breed of dog and who also had been cited at least once for failure to register it had at least five criminal convictions or traffic citations.
This compared to one per cent of owners of low-risk, licensed dogs such as poodles, beagles or collies, the researchers reported in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
"Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises ... are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence ... and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs," said Jaclyn Barnes of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre.
Barnes and colleagues used public records to check on the criminal pasts of dog owners.
They used agreed definitions of vicious dogs used in writing local ordinances. "A 'vicious dog" means a dog that, without provocation, has killed or caused serious injury to any person, has killed another dog, or belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog," they wrote in their report.
The definition excludes dogs used in law enforcement or dogs protecting an owner or property.
Aggressive breeds identified by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and some insurance companies include pit bulls, rottweilers, akitas and chows.
The most frequent low-risk breeds seen in the study included terriers, beagles, collies and poodles.
Reuters
From the sound of things, you're far more bloodthirsty than my dog.
So, I suppose that if you wanted to place a dog in a guard capacity, you would choose a Lab? Perhaps a yorkie or a golden? Don't waste time pressing points you know are not true. The size, strength and temperment of certain breeds makes them inherently more dangerous. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows this. Various breeds EXIST because the breeders desired particular traits. Or do you actually think that a pacifist owner with a german shepard is a great target because the dog will just lick the perps hand?
Another study for the Pit Bull lobby to sink their teeth into...
Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners
Journal Society and Animals
Publisher Brill Academic Publishers
ISSN 1063-1119 (Print) 1568-5306 (Online)
Subject Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
Issue Volume 8, Number 1 / March, 2000
DOI 10.1163/156853000510970
Pages 25-52
Online Date Friday, November 12, 2004
Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners
Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke and Gary Patronek
Abstract Ethnographic interviews were conducted with 28 pit bull "owners" to explore the sociological experience of having a dog with a negative image. Results indicate that the vast majority of respondents felt that these dogs were stigmatized because of their breed. Respondents made this conclusion because friends, family, and strangers were apprehensive in the presence of their dogs and because they made accusations about the breed's viciousness and lack of predictability. In the face of this stigma, respondents resorted to using a variety of interactional strategies to lessen the impact of this perception or prevent it from occurring. These strategies included passing their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls, denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter-stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, or becoming breed ambassadors.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5n2p7074h721310/
Very good information and analysis - Thanks!
I wish more would respect and understand that many of the rest of us have legitimate concerns that are based on facts, not unfounded fear.
Your fear of pitbulls is totally without reason or cause. Be wary of any strange dog and teach your children the same.
Here's legitimate concern...You're more likely to be mauled by a very nice SUV driving cell-phone yakking female than a pitbull. Or any other dog for that matter.
...and people that own hunting dogs are more likely to own guns!
...on the other hand there are four pit bulls up the street that are owned by a couple of punks with long records.
Accusing someone you disagree with of being merely "afraid" is not quite a rebuttal. If you want to talk about basing a conclusion on anecdotes, look just at this thread. The people championing pit bulls are doing so based on . . . their personal experience with particular dogs. Uh, I think that's anecdotal evidence. And guess what? At some point the weight of "anecdotal evidence" becomes persuasive, or at least raises a legitimate issue. In fact, it's people with your point of view that make others even more wary of these dogs. If you can't even be open to the fact that some people have *legitimate* concerns, if all you can do is dismiss those concerns as "unfounded fear," how much responsibility do you think the rest of us are going to conclude these owners will exercise? It's like if my child plays with another child who uses bad language. If I talk with that child's parent and the parent says, "I agree with you that that's inappropriate and I'm going to take care of it," I will let the child continue to play at my house. If the parent says, "I don't see anything wrong with that, that's the way people talk in this world," that's the end of that. When champions of these dogs won't even admit that---whether b/c of something inherent in the dogs' temperament or b/c they often attract dumb owners---they can see why some people conclude there is a legitimate ground for concern, those people reinforce the perception problem. As I said, "I wish more would respect and understand that many of the rest of us have legitimate concerns that are based on facts, not unfounded fear." And what did you do? Shoot back, no you don't. You even went so far as to say "Your *fear* is *totally* wihtout *reason* or *cause.*" If you actually believe that, you reinforce the problem and preclude a solution. Finally, you said "be wary of any strange dog and teach your children the same." Thanks for the advice. My children are very capable and trained dog handlers. But I'd like to ask: just look at the stories posted on this thread and read some of the news accounts and you will see that very frequently these lethal attacks are NOT on strangers. That is the point. Look into the number of attacks perpetrated by dogs known to the person who was attacked and/or killed and see which breeds do this most often. Of course one should be wary of any strange dog. However, that is not the end of the story with some breeds. I'm genuinely curious and have been asking here. Maybe you can give me some insight. Why do you think a family pet suddenly mauls the grandchildren that he has known since puppyhood? Or the neighbor he has loved on since puppyhood? Or the horse that has been pastured next door for several years? Or the little dogs that have lived down the street for a long time? Why do you think a family pet who for some reason does attack will not let go from attacking even when bashed brutally with a baseball bat? Even a shark will usally let go if bopped on the nose. These anecdotes are just as real as the ones proffered by these dogs' champions (we had a wonderful pit who never gave us a bit of trouble). Except in the first category people end up dead. Can you help me out here? Were all these dogs trapped with bad owners and were only nice until their owners pushed them over the edge? I'm not being sarcastic here. I really would like someone like you, who believes there is *no* problem whatsoever, and that *any* expression of concern is *merely unfounded fear,* would address these incidents.
whoops! What happened to my formatting?
Let me try that again. Hang on, please!
Let me try again (don't know what happened to my formatting).
Accusing someone you disagree with of being merely "afraid" is not quite a rebuttal.
If you want to talk about basing a conclusion on anecdotes, look just at this thread. The people championing pit bulls are doing so based on . . . their personal experience with particular dogs. Uh, I think that's anecdotal evidence.
And guess what? At some point the weight of "anecdotal evidence" becomes persuasive, or at least raises a legitimate issue.
In fact, it's people with your point of view that make others even more wary of these dogs. If you can't even be open to the fact that some people have *legitimate* concerns, if all you can do is dismiss those concerns as "unfounded fear," how much responsibility do you think the rest of us are going to conclude these owners will exercise?
It's like if my child plays with another child who uses bad language. If I talk with that child's parent and the parent says, "I agree with you that that's inappropriate and I'm going to take care of it," I will let the child continue to play at my house. If the parent says, "I don't see anything wrong with that, that's the way people talk in this world," that's the end of that.
When champions of these dogs won't even admit that---whether b/c of something inherent in the dogs' temperament or b/c they often attract dumb owners---they can see why some people conclude there is a legitimate ground for concern, those people reinforce the perception problem.
As I said, "I wish more would respect and understand that many of the rest of us have legitimate concerns that are based on facts, not unfounded fear." And what did you do? Shoot back, no you don't. You even went so far as to say "Your *fear* is *totally* wihtout *reason* or *cause.*"
If you actually believe that, you reinforce the problem and preclude a solution.
Finally, you said "be wary of any strange dog and teach your children the same."
Thanks for the advice. My children are very capable and trained dog handlers. But I'd like to ask: just look at the stories posted on this thread and read some of the news accounts and you will see that very frequently these lethal attacks are NOT on strangers. That is the point.
Look into the number of attacks perpetrated by dogs known to the person who was attacked and/or killed and see which breeds do this most often.
Of course one should be wary of any strange dog. However, that is not the end of the story with some breeds. I'm genuinely curious and have been asking here. Maybe you can give me some insight. Why do you think a family pet suddenly mauls the grandchildren that he has known since puppyhood? Or the neighbor he has loved on since puppyhood? Or the horse that has been pastured next door for several years? Or the little dogs that have lived down the street for a long time?
Why do you think a family pet who for some reason does attack will not let go from attacking even when bashed brutally with a baseball bat? Even a shark will usally let go if bopped on the nose.
These anecdotes are just as real as the ones proffered by these dogs' champions (we had a wonderful pit who never gave us a bit of trouble). Except in the first category people end up dead.
Can you help me out here? Were all these dogs trapped with bad owners and were only nice until their owners pushed them over the edge?
I'm not being sarcastic here. I really would like someone like you, who believes there is *no* problem whatsoever, and that *any* expression of concern is *merely unfounded fear,* would address these incidents.
Your supposition, as well as the article supposition is absurd, and who's calling who sweetie? Huh, cupcake?
Whatever you say, pumpkin.
ooooo....what a burn! Look, obviously I pissed you off cause you must ride a bike with spandex pants. That's fine, lots of you bicyclers do. I just happened to pick that because it made about as much sense to me as the article did. Neither statement (Pitbulls or Spandex) can be generalized that much.
Relax Gaffer, after reading some of the input here I agree w/ you. I just thought it was a very odd way to make your point. It really didn't bother me, I was having some fun. I'm quite secure in my sexuality... just so long as I use one of those no pressure saddles. Freegards!
Quite a few links are posted here. Use them.
No responsible pitbull owner will ever be able to do enough to satisfy you and others persuaded by the likes of Reuters.
One can debate what is and what is not fact. My responsibility is not to satisfy your opinion.
No problem...the spandex thing is something I mention sometimes just to see who's the avid bicycler (see? not biker, cyclist....that ticks'em off just like the pants thing...)
Such dogs are not suited to Alaskan winters, so probably belonged to a recent immigrant. Of course we all wonder what he had in the Jeep, probably something of little interest or value on the street. Riiiight..
BTW, if you are the gaffer, who is the key grip?
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.