![](http://wpmedia.fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/pit_bulls.jpeg?w=620")
Posted on 01/03/2015 9:39:36 PM PST by RBStealth
Last weekend in Saanich, B.C., a 16-day old baby was mauled by her family’s pit bull-Rottweiler mix on the same day as an elderly man was attacked by two pit bull dogs outside a Langley, B.C. dollar store. News like this is reported, but commentary-wise, dog-related public safety is virtually an orphan topic. Which is why I adopted it.
Public-safety regulation is usually linked to what is deemed a critical number of injuries or deaths. Between 1971 and 1980, for example, Ford produced three million Pintos. Due to a peculiarity in the Pinto’s structural design, its fuel tank was prone to puncture in rear-end collisions. Consequently, over Pinto’s 10 years in operation, 26 people died in fires that a better design could have prevented. Ford was forced to retire the model in the interest of public safety.
By coincidence, there are about three million pit bull type dogs in North America today, representing 6% of all breeds. But about 26 people die from pit bull type dogs in the U.S. every year (out of about 40 from all 400 breeds combined). Pit bull type dogs maul, maim, disfigure or dismember hundreds more. By no coincidence, when pit bulls were few in number — 200,00 before 1970, most clustered in marginal districts — dogbite-related fatalities in the general population were freakishly rare. In my youth, when middle-class neighbourhood dogs ran loose, and average families didn’t own fighting dogs, years went by without a single fatality. If pit bull type dogs were cars, they’d be long gone. But unlike car victims, pit bull tragedies don’t arouse public outrage.
(Excerpt) Read more at fullcomment.nationalpost.com ...
Yes, I see American bulldogs with the monster heads. I haven’t seen any English bulldogs at all. Many pits and usually at least one with a litter.
Pitbulls are sweet and only attack when provoked. Just like Islamists.
Pitbulls do not kill people. People do.
That was stupid.
"As" stupid? OK.
Whatever it is, it came from your fingertips, not mine.
btw...that’s not the argument I am making. I am saying there are pit bull owners all over America whose dogs have never hurt anyone. It is as unfair to blame them for the actions of other peoples’ dogs as it is to blame innocent gun owners for the acts of criminals who use guns. But I made that fairly clear earlier in the thread.
I have a Chihuahua Pug mix. Not a mean bone in her body, full of energy, just plain old fun family dog. Doesn’t eat much either.
In response, my friend had security lights installed. That proved inadequate, so he got a puppy of the pit bull type known as an American Staffordshire Terrier. The dog grew rapidly and was utterly devoted to his owner and his parents, and without exception was friendly toward other family members and approved visitors. With the benefit of a doggie door and comprehensive fencing, the AmStaff was permitted to roam the property at all hours.
The natural guardian instincts of that single dog was enough to deter all but the most foolish of intruders. In that one instance, lots of barking in the wee hours, a racket on a covered porch, and a blood trail showed that an intruder had been badly bit. That was the end of the thefts and break in attempts.
In such a manner, a physically feeble but experienced and responsible dog owner was able to regain security of person and property for himself and his parents. No one got bit except someone fully deserving of it.
In a large country with a third of a billion people, the usual experience of the owners of pit bulls and similar breeds is that they have the benefit and responsibility of a friendly, protective, and powerful breed of dog. With proper breeding, socialization, training, and treatment, such dogs are excellent companions and protectors. The cases of unwarranted death or serious injury due to pit bull attack are relatively rare.
Indeed, virtually any breed of dog can kill. A CDC study of 20 years of fatal dog attacks included fatal attacks not just by pit bulls but also by Newfoundlands, Australian shepherds, Collies, Labrador Retrievers, a Chesapeake Bay Retriever -- and even fatal attacks by a Basenji, a Cocker Spaniel, a Coon Hound, two Dachshunds, and a Yorkshire Terrier, which is one of the smallest dogs.
Notably, fatal attacks are almost entirely by male dogs. If dramatically reducing the risk of death or serious injury from a dog attack is the point, then forbidding male dogs would make the most sense. But that would still leave unremedied a far more common cause of death at home: drowning in a backyard pool.
There were Ford Pinto owners all over America whose cars never hurt anyone. And the government didn't actually take away anyone's Ford Pinto. But when the news got out, people stopped buying Ford Pintos and Ford stopped making them.
Pit bulls are approximately as dangerous as Pintos, according to this author. But people keep buying them and breeders (and the dogs themselves) keep making them. Apparently the news hasn't got out in a way that changes people's minds. Barbara Kay is trying to change that.
“It is as unfair to blame them for the actions of other peoples’ dogs as it is to blame innocent gun owners for the acts of criminals who use guns.”
A case of classic faulty comparison fallacy.
It might be a bit hard for you to understand, but pitbulls are living things that act on instinct, which is to kill. Guns do not have any instinct, since they are considered inanimate objects, aka non-living things. I know, pretty complex stuff.
Feeble.
The correlation is based on the personal responsibilty, in both cases, of the owner.
Whether one thing can move or not only changes the methods of exercising responsible ownership,
not the fact that responsible ownership is required in both cases.
chihuahuas outnumber any other dog in a lot of shelters
In both instances, responsible owners of objects/life forms that were not guilty or caused anything are the eventual victims of the “solutions” proposed by hand wringing busybodies to solve problems caused by irresponsible idiots.
What we really need here for a proper crusade filled with legislative passion is to collect all the fatalities from dog bites, bucket drownings, self inflicted fork wounds, Slinky entanglements, and as many other low probability means of shuffling off this mortal coil as we can gather and pass a comprehensive ban on statistically insignificant causes of death.
Lets be fair, animals don't know what's going on, no choice, when the other species does.
It is not statistically insignificant to those that were killed. Ebola deaths are also "insignificant causes of death", but that does not mean adequate precaution should not be taken.
Guns, dogs and the illogical arguments employed by those who want to ban them renders the comparison valid. You may get that or you may not...I really don't care. Either way, you are making the same illogical argument liberals do when they want to ban guns. Good show.
Between 1971 and 1980, for example, Ford produced three million Pintos. Due to a peculiarity in the Pinto's structural design, its fuel tank was prone to puncture in rear-end collisions... 26 people died in fires that a better design could have prevented... there are about three million pit bull type dogs in North America today, representing 6% of all breeds. But about 26 people die from pit bull type dogs in the U.S. every year (out of about 40 from all 400 breeds combined).
I find it staggeringly stupid that I or anyone should have to explain to those even remotely self-identifying as “conservative” the correlation of banning someone’s family pet because of the actions of someone else to that of individuals seeking to ban guns for similar cause. Draconian fashion indeed.
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.