Your swearing and vulgar language looks as bad as an ugly pit bull itself. And your logic is so twisted and fallacious that it's laughable. Your comparison to smoking, swimming/farm/firearm accidents is fallacious at best and incredibly dishonest at worst. You CANNOT compare the statistical likelihood of an ACCIDENTAL death or the statistical likelihood of a self imposed risk such as lung cancer to the statistical likelihood of a deterministic external threat like that of a pit bull killing or mauling. That is comparing apples to tennis balls, not even oranges. For you to make the statistical comparison you be FORCED to argue that all pit bull attacks/killings are ACCIDENTAL and yet, your incomplete sample set indicates that pit bulls and rottweilers DOMINATE the killing roster. Furthermore, for you to argue that, 'oh look, 46000 people die in car accidents, therefore 238 pit bull killings don't matter much', from a humanistic point of view, is just appalling. Every death, no matter what the cause is a tragedy, and NO AMOUNT of pointing to other causes makes the one we are discussing less urgent or dangerous. If anything, pit bull killings is a horror that we CAN COMPLETELY BRING TO AN END. You can't do that with car/farm/swimming accidents. In keeping with the statistical truth of the matter, can you explain to me why some INSURANCE companies have REFUSED to insure pit bull owners? Surely Mr MadMunny, you are more informed/reasonable than their statisticians and analysts who actually do REAL RESEARCH and number crunching for a living? Of the 10 breeds/crossbreeds I counted, only 2, or 20% were responsible for 50% of the attacks (66 + 39 + 10 + 5) / 238. The 2 breeds/cross breeds are the pit bull and rottweiler, which belong to the SAME family of dogs. Does that look like randomness to YOU? And you're not even counting the last 10 years of data, which I am pretty sure would reveal even worse numbers because of the fact that pit bulls have only come to be such popular/macho prizes in the last decade or so, fueled by the images of dumb rappers/gangsters and the like on tv. Further, the table you attached (would you care to give all of us the source?) only considers FATALITIES, not maulings. Based on the numbers alone, I would call you incredibly irresponsible for having those dogs within reach of your children and others. I pray that you won't have to learn through a tragedy that the external risk that you are taking is just not worth it. Now I strongly urge you, stop and think hard about the above for a second before starting to curse and insult people. And also try getting a basic book on statistics and read up on statistical significance, because your reasoning is extremely weak, full of emotion and not cold hard facts.
Once upon a time I had a german shepherd . His name was Leroy, and he came to live with me when he was about 2 years old. I lived in the country at the time on a 20 acre spread. Leroy was a great dog as long as I was by his side. But, when ever I was in the house, or gone to work, that muthafuca would go around biting people, chasing livestock,or just killing small animals. I chained him up, but he wore ghastly wounds into his legs and neck trying to get away. I tried locking him up in the house while I was gone, but he trashed the doors and furniture. After about a year, I shot the sob in the head with a 12 gauge and had no more problems. You just can't do that with kids.
You gotta do what you gotta do if you are a responsible citizen, and you did the right thing. What amazes me is the intellectual arrogance of the pit bull lover crowd, those that claim to be able to nurture a pit bull into gentleness. They all think that the dog's behavior is within their locus of control, when in fact the numbers and reports show a completely different story. So many stories of pit bulls attacking FAMILY members, even their own dang OWNERS. The insanity and self delusion is mind boggling. Now expect a bunch of people to post and say, "hey, I've had a pit bull all my life, never had a problem" as proof of their correctness, LOL
I think you're absolutely correct on your outrage. Pits are a strong willed, aggressive, and quick to attack, no doubt about it. But I think the true problem lies with the owners' inability to control a strong breed, and their capacity to rationalize away that kind of behavior in their "family member". Just about anwhere you go, you can see people that obviously have absolutely no control over their animals,of all breeds. it's just that the pit is more prone to violence. The guy that shot his dog,in my opinion, showed a great level of responsibility to others. And think of all the rescue societies that would cringe at that - but they have no f'ing clue how to control dogs either. All they know is that they "love" their dogs, thinking that can make all the diff.....
The fact that you persist in the argument you make re the comparison of accidents to deterministic pit bull attacks shows that either: 1) You are mentally incapable of understanding the difference between the nature of the two causes of death 2) You understand the distinction but are in denial Whichever, it is, I'm not going to waste my time on folks like yourself. I've started the thread and hopefully more counties will ban the animal, just as many have done. Hopefully yours will be next.
madmuney u dont have a case here. u cant compare swimming or smoking deaths to pitbulls attacks related death. pitbulls can attack anyone, not only the owner. and swimming is not dangerous in itself, it's that freak accidents happen. for what concerns car accidents i cant understand the comparison, it just doesn't make sense, for a variety of reasons and since, once again, u can't predict freak accidents. pitbulls attacks are definitely not freak accidents as obvious by the predisposition of the dog to lose it and become aggressive.
If we have all these people that can't control a strong breed then why allow strong breeds? The thing that bothers me about dog attacks is that most of them are on children, infants even. It is not a good thing to expose children to more danger than adults, usually people do the opposite and try to reduce the danger for children. On a personal note, pretty much all of the few people that I have known that had pitbulls and rots were lowlifes with little regard for anybody's safety or community standards of any kind.
Bitstream, i am not trying to make a case for pitbulls. I am not even trying to endorse them or make them look like wonderful animals. Pitbulls kill people. I will never argue that. What i will argue is why are people trying to ban something that kills 5 people a year when there are countless of other things that kill thousands of more people each year. And after they are done banning pitbulls whats next. Car racing? How many people die in that sport? what about football? how many life altering injuries happen in football? Now i use sport references as we all know that they are high risk and that people get hurt.....but we still dont ban them do we? My problem with the whole idea of banning pitbulls isnt in the banning of them....its that there are so many other things that kill so many more people every year that these people should be arguing to ban first. and also...how can i not compare smoking to pitbulls?? I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that smoking will damage you and everyone around you everytime you do it. You cant tell me that every pitbull hurts people? i just fail to see your logic? What should i compare deaths from pitbulls to?