Page 1 of 29 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 289

Thread: Dogs killing people

  1. #1

    Dogs killing people

    Some pretty disturbing statistics here. I never did get the infatuation with pit bulls. I initally wrote it off thug life wannabees but Im in a solidly middle class neighborhood and I see people walking them all the time. At the local humane center the majority of the dogs are pitbulls.

    https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...-2005-2017.php

    Name:  D9D8FDE5-0279-4889-9432-51F0BEBC0194.jpg
Views: 900
Size:  40.4 KB

    Name:  136743CB-5D47-4D48-8B3F-17C41A9A9B12.jpg
Views: 900
Size:  45.9 KB

    Name:  6104978F-27A2-4BC6-BF7A-C21513121E89.jpg
Views: 903
Size:  49.5 KB

    For a bit of humor skip forward to :53

    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  2. #2
    Meat Popsicle
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    That's an obscenely biased site.

    Total numbers of attacks, fatal or otherwise, are of limited relevance if it's not compared to total populations of all dogs and all breeds in the same area.
    Do they offer any of that data anywhere? I couldn't find it on the site.
    If total numbers of dogs go down, total numbers of bites will go down. If there's a prevalence of a given breed in an area, there's likely to be a prevalence of that breed in anything involving dogs, good or bad.

    I have a feeling that those folks have an axe to grind, and if they could show that a relatively smaller population of Pit Bulls were involved in a disproportionate number of bites or fatalities vs lots of other dogs in a given area, they'd show that data and be pointing at it to demonize them even further. Instead, they imply it and just point to broad total tallied numbers. I don't have a lot of faith in the 'Pit Bull Mix' numbers, either.
    I can speak from experience that once LE or animal control is involved in an incident with a dog, 'Pit Bull Mix' becomes a default checkblock unless it's irrefutably obvious that the dog is another breed. Much like how absolutely every MVA starts of with 'speeding' being a contributing factor and that sticks regardless of whether or not it was true, unless of course you've got very obvious and irrefutable proof otherwise. I can speak to that one, too, and it took GPS telemetry and dash cam footage to prove it.

    Ultimately that's a lot of the same BS anti-gun types run against guns. Move the goalposts, ignore the whole truth, just scream and stomp your feet until you get results congruent with your confirmation bias. Convince other people who have no experience via pretty graphs and cute pictures of safe & happy kids and soft colors. It's formulaic at this point.
    Last edited by JRB; 08-18-2022 at 06:22 PM.

  3. #3
    Im not going to verify the info, you are more than welcome to, but since they mentioned CDC I did a quick google and this came up.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

    And now that Ive re read your post who cares really about total populations. Or any other data. If the numbers are accurate then they are accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    That's an obscenely biased site.

    Total numbers of attacks, fatal or otherwise, are of limited relevance if it's not compared to total populations of all dogs and all breeds in the same area.
    Do they offer any of that data anywhere? I couldn't find it on the site.
    If total numbers of dogs go down, total numbers of bites will go down. If there's a prevalence of a given breed in an area, there's likely to be a prevalence of that breed in anything involving dogs, good or bad.

    I have a feeling that those folks have an axe to grind, and if they could show that a relatively smaller population of Pit Bulls were involved in a disproportionate number of bites or fatalities vs lots of other dogs in a given area, they'd show that data and be pointing at it to demonize them even further.

    It's a lot of the same BS anti-gun types run against guns. Move the goalposts, ignore the whole truth, just scream and stomp your feet until you get results congruent with your confirmation bias. Convince other people who have no experience via pretty graphs and cute pictures of safe & happy kids and soft colors. It's formulaic at this point.
    Last edited by UNK; 08-18-2022 at 06:29 PM.
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  4. #4
    Click the report button. There are footnotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    That's an obscenely biased site.

    Total numbers of attacks, fatal or otherwise, are of limited relevance if it's not compared to total populations of all dogs and all breeds in the same area.
    Do they offer any of that data anywhere? I couldn't find it on the site.
    If total numbers of dogs go down, total numbers of bites will go down. If there's a prevalence of a given breed in an area, there's likely to be a prevalence of that breed in anything involving dogs, good or bad.

    I have a feeling that those folks have an axe to grind, and if they could show that a relatively smaller population of Pit Bulls were involved in a disproportionate number of bites or fatalities vs lots of other dogs in a given area, they'd show that data and be pointing at it to demonize them even further. Instead, they imply it and just point to broad total tallied numbers. I don't have a lot of faith in the 'Pit Bull Mix' numbers, either.
    I can speak from experience that once LE or animal control is involved in an incident with a dog, 'Pit Bull Mix' becomes a default checkblock unless it's irrefutably obvious that the dog is another breed. Much like how absolutely every MVA starts of with 'speeding' being a contributing factor and that sticks regardless of whether or not it was true, unless of course you've got very obvious and irrefutable proof otherwise. I can speak to that one, too, and it took GPS telemetry and dash cam footage to prove it.

    Ultimately that's a lot of the same BS anti-gun types run against guns. Move the goalposts, ignore the whole truth, just scream and stomp your feet until you get results congruent with your confirmation bias. Convince other people who have no experience via pretty graphs and cute pictures of safe & happy kids and soft colors. It's formulaic at this point.
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  5. #5
    this space for rent blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    There are a lot of breeds, imho, that are wired kind of tight and high strung...but a lot comes down to how the dogs are raised and socialized.

    There are definitely dogs I give a wide berth based upon the cues they are giving off...but I feel comfortable with most any breed unless I happen upon a bad specimen.

    I know we talked about the dog that jumped mine a couple of weeks back, and I was able to kick and pummel it back from mine without anything bad coming to pass. A week or so later when I encountered the dog while on my own passing the neighbor's home, I petted and socialized with the dog with no ill feelings on either side.

    A lot of breeds get a bad rap...but it's their owners and breeders that deserve to be maligned.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

  6. #6
    Meat Popsicle
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by UNK View Post
    Im not going to verify the info, you are more than welcome to, but since they mentioned CDC I did a quick google and this came up.

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

    And now that Ive re read your post who cares really about total populations. Or any other data. If the numbers are accurate then they are accurate.
    If there were 10x more Pit Bulls in an area than any other large breed dog, and there were 10x more Pit Bull bite incidents than any other large breed dog, the rate or the tendency of Pit Bulls to bite would be equal as any other large breed dog in the area, yes? Going the other way around, if Pit Bulls made up only 15% of the large breed dogs in the area, but Pit Bulls made up 75% of the bite incidents, that'd strongly suggest Pit Bulls were 5x more likely to bite than other breeds in the area.. yes?

    So yes, the total populations and other dog breeds in the area matters. I'm disappointed to see you approach this with such a dismissively hateful and simplistic attitude.

  7. #7
    this space for rent blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    You'd think this medium sized (57 lbs) Staffie / Boxer mix was a mean old girl...

    Name:  Skyler 110518-1.jpg
Views: 839
Size:  50.3 KB





    ...But then you'd realize that she was just frustrated by another season in which the Rangers didn't win the Stanley Cup.



    Name:  Skyler game on - Edited.jpg
Views: 834
Size:  38.5 KB
    There's nothing civil about this war.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JRB View Post
    If there were 10x more Pit Bulls in an area than any other large breed dog, and there were 10x more Pit Bull bite incidents than any other large breed dog, the rate or the tendency of Pit Bulls to bite would be equal as any other large breed dog in the area, yes? Going the other way around, if Pit Bulls made up only 15% of the large breed dogs in the area, but Pit Bulls made up 75% of the bite incidents, that'd strongly suggest Pit Bulls were 5x more likely to bite than other breeds in the area.. yes?

    So yes, the total populations and other dog breeds in the area matters. I'm disappointed to see you approach this with such a dismissively hateful and simplistic attitude.
    The statistics are there on the website to research. Links to studies. It all there there is no way you looked at the website in the short amount of time you responded.
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum

  9. #9
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lexington, SC
    Do you think the prevalence in the middle class neighborhood is due to that demographic being potentially most likely to adopt a rescue dog and a high percentage of rescue dogs being Pit Bulls or Pitt Bull mixes?

    My family would fall squarely into that particular demographic.

    I'm not and have never been a Pit Bull fan. In fact in my brief LE stint, the most violent dog encounters I had were with Pitts. That said, my wife and kids found a Pitt Mix at our local shelter a few years ago and he's been part of our home since. He's very anxious and timid. He's very good with our kids and women but he'd likely nip you right now if you walked in my door. Right after tucking his tail and peeing a bit. The same is true for any strange male that comes in.

    We don't know his history but strongly suspect he was abused before we got him and believe that has a greater impact on his behavior than his breed. I don't know if there are any statistics on it but suspect that Pitts may have a higher incidence of abuse overall.

    I don't know as a breed they are any more lethal than a GSD, Malinois, Cane Corso, etc but suspect that as they are more typically involved in fighting and abuse there may be a higher incident rate with them of attacks. Any of the aforementioned breeds would likely be more lethal in any attack they were involved in than some other breeds developed for herding, retrieving, etc.

    Once upon a time Pitts were considered a very All-American breed. Petey from the Little Rascals was a Pitt Bull.

  10. #10
    Arma Cameleón Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    There are a lot of breeds, imho, that are wired kind of tight and high strung...but a lot comes down to how the dogs are raised and socialized.
    This. There are probably more ADs into legs from G-locks than J-frames, but if you have your shit together, neither is an insurmountable risk.

    That said, I too give some breeds a wide berth, and I say that as a guy who’s owned 2 dogs for their entire lives as an adult, myself—the first being a Rotty, and the second being an AmStaff/Boxer melangé; the spitting twin of yours, as you no doubt recall.
    ”Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.”
    -Dwight D. Eisenhower

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •