http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf[/URL" target="_blank">

Between 1997 and 1998, 67% of all dog-related deaths were by pit bulls or Rottweilers. Between 1979 and 1998, 27.4% of dog-related deaths were by pit bulls alone. Either only the most heinous dog owners in the US ever buy these dogs, or these breeds have a tendency to kill people. If you have some evidence that these dogs are NOT predisposed to attack, let's see it because death data shows otherwise.

Andy,
Great study, I was reading through it just as you posted. The part that jumped out was: (paraphrased)

In a 12 year period more then a third of fatal dog bites were caused by pit bulls type breeds with a subset of a four year period (during the 12 year study) having half of all fatalities due to Rottweilers. Most victims (70%) were children.

If you add German Shepherds into the mix, that further solidifies the case about breed OR owner disposition.
That is one aspect of this study in that is tries to clearly delineate that you CANNOT hold a breed responsible for bad owners. It clearly states that if you eliminate these breeds, others will be trained to be aggressive with like results.

Devyn,
I appreciate your defense of the breed but there is no denying what a breed is designed for. I doubt there were many Golden Retrievers confiscated from Michael Vicks property.

Again, let's point out that the anti-gun bias is alive and well on Cool Running. Criminals get the pass and law abiding citizens get the shaft.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by BrettBH:
Andy,
Great study, I was reading through it just as you posted. The part that jumped out was: (paraphrased)

In a 12 year period more then a third of fatal dog bites were caused by pit bulls type breeds with a subset of a four year period (during the 12 year study) having half of all fatalities due to Rottweilers. Most victims (70%) were children.

If you add German Shepherds into the mix, that further solidifies the case about breed OR owner disposition.
That is one aspect of this study in that is tries to clearly delineate that you CANNOT hold a breed responsible for bad owners. It clearly states that if you eliminate these breeds, others will be trained to be aggressive with like results.

Devyn,
I appreciate your defense of the breed but there is no denying what a breed is designed for. I doubt there were many Golden Retrievers confiscated from Michael Vicks property.

Again, let's point out that the anti-gun bias is alive and well on Cool Running. Criminals get the pass and law abiding citizens get the shaft.<HR>

I would certainly agree that the authors were cautioning against a strict interpretation of the results as being 100% due to breed and that they mentioned owners could be part of the explanation. However, I don't believe they went as far as to exclude it either as they made several inferences as to the dramatic shift in deaths to just a few select breeds.

Given that pits are far from the most common breeds around, it is hard to explain the numbers in any other way than the breed is involved. While individual dogs can and will vary in their temperment, owners MUST remember that any pedestrian that encounters their dog does not know their dog and has every right to assume its aggressiveness if it acts aggressivly and belongs to a breed known to cause a disproportionate number of deaths. Yet I've had people tell me their dog is harmless as I try to beat its jaws off my shoe.

We're told not to believe the dog attacked or was told to attack because we don't have full context from the story, yet the woman is obviously a loon because she was armed?

(By the way, it was I who was called a loon yet I never called anyone anything here. I said fears of legal gun owners were illogical and ignorant, which they are, and probably based on movies and the news slant as I guarantee this individual lives in a city and hase never been properly exposed to and taught to respect firearms; I'm not going to apologize for pointing out a simple truth. If you have no experience and take your info off the TV that is ignorance. We're all ignorant of something, so being called ignorant is not in and of itself an insult. I am admittedly ignorant of how exactly my computer works.)


http://This message has been edited by AndyHass (edited Jun-29-2007).

Having a CCW permit does NOT make you a confrontational person. Actually, in most states, having a CCW increases your legal obligation to avoid confrontation so people with them avoid confrontation because they come under increased scrutiny if they don't. This is why tens of thousands of people have permits but you RARELY ever hear of them pulling their weapon.

There is too much out of context to call her a loon here. If you are going to go to the trouble of carrying a lethal weapon to defend yourself, it is reasonable to carry a non-lethal weapon so you can defend yourself without using lethal force. I question her fear level to be in that location willingly if she felt the need to carry that much defensive gear, but honestly every cop carries a baton, pepperspray, and a gun.

I wonder if she was even really running though....carrying multiple objects and towing 2 dogs?

When she left the house that morning did she think "Hope I have a nice run today, if not, I'm prepared." Or did she think, "Today's the day I deal with this situation."
At this point I choose to believe the latter. That's why I call her confrontational, not because she carries a gun or mace or is willing to stand up for her rights. I think she went looking for that confrontation.

Agreed.



------------------
My profile[/URL" target="_blank">
Me[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by devyn81:
People need to stop placing the blame on a breed of dog <HR>

Agreed. (edit: not saying that a breed of a dog isn't more inclined to attack..just saying that the case may be that the dog was trained to attack or be aggressive)

quote:<HR>Originally posted by devyn81:
She discharged a firearm in a residential neighborhood. The dog got scared a ran away just from the loud noise. An airhorn or mace probably would have done the trick just as well without endangering other people in the process.
<HR>

And she had every right to. She has a permit and was defending herself in a place she was allowed to be. (based on what I've read...) As someone who has had his whole right cheek ripped off by a cross between a st. bernard and a great dane, I take zero chances. "Probably" doesn't fix a hole in your cheek big enough to see teeth if you guess wrong. If you don't want your dog hurt, don't let it attack me. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs and I've always had them. I have one now but doesn't wander free, I train him and teach him every day and I keep him restrained. If he attacks you it's because you're coming after me or my wife or you're breaking into our house.

http://This message has been edited by angrek (edited Jun-29-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by dpar:
And that's really my point.

When she left the house that morning did she think "Hope I have a nice run today, if not, I'm prepared." Or did she think, "Today's the day I deal with this situation."
At this point I choose to believe the latter. That's why I call her confrontational, not because she carries a gun or mace or is willing to stand up for her rights. I think she went looking for that confrontation.

<HR>

But you have absolutely nothing to base that assumption on other than that she was armed....so your argument is circularly disingenuous.

Apparently she had a bag and not a holster....so she had a bag and 2 dogs....this was not someone out for a run...well, maybe Gallowalking.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by bradvabeach:
Listen to your mom - keep that dog away from the baby.

My opinion...pit bulls are a dangerous breed and need to be treated as such. But that lady is a NUT.

<HR>

I appreciate your concern. That baby's 7 now. The pit mix and the dobie mix know full well the 7 year old is the pack leader. DD7 can control the dogs w/ a sound or a snap of her fingers. Yes, I'll give you as a breed they can be dangerous. If you give me an owner is also responsible. Many of the breeds you are attacking are purchased by less than stellar citizens because they have the reputation that they do. Let's admit not too many people want an attack poodle.
My brother has had has face ripped open by a kerrin Terrior. 2x. (my Uncle is a bad dog owner) I myself have been bitten by more than one Yorkie who's owner thought it cute. NOT

We're way off the topic now, but I say that woman and that dog owner have a history, plus her own pit history, she's looking for it and yes, with the wrong pit and the wrong time, she's very likely to find more trouble than she wants. The sad thing is saying "pits are bad", racial profiling comes to mind.