3 ms·

Correlation now counts as causation on HNews? Pitbulls greatest asset and its ultimate downfall is its wonderful toned muscular body and its iron will. Thats w

Correlation now counts as causation on HNews? Pitbulls greatest asset and its ultimate downfall is its wonderful toned muscular body and its iron will. Thats why they get picked up by assholes who tend to abuse them and train them to attack humans. Its the owners that are problem not the dogs. These guys could make any kind of animal into a "vicious killer". The pit is anecdotally the worst breed for guard dog. They tend to be that friendly towards humans. You have to remember that these dogs were indeed bred for fighting. Dogs not humans. So they were heavily bred to be friendly towards humans - how else can one control a powerful beast if it won't obey you and let you tend its wounds? They are so protective of children that you can easily let one babysit your kid while you're away. Condemning the breed because of their retarded owners is like condemning whole minorities because of gang members.

jules 16y ago
I'm sorry but given the choice between your personal hunches/anecdotes/biases and published statistics I'm going with the latter: Year Total # Most fatal attacks by # Second-most fatal attacks by 2005 29 Pit bull-type (18) (62%) Rottweiler (6) (21%) 2006 29 Pit bull-type (15) (52%) Rottweiler (8) (27%) 2007 34 Pit bull-type (18) (53%) Rottweiler (4) (12%) 2008 23 Pit bull-type (15) (65%) Husky (3) (13%) 2009 30 Pit bull-type (14) (47%) Rottweiler (4) (13%) 2010 32 Pit bull-type (22) (69%) Rottweiler (3) (9%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_th... The vast majority of these deaths were <10 year olds. > The pit is anecdotally the worst breed for guard dog. They tend to be that friendly towards humans. You have to remember that these dogs were indeed bred for fighting. Dogs not humans. So they were heavily bred to be friendly towards humans - how else can one control a powerful beast if it won't obey you and let you tend its wounds? Yeah right that's why they are the #1 human killer dogs with a spectacular margin. > They are so protective of children that you can easily let one babysit your kid while you're away. shudder until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose. Do you happen to own a pitbull?
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  Had I owned one - I'd have already disclosed it. I'd love to raise a pit - it's just that currently I'm in no position to own such a demanding animal. However I love to hang around people who do own them. As far as statistics go - there pretty skewed: http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_reliable http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_... - yes thats a blog post - but I couldn't be bothered to perform a more thorough research, I'm sorry. I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone to kill somebody. But thats not because there evil or go crazy, its because when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go off. > shudder until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose. Pits not reacting to a 3 year old punching them is exactly the reason they are so good with kids. Pits pain threshold is so high they don't mind kids being abusive towards them (lets face it thats what kids do to animals). I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making them vicious and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the wrong thing to do. Dangerous dog handlers license or/and personality screen of owners is the correct way to go IMHO.
  - jules 16y ago
    That blog post contains no evidence for anything whatsoever, again it's just a bunch of hunches and biases. It is also not relevant to the statistics I posted, their central claim is: > an incident could be anything from an accidental and playful scratch or nip to a full-blown attack by a poorly-trained, aggressive dog. But the statistics I posted ARE KILLINGS. > I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone to kill somebody. But thats not because there evil or go crazy, its because when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go off. And again zero evidence to back up this claim. There is evidence to the contrary however: there are plenty of dogs that are bigger than pitbulls and perfectly capable of killing a kid with a single bite. Yet they aren't responsible for ~60% of the deaths. Also it only seems logical that dogs bred for being aggressive are aggressive. In the same way I'd argue for keeping your kids away from fighting breed cocks (I've been attacked by them, and while they don't do much damage to adults, you don't want to be attacked by them when your height is such that your eyes are within their reach). If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do post it here. > I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making them vicious and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the wrong thing to do. Dangerous dog handlers license or/and personality screen of owners is the correct way to go IMHO. I'm arguing for keeping kids away from pitbulls. Do not let your kids play with them. Whether it is the right thing to ban pitbulls depends on how you value the joy they bring their owners over another dog breed against the deaths they cause.
sliverstorm 16y ago
Correlation is all you need when it comes to safety. 50% of reported dog attacks that resulted in injury over the past 20 years were performed by pit bulls. I don't care what the causation is- pit bulls are obviously correlated to a higher number of attacks, so I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid them. "Correlation doesn't necessarily imply Causation" is an important fact to remember, but you should also remember it doesn't mean correlation is meaningless.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  So you're in favor of banning any car with more than 200BHP? And lets ban all the other dangerous shit (skates, bicycles, open fires,...). Cause its ok in the name of safety.
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    Talk about a huge leap. "It's ok for a person to elect to avoid a dog they do not trust" => "Ergo, we should ban fast cars, skates, bicycles, fires..." What, do you think we should FORCE people to hang around suspicious dogs or something? So the dog doesn't get lonely, perhaps?
  - jules 16y ago
    Bicycles are not dangerous. Skates and racing bicycles are only dangerous to their riders. Open fires are not dangerous at all. I've been making/playing with camp fires since I was 1 year old, and I can tell you that a game of soccer is far more dangerous. Of course this doesn't go for open fires in a forest and yes I think those should be banned (and are). And yes, I'm in favour of physically limiting cars to the maximum allowed speed (or just over).
    - JanezStupar 16y ago
      You say bicycles are not dangerous? Not of itself - but riding a bicycle certainly is. I know I know - you want statistics or it didn't happen: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html There - it says that more than 20 times more people got killed (750 in 2005!!!) from performing an in your opinion safe activities than from aggressive dogs. I really apologize if I'm bashing you too much - but this is a perfect case of primal fear overcoming rational reason and I expect people here to be open towards other people pointing out their different POV.

jules 16y ago

I'm sorry but given the choice between your personal hunches/anecdotes/biases and published statistics I'm going with the latter: Year Total # Most fatal attacks by # Second-most fatal attacks by 2005 29 Pit bull-type (18) (62%) Rottweiler (6) (21%) 2006 29 Pit bull-type (15) (52%) Rottweiler (8) (27%) 2007 34 Pit bull-type (18) (53%) Rottweiler (4) (12%) 2008 23 Pit bull-type (15) (65%) Husky (3) (13%) 2009 30 Pit bull-type (14) (47%) Rottweiler (4) (13%) 2010 32 Pit bull-type (22) (69%) Rottweiler (3) (9%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_th... The vast majority of these deaths were <10 year olds. > The pit is anecdotally the worst breed for guard dog. They tend to be that friendly towards humans. You have to remember that these dogs were indeed bred for fighting. Dogs not humans. So they were heavily bred to be friendly towards humans - how else can one control a powerful beast if it won't obey you and let you tend its wounds? Yeah right that's why they are the #1 human killer dogs with a spectacular margin. > They are so protective of children that you can easily let one babysit your kid while you're away. shudder until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose. Do you happen to own a pitbull?

JanezStupar 16y ago
Had I owned one - I'd have already disclosed it. I'd love to raise a pit - it's just that currently I'm in no position to own such a demanding animal. However I love to hang around people who do own them. As far as statistics go - there pretty skewed: http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_reliable http://animals.change.org/blog/view/are_dog_bite_statistics_... - yes thats a blog post - but I couldn't be bothered to perform a more thorough research, I'm sorry. I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone to kill somebody. But thats not because there evil or go crazy, its because when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go off. > shudder until your 3 year old accidentally hits the pitbull on the nose. Pits not reacting to a 3 year old punching them is exactly the reason they are so good with kids. Pits pain threshold is so high they don't mind kids being abusive towards them (lets face it thats what kids do to animals). I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making them vicious and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the wrong thing to do. Dangerous dog handlers license or/and personality screen of owners is the correct way to go IMHO.
- jules 16y ago
  That blog post contains no evidence for anything whatsoever, again it's just a bunch of hunches and biases. It is also not relevant to the statistics I posted, their central claim is: > an incident could be anything from an accidental and playful scratch or nip to a full-blown attack by a poorly-trained, aggressive dog. But the statistics I posted ARE KILLINGS. > I agree that pitbull attacks will result in more damage and are more prone to kill somebody. But thats not because there evil or go crazy, its because when you mistreat a poodle - you get a minor annoyance, but when you mistreat a pit - you get a 100 pound of muscle and bones bomb ticking to go off. And again zero evidence to back up this claim. There is evidence to the contrary however: there are plenty of dogs that are bigger than pitbulls and perfectly capable of killing a kid with a single bite. Yet they aren't responsible for ~60% of the deaths. Also it only seems logical that dogs bred for being aggressive are aggressive. In the same way I'd argue for keeping your kids away from fighting breed cocks (I've been attacked by them, and while they don't do much damage to adults, you don't want to be attacked by them when your height is such that your eyes are within their reach). If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do post it here. > I guess that asshats will keep mistreating their dogs and enjoying in making them vicious and that something has to be done. But banning the dog is the wrong thing to do. Dangerous dog handlers license or/and personality screen of owners is the correct way to go IMHO. I'm arguing for keeping kids away from pitbulls. Do not let your kids play with them. Whether it is the right thing to ban pitbulls depends on how you value the joy they bring their owners over another dog breed against the deaths they cause.

sliverstorm 16y ago

Correlation is all you need when it comes to safety. 50% of reported dog attacks that resulted in injury over the past 20 years were performed by pit bulls. I don't care what the causation is- pit bulls are obviously correlated to a higher number of attacks, so I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid them. "Correlation doesn't necessarily imply Causation" is an important fact to remember, but you should also remember it doesn't mean correlation is meaningless.

JanezStupar 16y ago
So you're in favor of banning any car with more than 200BHP? And lets ban all the other dangerous shit (skates, bicycles, open fires,...). Cause its ok in the name of safety.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Talk about a huge leap. "It's ok for a person to elect to avoid a dog they do not trust" => "Ergo, we should ban fast cars, skates, bicycles, fires..." What, do you think we should FORCE people to hang around suspicious dogs or something? So the dog doesn't get lonely, perhaps?
- jules 16y ago
  Bicycles are not dangerous. Skates and racing bicycles are only dangerous to their riders. Open fires are not dangerous at all. I've been making/playing with camp fires since I was 1 year old, and I can tell you that a game of soccer is far more dangerous. Of course this doesn't go for open fires in a forest and yes I think those should be banned (and are). And yes, I'm in favour of physically limiting cars to the maximum allowed speed (or just over).
  - JanezStupar 16y ago
    You say bicycles are not dangerous? Not of itself - but riding a bicycle certainly is. I know I know - you want statistics or it didn't happen: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html There - it says that more than 20 times more people got killed (750 in 2005!!!) from performing an in your opinion safe activities than from aggressive dogs. I really apologize if I'm bashing you too much - but this is a perfect case of primal fear overcoming rational reason and I expect people here to be open towards other people pointing out their different POV.