Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: zinfamous
oh boy! another pit bull thread, filled with the same uninformed BS we've come to expect.
READ
So having sat down and read all 5 pages of this, allow me to summarize:
The article spends an exhaustive amount of time on categorization. Whether Pit Bulls are in fact the most dangerous breed or not. However, in all this long winded approach, the article never
once attempts to label Pit Bulls as anything other than a dangerous and aggressive breed. It only makes a point to state that they are loyal and that the bite statistics for them fluctuate from year to year with other dangerous breeds.
So based on your article we've established that, yes, Pit Bulls are dangerous. Now we have to ask exactly how dangerous?
"Pit bulls, descendants of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for bull baiting and dogfighting, have been bred for ?gameness,? and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail.
A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bulls seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bite, hold, shake, and tear. They don?t growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. ?They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression,? one scientific review of the breed states. ?For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this signal of submission.? In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous."
Ok, so apparently the answer, again from your article, is
pit bulls are very. fucking. dangerous. Do I even need to discuss this? It's pretty damning evidence in it's own right. We've got a breed that will attack without warning, meaning there is very little chance of the owner being able to correct the behavior before is too late, but more on the owners later. On top of that, once it has attacked, it's going for the kill. Point being is that there are other aggressive breeds that are a lot less dangerous when it actually comes to the attack.
Now, the article's suggestion, instead of banning Pit Bulls, was greater punishment for the owner. I don't disagree with this. However the amount of work they suggested doing, checking on the dog, reprimanding the owner, neutering the dog at the states cost, etc all come across pretty ridiculous when we are talking about trying to do everything possible to make a species bred for killing acceptable as a house pet. They basically suggested that we treat pit bull owners like they are on probation with cops rolling past their house to make sure their dog hasn't killed anyone today.
So let's talk about the owner. It comes up time and time again that despite Pit Bulls being bred for destruction, that it is often the owner that teaches them all these awful killing techniques or perhaps the owner's lack of teaching. But face it,
the majority of dog owners are not Cesar Millan. All it takes is one person in the house to be bad at training the dog (and bad doesn't mean they train it to attack stuffed dummies of children) to create many bad habits for a dog, even one that has been through obedience school. Very few dogs are well trained across the grand spectrum, so at the end of the day we are putting a lot of faith into the dogs breed first and foremost. And what do we already know about a Pit Bulls?