Woman mauled by dogs has leg amputated

[moshquerade]

It has snapped at me more than once, it snaps at a lot of people who walk on to the neighbor's property and she usually just picks it up and puts it behind one of those indoor gated things while it barks for a while. It's a mean little territorial fucker and I have no doubt it would bite on to my pants or leg if I was wearing shorts...and yes as I said in my post it won't kill me but it might be able to kill a baby or small toddler.

I figured you named a breed by saying anyone who owns one of "these killers" - I would guess that's a reference to the breed we've all been discussing this entire thread.

You figured wrong. No dog that kills a human gets a pass, nor does the responsibility of the owner of a killer breed get a pass.

I don't think a Pekingese dog has killed a baby or small toddler. I google searched it and came up with nothing. You are welcome to try.

 

[Josh]

In a perfect world, they would just have owners who want large (65+lbs) dogs to just buy liability insurance. Or make ALL dog owners insure their pets. Can't afford the insurance, then don't buy the dog. I would have no problem with this and it would thin out the dumbass broke gangsters who get large dogs b/c they think it's cool. One less reason to keep the fuzz off of them if they were stopped for an insurance check on the large dog.

I, in fact, do have insurance for my dog. I also try my best to make people feel safe/comfortable because I know the bad rep these guys have. I walk him close to me and keep him close by my side in public places unless someone asks "If hes friendly? can I pet him" then by all means go ahead and he will just sit there wagging his tail in excitement. However I'm always watching and keeping control of him as should EVERYONE with ANY dog, because they are animals and can get excited for any reason.

Just be a good owner and I'm sure you're dog, no matter what breed, will be a great dog.

 

[ShawnD1]

And my point remains... In 2009, there was one human fatality for every 2.5 million dogs in
the country. By contrast, 15,241 human beings were murdered, which is equal to one
violent human death for every 20,143 persons.

Humans are far more dangerous than dogs ever were or will be.

I guess that explains why I can no longer own slaves. God damn liberals :thumbsdown:

 

[Josh]

You figured wrong. No dog that kills a human gets a pass, nor does the responsibility of the owner of a killer breed get a pass.

I don't think a Pekingese dog has killed a baby or small toddler. I google searched it and came up with nothing. You are welcome to try.

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. I agree with that then, all owners, no matter what dog should be responsible for their dog. Period.

I was saying that a law shouldn't be passed on society's prejudice at this time. For example "any PITBULL owner will be tried for..." or whatever.

 

[SP33Demon]

I, in fact, do have insurance for my dog. I also try my best to make people feel safe/comfortable because I know the bad rep these guys have. I walk him close to me and keep him close by my side in public places unless someone asks "If hes friendly? can I pet him" then by all means go ahead and he will just sit there wagging his tail in excitement. However I'm always watching and keeping control of him as should EVERYONE with ANY dog, because they are animals and can get excited for any reason.

Just be a good owner and I'm sure you're dog, no matter what breed, will be a great dog.

See, you sound like a very responsible owner, kudos. I do the same with mine. Do you think insurance should be mandated on all large dogs? That would probably make people much more aware of their pets if they are hit in the wallet.

 

[SP33Demon]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/16/texas-dog-owners-barking-mad-proposal-mandate-dog-insurance/

From earlier in the year. It's similar to the universal healthcare debate (mandate insurance), except dogs are unpredictable so at least all parties are covered in the event of an accident. I see it more as auto insurance.

 

[CZroe]

*yawn*
your angle has been presented over and over and over.

i didn't advocate banning anything, but the denial in this thread is strong as it pertains to the fact that if you own one of these killers you should be responsible for it.

I didn't say you did. I was pointing at the logic about the same behavior applied to different dogs having different results and, thus, needing to treat them differently.

The analogy is that if I wreck my supercar or destroy my health with junk food, I am responsible. If I wreck into you or make you sick with fumes, I am responsible. Even so, I have a right to make that decision until a nanny-state over-stepps its bounds and takes it away. Banning a larger dog because it is larger instead of simply enforcing responsibility is wrong for the exact same reasons as banning a sports car/bike or fatty foods/health-hazards.

 

[CZroe]

I guess that explains why I can no longer own slaves. God damn liberals :thumbsdown:

Republicans freed the slaves.

 

[shangshang]

if this was in asia or africa, these dogs would be bbq meat. Dog meat taste quite good and goes well with beer. Troubled dogs in these regions end up on the plates. End of story.

But Americans are pussies, both you liberals and cons. Yall have to be "animal lovers" and shit. Eat your fucking dogs and problem goes away. Don't be pussies.

 

[Josh]

See, you sound like a very responsible owner, kudos. I do the same with mine. Do you think insurance should be mandated on all large dogs? That would probably make people much more aware of their pets if they are hit in the wallet.

Maybe it should be mandated with all dogs? Various types of insurance for the smaller breeds, etc.

I swear I see more smaller dogs that are "aggressive" than I do of any larger breed. Obviously, as the point as been raised here a million times, a smaller dog cannot inflict as much damage as a larger breed but it still can inflict damage and maybe it would encourage the owner to discipline their dog no matter how much it weighs. Just because your dog can't tear me to pieces doesn't mean it needs to be a little pest growling at everyone besides you, biting people, clothes, etc.

 

[gaidensensei]

I swear I see more smaller dogs that are "aggressive" than I do of any larger breed. Obviously, as the point as been raised here a million times, a smaller dog cannot inflict as much damage as a larger breed but it still can inflict damage and maybe it would encourage the owner to discipline their dog no matter how much it weighs. Just because your dog can't tear me to pieces doesn't mean it needs to be a little pest growling at everyone besides you, biting people, clothes, etc.

I think there's been talks about smaller sized dogs and association with napoleon complex, maybe there may have even been a study done but I haven't ever looked into it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Has no one here seen Dog Whisperer? Of Cesar's entire pack of dogs which dog did he bring into the craziest situations? Daddy. A Pitbull. He has said on many occasions of all his dogs, it was the most calm, and behaved dog. He would take this dog into homes with extremely aggressive dogs and Daddy would never bat an eye, or try to attack another dog or human. He simply remained calm and calmed down the other dog with his type of temperament.

I haven't.

 

[Regs]

Oh my. I knew someone that almost had her leg amputated. Lost a lot of muscle tissue, but it was able to grow back and then some. The human body is amazing sometimes when it wants to be. She was young though when it happened to her, and I couldn't imagine the horror. The wounds healed leaving only a few scars, but mentally, she was never the same. The traumatic stress at such an age devastated her. She can't really trust no one but herself ever since she got over the incident.

 

[NeoV]

Josh - just because you say it's so - doesn't make it so - you are pulling a bunch of BS out of your ass

pitbulls were bred to be gentle, loving dogs? WTF are you smoking?





"The breed eventually to be known as the American Pit Bull Terrier was
selectively bred specifically with the idea of it becoming the ultimate
canine gladiator"

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I don't think any amount of money could replace an arm and/or a leg for me. God bless her.

 

[tcG]

Large dogs? American Pit Bull Terriers are classified as medium sized dogs and do not weight more than 50-60 lbs. max. Anything larger is not a purebred dog and is an example of the backyard breeding that contributes to the demonization of the breed.

Granted, their medium size doesn't mean that an attacking one can't still do massive damage. I'm just saying that this hulking, 100-pound beast image some people have in their heads isn't reality, except in backyard breeding.

 

[tcG]

Josh - just because you say it's so - doesn't make it so - you are pulling a bunch of BS out of your ass

pitbulls were bred to be gentle, loving dogs? WTF are you smoking?

"The breed eventually to be known as the American Pit Bull Terrier was
selectively bred specifically with the idea of it becoming the ultimate
canine gladiator"

There is a huge difference between dog aggression or prey drive and human aggression. Human aggression is undesirable and uncharacteristic of the breed. There are specific reasons that during the early dog-fighting parts of the pit bull lineage, that human-aggressive dogs were culled from the breed.

Like I said, the reasons for pit bulls getting a lot of media attention and high numbers in the bite statistic are subtle and not as simple as it being the breed. See my post on page 6.

And this:

UKC (United Kennel Club - secord largest, second oldest registry of dog breeds in the world) says "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable,"[8] regarding pit bulls.

"The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9]" -Wikipedia

 

[gaidensensei]

"The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9]" -Wikipedia

That part shouldn't be too big of a concern, it's gauging how many pitbulls (or insert dog breed here) pass a standard testing. We already know many pits can be on par as other dogs. We don't know anything about the rest other than that they didn't pass a test. It's not sufficient to conclude anything other than that they can pass a standardized testing.

What we don't know for sure (and the world keeps arguing about) if pits actually have impulses to attack more frequently compared to other breeds of dogs. The reality is that actual attacks are a tiny fraction of everyday occurrence, you would probably be more likely to die falling down a stairs than getting mauled by a pit, however counts keep showing that pits seem to attack more frequently than other dogs.

 

[NeoV]

they can pass all the temperament tests you want - but the percentages of serious attacks (ones that are fatal or inflict major injuries) from dogs point to pit bulls being far and away the most dangerous breed, almost more so than all other breeds combined.

How many more people have to be mauled or killed before common sense sinks in?

Are Hyena's the next 'in' pet?

 

[tcG]

gaiden:

The temperament tests are obviously designed to test the breed itself, not just a lucky example. You're dismissing a well-known, accepted and peer reviewed study by saying that they ignored an extremely elementary and simple aspect.

Also, this characterization of dog attacks as an "impulse" shows how little you know about dogs. Dogs live in the moment and don't have any sort of instinct to just instantly and randomly attack somebody "on impulse." I guarantee you every single dog who attacks somebody shows warning signs and bad behavior (dominance, fear-dominance, etc.) throughout its life prior to the attack. There is no such thing as an "unpredictable" dog, only people who don't know how to read the signs.


NeoV:

Statistics aren't the end all, be all of the reality of any situation. There are many reasons as to why "pit bulls" ("pit bulls" aren't even a breed by themselves) top these statistics that have nothing to do with the breed itself being naturally aggressive. The demographic that owns the dog, the reporting method that inflates pit bull numbers, and the proliferation of backyard breeding all contribute to these statistics without the breed itself being the problem.

Let's be honest though - the reason you think pit bulls are brainless death machines isn't because you soberly looked at the [skewed] statistics, its because the media and sensationalist stories have engendered an almost Pavlovian, emotional response in you at any mention of the word "pit bull" or an image of a pit bull type dog.

 

[mooncancook]

I bet wolves and mountain lions combined kill and maim far fewer people per year yet we hunt and kill them almost to the point of extinction.

I suppose wild wolves and mountain lions don't live in your neighborhood?

 

[bfdd]

if this was in asia or africa, these dogs would be bbq meat. Dog meat taste quite good and goes well with beer. Troubled dogs in these regions end up on the plates. End of story.

But Americans are pussies, both you liberals and cons. Yall have to be "animal lovers" and shit. Eat your fucking dogs and problem goes away. Don't be pussies.

there are those of us who see nothing wrong with eating dog, even though i've never tried it i wouldn't be against it. it's not like i'd be eating my or someone elses pet.

 

[tcG]

Dog meat fed on commercial dog food would be disgusting.

 

[NeoV]

lovely - now Tcg can tell me how I think and why I think that

of course if you are 'pro' pitbull, the statistics on dog attacks are skewed

if you are anti-pitbull, the statistics are valid

I'll agree there is probably some erroneous reporting of 'pit bull' attacks (and yes, pit bulls are a breed, sorry if we aren't using the official breed name smart ass), but let's say that error rate is as high as, mmm 20%.

Even if you take away 20% of the reported serious attacks by pit bulls - they still lead the pack by a wide margin in terms of serious attacks - if you are going to argue that 20% is too low, then you are just pulling numbers out of your ass.

 

[alkemyst]

The problem is almost any dog attack has people assuming it was a pitbull today and identifying the dog as a pitbull. That list that is above is a good example of many dogs that look 'pitbull', but are not.

In the end this caused by our fondness of becoming 'gangsta' and embracing that mentality. Most of today's 'crime family' shows wouldn't have flown 20 years ago.

Pit bulls are today's bad ass dog and that media portrayal is stronger than ever....more weak-minds to buy into it and pluck down some cash for a 'pit' of their own.