Pittbulls

[Justin]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

Yes I am against the banning of guns. Does you have a point or did you just make an off the cuff remark to make yourself feel good ?

I want to neither make a point nor amuse me. I just wanted to confirm what I guessed. Thank you for sharing your opinion. It was a good read and several interesting points were made. Sorry if I offended you in the question.

[originalhandy]

Enlighten me what you guessed right ?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

Enlighten me what you guessed right ?

I guessed your muzzle logic would lead you to against banning guns too, but wasn't sure. I was really curious so I asked. Thank you for giving me the straight answer. I am not saying that we should ban guns in this thread. (although I believe so, as you might have guessed already.)

[GuineaAddict]

You know...the day someone tells me to put a muzzle on my dog (again) I'm going to turn around and duct tape their mouths shut. It's a long story but I had a dog that a neighbor 3 blocks down said she could hear barking although there were other dogs around too, so we were court mandated to muzzle our dog for barking. I swear...duct tape next time.

[babybunny]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

As for the muzzle comment. My friend had a muzzle on his German Shepheard in Ireland when we walked the dog and he got attacked by a Lab and was totatlly defenceless and my friend got bitten because of it. Again, do you think a bad owner actually cares about muzzleing a dog ?

What if the Lab was muzzled as well, perhaps your friend wouldn't have been bitten.

[originalhandy]

I think you totally missed the point there.
If a person dosent care enough to keep their dog ontheir property or in their house what makes you think they are going to muzzle it ?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by originalhandy

what makes you think they are going to muzzle it ?

Making it legal mandatory won't make it always respected. But it will be respected some times, or often times, especially in public.

[crazywiggy]

As we keep coming back to the point "statistically pit bulls are more responsible for attacks than other breeds) I will keep re-iterating my point - these stats don't show WHY the dogs attacked, was it breed or circumstance, nature or nurture?

Because, BSL only affect "nature". It can not possibly affect "nurture".

Personally I think we can not know the answer for certain based only on breed stats.

1) Breed stats are currently inaccurate. (mistaken identity etc). If there was an accurate way of assessing breed, eg with DNA, that could distinguish every single breed of dog plus any crosses, then I would be more inclined to listen. Based only on appearence, judged by people with no clue, the stats are worthless.

2) More info should be taken - not just breed. We also need stats for number of dangerous dogs that were un-neutered, abused or neglected (including lack of socialisation and training), origin of dog (responsible breeder, byb or puppy farm), whether or not the dog was provoked etc.

For example, if the stats show that most attacks, regardless of breed, are caused by entire animals - simply bring in compulsory neutering.

If most dangerous dogs lacked proper early socialisation and training - bring in better animal care laws for breeders and owners to combat this (eg compulsory training training classes).

If the majority of attacks are caused by dogs from puppy farms - work harder tow ipe them out, eg by licensing breeding more appropriately and banning the sale of pups through third parties.

My whole point is that if ANY of these things were the case, banning breeds would not help.

Justin - dogs and guns....

Keeping a dog can be a fantastic experience, brings pleasure to many people, and is perfectly safe if the right precautions are taken.
Using a gun at a firing range, as a sport, can be a pleasurable pasttime and is perfectly safe is the right precautions are taken.

I do not see the point in banning guns. The criminals who use them to kill people will continue to own and use them anyway. The only people affected will be those responsible, law abiding people who lose out on their hobby.
License the sale, ownership and use of guns. Restrict is to those people responsible enough to maintain safety.

Same with dogs. Ban pit bulls what happens - oh yeah - the morons will own them anyway. Or ruin another breed. The people affected are those responsible owners who have to see their dogs vilified and killed for having the wrong appearence - dangerous or not.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

Keeping a dog can be a fantastic experience, brings pleasure to many people, and is perfectly safe if the right precautions are taken.
Using a gun at a firing range, as a sport, can be a pleasurable pasttime and is perfectly safe is the right precautions are taken.

I am confused. Doesn't "perfect" mean 100%? Or, do you think every single accident happened due to lack of "right precautions?"

[Jennicat]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

For example, if the stats show that most attacks, regardless of breed, are caused by entire animals - simply bring in compulsory neutering.

I am going to have to labor to find the link, as I lost it when I our computer went down in flames, but I do remember reading exactly this. Over 90% of dog fatalities were caused by an intact dog.

They admitted that they only had to go by what the owners of the original "pit bulls will kill you see?" study were using (in terms of what people had guessed as breed and whether the news articles mentioned that they were intact), and that many of the articles didn't say, but of the ones that did, the number of deaths caused by intact dogs was absolutely staggering.

[GuineaAddict]

Originally Posted by Jennicat

I am going to have to labor to find the link, as I lost it when I our computer went down in flames, but I do remember reading exactly this. Over 90% of dog fatalities were caused by an intact dog.

History can tell you, statistics lie and can't be used as 100% truth.

[piggly wiggly]

Off topic, but Justin the Province I live in there is a handgun ban, you can only own a gun here if you have a lisence, and a locking cabinet for it to go in, and it is usually only if you are a hunter. The gun ban only costs the taxpayer money because the politicians sit around an debate the issue and rake in the money. The ban does nothing to deter the criminals. We still have murders, and punks still carry guns.

[Jennicat]

Originally Posted by GuineaAddict

History can tell you, statistics lie and can't be used as 100% truth.

Yes, I addressed that when I went over how the author of the article discussed at length the failings of the study and how their statistics were gathered, how many were missing data, etc.

Some things are also inherently more quantifiable statistically. Whether or not an animal is fixed is a black and white answer. Yes, or no. It is intact, or altered. Whether or not an animal is a pit bull is not a black and white answer. How much percentage of a dog's ancestry has to be "pit" for it to be considered a pit? 50%? How does one determine that visually? What if the dog is 20% pit but visually looks much like a pit? What about a 75% pit who looks more like a german shepherd? By design, statistically separating breeds of dogs is much more fallible than spay or neuter.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by piggly wiggly

The ban does nothing to deter the criminals.

Does it reduce accidents by good people though?

[Justin]

History can tell you, statistics lie and can't be used as 100% truth.

They did lie often, especially when the research was financially biased (i.e. tobacco research). Also this dog bite research can't be 100% truth.
So, what percentage of it do you think is inaccurate? And what percentage of inaccurate data would make the research unusable?

[Justin]

error! error!