You are looking at it wrong. The total of fatal dog attacks isn't very high. So either we are in the position that the number is so low overall there's nothing we can do about it or we make changes where we can.

 

2016 saw 31 deaths. 22 of those were from pit pulls. The next highest was Rottweilers at 2. So if we want to try get that 31 number to as close to zero as possible don't you think a good place to start is pit bulls? There is a reason some many of the deaths are cause by pit bulls. That can't simply be bad owners. That's a lazy excuse in my opinion without facts to back it up. Could it be the case, sure. But if we are serious about eliminating these deaths we need to quit digging in our heels on both side. I don't think pits need to be banned. But if bad ownership is leading to the majority of dog attacks then we need to put some serious restrictions in place. Background checks, home visits, whatever it takes.

If the question is which breed of dog is most likely to kill, then I am certainly not looking at it wrong. Total deaths divided by total population of dogs.

 

I agree with ownership restrictions. I'd prefer that all dogs go to proper owners, insuring that the dogs be treated and cared for properly.

That may be your thought, but it is incorrect. If you look at total deaths per total population of dogs, three breeds rank higher. 1) Rottweiler 2) German Shepherd 3) Chow.

That's not the numbers I could find. Pits are estimated at 3-5 milion. German Shepards at 3 1/2 million. I couldn't find anything on Rottweiler and I won't argue on Chows. Every Chow I've been around was mean. Loved their owners but hated everyone else.

I agree with ownership restrictions. I'd prefer that all dogs go to proper owners, insuring that the dogs be treated and cared for properly.

 

Again, not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Bad ownership practices is only a lazy excuse because you don't agree with it.

At least include the entirety of what I said. Either you want to have a serious conversation about this or just dig your heels in and put on the blinders.

If the question is which breed of dog is most likely to kill, then I am certainly not looking at it wrong. Total deaths divided by total population of dogs.

 

I agree with ownership restrictions. I'd prefer that all dogs go to proper owners, insuring that the dogs be treated and cared for properly.

The post I quoted wasn't about which breed is more likely to kill.

Again, are we going to put better restrictions, background checks and home visits for gun owners too?

 

Shootings Are Now the 3rd-Leading Cause of Death in US Kids

Once again, that has nothing to do with this discussion. You guys act like we should ignore one if there is something worse out there. If you want to discuss guns start another thread.

Once again, that has nothing to do with this discussion. You guys act like we should ignore one if there is something worse out there. If you want to discuss guns start another thread.

 

It has everything to do with this discussion. I guess I need to break it down for you.

 

You are damning pit bulls because you think they are the most likely dog breed to kill your family. Fine, if that's what you believe. We can now apply the exact same reasoning to weaponry. Guns are, without a doubt, the most likely way for your family to be killed.

 

Why don't you have an issue there? Because it completely contradicts your argument on pit bulls?

The post I quoted wasn't about which breed is more likely to kill.

My apologies. That was another poster.

 

However, again, I am certainly not looking at it wrong. If 21 out of 3 million (let's go low here) kill, then the breed does not deserve the visious killer stereotype that it gets.

How many people are killed by guns each year? Knives? Tridents?

You want to get rid of guns too?

 

 

:idunno: :idunno:

It has everything to do with this discussion. I guess I need to break it down for you.

 

You are damning pit bulls because you think they are the most likely dog breed to kill your family. Fine, if that's what you believe. We can now apply the exact same reasoning to weaponry. Guns are, without a doubt, the most likely way for your family to be killed.

 

Why don't you have an issue there? Because it completely contradicts your argument on pit bulls?

Man, I don't know how else to say this. I'm not damn pit bulls and I don't want them banned, wiped out, ect...

 

A gun cannot kill me, period. Doesn't matter if it's left cocked laying in the street. It will not kill me. It must have a human being to control it. It is not different than a hammer, log, chain saw, car, anvil, piano, trident (which was an awesome example by the way), light saber, rock, ect... So no my family is not more likely to be killed by a gun. They are more likely to be killed by another human. And Yes, I'm for banning more humans.

My apologies. That was another poster.

 

However, again, I am certainly not looking at it wrong. If 21 out of 3 million (let's go low here) kill, then the breed does not deserve the visious killer stereotype that it gets.

But if you are attacked by a dog 84% of the time it will be a pit bull.

 

I've asked this in previous threads but no one could find the info. We are only focusing on deaths, what about total attacks. Can anyone find those numbers.

So basically, "as long as you are more likely to die from another cause, there is no reason to worry or take steps to prevent a less likely cause." Seems to be what I am reading here.

I regret posting in these threads every time I do. :lol2:

So basically, "as long as you are more likely to die from another cause, there is no reason to worry or take steps to prevent a less likely cause." Seems to be what I am reading here.

 

Not at all. My point has always been the talk of banning pit ownership is just ignorance.

 

I have zero issue with strict restrictions on ownership of them.

Not at all. My point has always been the talk of banning pit ownership is just ignorance.

 

I have zero issue with strict restrictions on ownership of them.

 

Just seems to be a common theme. Everytime a pit bull kills someone the thread turns into "well your more likely to get shot by your neighbors kids, so don't worry about it" Seems like there would be enough to discuss about about dogs without bringing guns into it.

 

And I don't buy that dogs only attack if they are improperly owned. Seems that there are several instances in which a dog has killed it's owner with no evidence of any abuse or neglect.