Ban pitbulls or guns?

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Its falling on deaf ears, its hard to break a taboo.

I have grown up around dogs and completely agree with your argument.

Sadly, you're probably right. Facts don't stand much chance against media sensationalism. It's unfortunate so many people cling to their ignorance so enthusiastically.


* * * * *

"In my opinion, Pit bulls are the least likely to be human aggressive. On the whole, you have to do a lot of work to make them aggressive to people."

--Sue Frisch, Dessin Animal Shelter manager

I can't say much for your fact spinning in other regards, but with this I will say you are right on the money. I was going to do a search to post a link about the myth of lock-jaw. Then I saw you did it and don't think it needs to be redone.

The question I have is wether or not anyone will have learned anything from this discussion. Or if the next time some sensationalist B.S. about pitbulls gets posted, the same people jump on the band wagon? I guess its not really a mystery to me. I am sure the same crap will spew.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[DanG 1]

Quote

What would be the more sensible option for getting an attacking dog off of you? Gun or Pepper Spray?

Neither. A gun is probably the worst defense against aggressive dogs. They don't understand what it is, so pulling it out and pointing it at them has no deterent effect, such as it would have on an attacking human. You have to actually fire a shot for the effectiveness to kick in. And don't think it is going to be so easy to fire an effective shot at close range with the addrenaline pumping (both yours and the dog's). You might scare it away, but you also might shoot an innocent bystander like in the OP's story. Once the dog is already on you, you have a good chance of shooting yourself, too.

Pepper spray can be very effective against dogs, but again it has no deterent effect before you pull the trigger. Carrying it is not a bad idea, but you won't stop a charging dog by pulling out a little can. Pepper spray is only effective at very short range, so you have to wait until the dog is very close to act.

IMHO the best defense against a dog attack while walking is as simple as carrying a walking stick. The dog knows what a stick is, and raising it up or banging it against the grounds sends a clear message that our non-human friends easily understand. If you are really afraid of the dogs in your neighborhood, carry a sturdy stick and a can of pepper spray. If the stick fails, spray 'em because they aren't fooling around.

Also, take some time to learn about dog behavior. Go to the local animal shelter and talk to the behaviorist (if they have one). You can learn a lot about a dog's intentions by the way they act. Their communication system with each other is very visual in nature, and they try to communicate with us in the same way. Many of us just don't speak the language.

By the way, I own a pit bull and a german shephard/hound mix. With people they are the sweetest dogs in the world. With other animals, not so much. The only way the pit would hurt a child is if he accidentally licked one too hard.

- Dan G

[Andy_Copland 0]

I have grown up around staffs and English Bull Terriers. I was trying to highlight a point that a gun is probably the most stupid defense against an attacking dog.

I hate nothing more than the media sensationalism of pitbulls and other dogs regarded as dangerous.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

But it's causing me a lot of anxiety that I can't feel safe walking in my own neighborhood, so I need to figure out something to do about it. Obviously, the sound of a gun being fired is a good way to frighten dogs away. I wonder if there is any (legal) way to make such a sound without actually firing a gun?

Do you live in a place where it would be illegal, and get you into trouble, to have defended yourself with a gun against such a dog, were you to do so? Only if you live in a place like MA, CA, or IL where you would have to jeopardize your freedom just to have the means to defend against an attack would I excuse the failure to obtain such means.

You want to benefit from the sound of a gunfire without having to fire a gun? I guess you could always call a cop when a dog attacks you, and when he gets there with his gun, he'll fire it. Mission accomplished. (Of course, his shot will be fired at theANY dog...)

[DanG 1]

I'm with you. I was trying to get some sensible info to the poster who is afraid of the neighbor's dogs.

It's not the dog, it's the owner. Talking to the owner should be the first step, but carrying a stout stick and (if desired) some spray would be a much more practical alternative to a gun.

As a total aside, dogs are not as easy to kill with a gun as you might think. One of my men had to put down a dangerous (had biten more than one person) dog in Afghanistan. Took three shots with his M4 to the chest. That was one tough dog. (And for all you wannabe Rambo's out there, a head shot was not an option as the dog could not be safely restrained).

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

so your saying a beagle is more dangerous to have around your kids then a pit bull??

I'm saying that the pit bull performed better in temperament tests than the beagle. Pit bulls are great dogs for kids, except very small children, since pit bulls play so enthusiastically.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Literally 98% of the Pits I've been around are kept outside, underfed and tied to logging chains. The owners have just enough to keep it from being cruelty. They fight the dogs, but ACO isn't able to prove it. I encounter around 75 pits a day at work.

Right. That's an owner issue, not a dog issue. Ban the breed, and those owners will treat a different breed, such as a Rottweiler, Chow Chow, Bull Dog, or even a Lab just as poorly. In many/most cases, they'll be able to train for human aggression much more easily than with a pit bull. The breeds aren't dangerous, the owners are.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andy9o8 0]

U.S. study (Center for Disease Control):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058122/posts

10 most dangerous dogs (bite most frequently):

Pit bulls
Rottweilers
German Shepherds
Huskies
Alaskan Malamutes
Doberman Pinschers
Chow Chows
Great Danes
St. Bernards
Akitas

Australian study (NSW State govt) (by reported attacks 7/05 - 11/06):

American Pitt Bull Terrier – 26
Pit Bull – 133
Bull Terrier – 74
...(subtotal - all bull terriers - 233)
Cattle Dog – 208
German Shepherd – 166
Bull Mastiff – 90
Rottweiler – 173
Staffordshire – 279


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study concerning deaths from canine attacks in 2000. According to the study, between 1979 and 1998, one-third of all fatal dog attacks were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

So the breed's reputation is based on myth? Well, if myths are based partly on facts, here are some of those facts.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bear in mind that those are reported bites, how many people report being bitten by a poodle or chihuaha?

Poodle bites, cmon frenchy, poodle chews it...

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study concerning deaths from canine attacks in 2000. According to the study, between 1979 and 1998, one-third of all fatal dog attacks were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

So the breed's reputation is based on myth? Well, if myths are based partly on facts, here are some of those facts.

I knew it was only a matter of time before one of the sensationalists posted that study in an attempt to support a conclusion the study doesn't support. In other words, the study doesn't indicate what you think it indicates.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, perhaps we should look a little bit closer at the CDC's study.

From the Study:

Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.
…

Considering only bites that resulted in fatalities,because they are more easily ascertained than nonfatal bites, the numerator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF (Dog bites resulting in fatality --jcd11235) rate requires a complete accounting of human DBRF as well as an accurate determination of the breeds involved. Numerator data may be biased for 4 reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely underestimated; prior work suggests the approach we used identifies only 74% of actual cases. Second, to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression. Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by cross bred dogs.
…

The denominator of a dog breed-specific human DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.
…

Several interacting factors affect a dog’s propensity to bite, including heredity, sex, early experience, socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a studyin Denver of medically-attended dog bites in 1991 suggested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bitethan female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs. Communities have tried to address the dog biteproblem by focusing on different factors related to biting behavior.

To decrease the risk of dog bites, several communities have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In general, these have focused on pit bull-type dogs andRottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF; between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF. Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.
…

Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.
…

Collection of data on the entire dog population (eg, breed, age, sex) would help resolve comparative risk issues and may be accomplished by combining paperwork on mandatory rabies immunizations with registration of breed and sex. Only with numerator and denominator data and with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies tried by various communities will we be able to make science-based recommendations for decreasing the number of dog bites. In the interim, adequate funding for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing animal control laws, and educational and policy strategies to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors will likely result in benefits to communities and may well decrease the number of dog bites that occur.

You'll notice that, although the CDC authors addressed breed specific legislation, they did not include it among their recommendations, but rather pointed out that there is not currently any evidence to suggest that such legislation is helpful in reducing DBRF, and suggested reasons why such legislation might not be helpful at all.

Knee-jerk, sensationalist reactions aren't typically helpful. Why would you think such reactions (i.e. breed specific legislation) would be helpful when it comes to human aggressive dogs. Isn't education virtually always more useful?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

Thanks for posting that. The news story references the same CDC study, so you really don't get credit for the same info twice. I would also like to see a link to the Australian study.

If you had taken the time to read the whole CDC study you would know that they admit their methodology is flawed. It is biased towards more common breeds, biased towards breeds with a bad rep, biased toward breeds with less responsible owners, and biased towards larger, more damage inflicting dogs. In other words, the study is biased towards pit bulls and rotties.

My wife worked at an animal shelter for years and they would often get in dogs people reported as pit bulls that had not one drop of pit bull blood in them. Many people don't even know what a pit bull looks like, and just assume any dog they are afraid of is a pit. This phenomenon is also mentioned in the CDC study.

Your study is good information, but it does nothing to prove that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Thanks for posting that. The news story references the same CDC study, so you really don't get credit for the same info twice. I would also like to see a link to the Australian study.

If you had taken the time to read the whole CDC study you would know that they admit their methodology is flawed. It is biased towards more common breeds, biased towards breeds with a bad rep, biased toward breeds with less responsible owners, and biased towards larger, more damage inflicting dogs. In other words, the study is biased towards pit bulls and rotties.

My wife worked at an animal shelter for years and they would often get in dogs people reported as pit bulls that had not one drop of pit bull blood in them. Many people don't even know what a pit bull looks like, and just assume any dog they are afraid of is a pit. This phenomenon is also mentioned in the CDC study.

Your study is good information, but it does nothing to prove that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

Surely you're not suggesting that the media reports dog attacks in the same manner it reports skydiving fatalities.

Are you?

(If you're not, I will.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

My last cutaway was caused by a rapid pit bull. He was coming straight down the lines at me, man.

I wish I had a gun.

- Dan G

[Lindsey 0]

How can you put a study conducted by the CDC up against "facts" published by pitbullsontheweb.com???? And you expect people to take you seriously???? SHEESH!!!

My son brought a pit bull home a few months back, and I really, really liked the dog. BUT in my mind, form follows function. Big muscular jaws belong to a dog that bites....and intends to kill something. I just am not trusting enough of dogs or dog owners to assume that it'll be neither me or my child that the dog decides to bite.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[warpedskydiver 0]

All dogs are designed to kill, eyes in the front of the head to judge distance, a mind that allows them to calculate where something that is traveling will be when they intercept, canine teeth, and incisors for breaking through bones to get at the nutritious marrow.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How can you put a study conducted by the CDC up against "facts" published by pitbullsontheweb.com???? And you expect people to take you seriously???? SHEESH!!!

You say that as though the CDC study, which Andy9o8 quoted out of context, contradicted the sources I posted. I'm sure if you read the study, you would see that he cherry picked data to support his assertion in an intellectually dishonest manner.

It's sad for the dogs that people form such opinions in ignorance.

Quote

I just am not trusting enough of dogs or dog owners to assume that it'll be neither me or my child that the dog decides to bite.

My own experience, having spent a fair amount of time around dogs of many different breeds, including pit bulls, JRT's, cocker spaniels, beagles, Doberman Pinschers, miniature schnauzers, labs, chow chows, Samoyeds, Collies, Rottweilers, and others, is that the average dog is far more trustworthy than the average human. (Healthy) Dogs don't just "decide to bite" people. They virtually always offer warning and do so for a reason when they do so.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I want to ask you, have you ever given thought to exactly what you would do if one of these dogs decided to not stop a foot from you . . .

Yes, I have, and that's why we've had talks of pepper spray and such. The dogs in my neighborhood are the type that will just run up and bark, and I haven't really felt like they were about to attack me, but I do realize that it's a possibility. And you're right - even though the owners shouldn't be letting their dogs run loose, obviously some of them are, so it would be wise to carry some sort of protection. So I think I will start carrying a big stick and/or some pepper spray.

We've lived in this area for 4-5 years now, and for some reason this has only become a problem in the last six months or so. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm looking into what I can do to get people to start following the rules, since the safety of this neighborhood is one of the reasons I chose to live here.

[AggieDave 6]

Pepper spray doesn't work on truely aggressive dogs. It upsets them and makes them want you MORE.

If you don't want to shoot a dog, the next best thing to stop a dangerous dog in their tracks is a Taser. There is a technique to aiming so the probes hit the dog, but it does work like a champ and offers no permanent damage to the dog (which is typically put down later anyways, if things are bad enough I have to taser it).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

U.S. study (Center for Disease Control):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058122/posts

10 most dangerous dogs (bite most frequently):

Pit bulls
Rottweilers
German Shepherds
Huskies
Alaskan Malamutes
Doberman Pinschers
Chow Chows
Great Danes
St. Bernards
Akitas

Australian study (NSW State govt) (by reported attacks 7/05 - 11/06):

American Pitt Bull Terrier – 26
Pit Bull – 133
Bull Terrier – 74
...(subtotal - all bull terriers - 233)
Cattle Dog – 208
German Shepherd – 166
Bull Mastiff – 90
Rottweiler – 173
Staffordshire – 279


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published a study concerning deaths from canine attacks in 2000. According to the study, between 1979 and 1998, one-third of all fatal dog attacks were caused by Pit Bull type dogs. The highest number of attacks (118) were by Pit Bull type dogs, the next highest being Rottweilers at 67.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

So the breed's reputation is based on myth? Well, if myths are based partly on facts, here are some of those facts.

Those are fatality records - of COURSE larger dogs will be more "deadly" than smaller dogs.

I remember reading something a few years ago that looked at bites by breed - I'll see if I can find it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

I agree that pepper spray will not stop a dog that is intent on doing harm. 99.99% of dogs, however, don't fall into that category.

As a law enforcement officer are you really advocating people start shooting at dogs when they feel threatened? Come on. If a person in your precinct started popping caps at every dog that barked at him, I would hope that you'd be locking up the shooter for reckless endangerment, not the dogs.

To the rest of you, learn about dogs: why they act like they do and what are the signs of aggression. You and everyone else around will be safer.

- Dan G

[AggieDave 6]

I would advocate people to educate themselves on their state's laws. Not by watching TV, but buy reading the laws as written, reading some of the major case law and consulting their lawyer.

I'm a strong personal rights advocate and I believe people have a right to defend themselves from harm, just as they have a right to defend their property.


How's that for an answer?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Although what the hell he was doing having a gun loaded with a BLANK I'll never figure out. EVER.

You didn't read it very carefully, did you? He didn't have a BLANK in the handgun. He THOUGHT he had a BLANK in the gun and he was WRONG. Responsible gun ownership at its best.

OK, I misspoke. Why did he ever have the plan of carrying a blank in the gun. Sounds like someone too stupid to be allowed to be a police officer. Seriously questionable judgment.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

So answer me this if you will.

What would be the more sensible option for getting an attacking dog off of you? Gun or Pepper Spray?

It's pretty inane to think that I would be able to give a definitive answer to a question that involves a scenario that is going to be different in each case. Are you asking for a one-size-fits all answer? Sorry, I can't (and won't) give that. What I will say, by way of an answer, is that I have not answered all of my problems in life by shooting at them, nor do I expect to ever have to.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

What would be the more sensible option for getting an attacking dog off of you? Gun or Pepper Spray?

IMHO the best defense against a dog attack while walking is as simple as carrying a walking stick. The dog knows what a stick is, and raising it up or banging it against the grounds sends a clear message that our non-human friends easily understand. If you are really afraid of the dogs in your neighborhood, carry a sturdy stick and a can of pepper spray. If the stick fails, spray 'em because they aren't fooling around.

Um, go read the question again. We were asked what would be the "more sensible option for getting an attacking dog off of you." Do you not see that we're talking about a dog that is ON YOU?

Not a dog that is approaching, or standing there barking. ON you. How will that stick work, exactly?

Quote

Also, take some time to learn about dog behavior.

Ah yes, when a dog is ON you, go take some time to learn about dog behavior.

Just like when you are attacked by an armed mugger, don't shoot him, support politicians who will invest tax money in education and vocational programs.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I agree that pepper spray will not stop a dog that is intent on doing harm. 99.99% of dogs, however, don't fall into that category.

As a law enforcement officer are you really advocating people start shooting at dogs when they feel threatened? Come on. If a person in your precinct started popping caps at every dog that barked at him, I would hope that you'd be locking up the shooter for reckless endangerment, not the dogs.

Typical. You take this from "fire a lifesaving shot or two at a dog that IS ATTACKING" to "popping caps at every dog that barked..." No wonder I can't take you seriously.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire