Hardly a month goes by without some story about a child or elderly person being mauled by a pitbull. If it were alligators or ostriches, there's be laws passed banning them and everything would be done to exclude them from contact with people.
It wouldn't be "It's not the alligator (or ostrich) that's the problem, it's the owner."
But when a pitbull kills someone's toddler, dog lovers will say "It's not the pitbull, it's the owner that is the problem."
Well gee, that mental bumpersticker sounds great but it's something you say after a dog has done something horrific.
The dog owners who say that never really follow the platitude up with a proposed solution. Why? Because none of the obvious solutions are possible as long as people will blindly defend a breed that has the instincts and hair trigger reactions this breed has.
What would be the negative consequence of this breed disappearing from the face of the earth? And, please, let's remember it's only a breed—a very recent and artificial one—not a species. If every pitbull were replaced with an Irish Setter or Yorkie, even if they bit, a lot less damage would be done.
Another problem is that all too often, the worst elements of society seem attracted to this and some of the other large, aggressive breeds.
If you're willing to admit that we have a problem here, what is your solution?
Firstly . if that is the way you want to calculate it then the chance of you being killed by a pitbull is 1 in 19.5 million a year in the usa
lets compare that. your chance of being hit by lightning a year are 1 in 700 000 a year in the usa
so you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a pitbull each year.
now do you want to compare that to car crashes or murders or drowning? how about people dying from obesity, that is something you people in america should really sort out. god you have 1 in 1040 chance of dying from obesity every year in america
Do you really want to destroy a breed of dogs for odds that small? why not instead put your energy into abolishing swimming pools since they are orders of magnitude more likely to kill you. why not get rid of guns for the amount of deaths caused by them per year or atleast sort out your obese people
Lightening strikes there is unfortunately little we can do with. The socialeconomic cost of lowering the speed limit is higher than the cost of accidents.
A dog breed on the other hand? You have to weigh the harm done by the breed vs the gain of allowing it. I don't see that gain outweighing the cost of even 1 human life.
Then how about swimming pools, , or obesity.or guns. you are over a 1000 times more likely to be shot and killed so why not put your energy into getting rid of guns like the UK has
"I don't see that gain outweighing the cost of even 1 human life." and you accused me of making a slippery slope argument earlier and then right here portray the exact same behavior i feared from my "slippery slope fallacy"
You like being ironic dont you.now you can see this is the exact thing i predicted would happen once pitbulls are gone because no matter how small the odds of it happening are you would rather just destroy a breed of dogs
All those deaths can be measured against the harm inflicted by a ban.
What harm is there in banning a breed of dogs?
Also, it's not a slippery slope to say that one preventable death compared to a ban is enough to convince me. Check up on your fallacies.
And yes, I am sarcastic, if I was going to be ironic about it I would commend you in your firm understanding of what irony is. ;)
mate lets get this straight. i said that once pitbulls are gone you would then start to focus on other breeds of dogs, and you accused me of making a slippery slope argument. fine but then you went on to say it was better to ban a breed of dog than have one preventable death( where you confirmed your mentality is exactly what i predicted in my slippery slope argument) the problem is you will then have to get rid of ever medium to large breed of dogs since i am sure they have all been, at one time or another, involved in a fatality
and you still havent answered my other question. what is your stance on gun and pool ownership? because lets look at the harm in baning pools. they are only their for fun so no real harm in banning them. and guns? well the uk has banned guns and has noticably less homicides than the usa so there is no reason not to ban guns
Yes, why not get rid of all the big aggressive dogs? Why can't people be satisfied with a dog less capable of doing damage, anyway? Small terriers are cute and even aggressive, but a bite by a Jack Russell is a lot less serious than one by a larger dog.
Firstly a couple of months ago there was a baby in the newspapers mauled to death by jack russels, so by your logic of better to ban a breed than have even a single death the only dog we might be left with is a chihuahua
secondly can you please finaly answer this question. What is your opinion on swiiming pool ownership? From what i can see you have an unfair and highly biased agenda against big dogs when there are tons of things orders of magnitude more dangerous that we dont need. And yet they dont bother you at all.
One can't make the world perfect but one can make some obvious adjustments. Guns are a concealable weapon, which is why gun control laws doesn't work. Some of the solutions we're talking about regarding dogs: bonding dog owners, requiring training, and huge criminal penalties for those whose possessions result in tragedy might make pools a whole lot safer.
Firstly. hand gun controll and serious jail time for anyone found in possesion of one does work. look at England. 99% of the time the police here dont even carry guns.
secondly. you will happily ban every breed of large dogs , which cause around 30 deaths a year without batting an eyelid, yet only suggest tighter measures and laws to do with pool ownership, which cause over 400 deaths a year, closer to 600 if you include hot tubs , with the largest part of those deaths being children? seriously? can you not see just how biased and irrational you are on this issue?
One of the irrationalities involving dog lovers is that they can't distinguish between dogs and people. Part of the allegation that dogs are technically parasites, is that they manage to make their parasitism "invisible" to their hosts, evading the host's natural defenses. Anyway, remember that pitbulls are a breed not a species.
Ok i am getting a bit sick of you classifying our relationship with dogs as them being parasitic. lets be clear here. a parasitic relationship is defined as when the one species benefits to the detriment of the other,
Now there have been a number of scientific studies which show that people gain real benefits from owning a dog. so the relationship is best classified as mutalistic symbiosis.
A growing body of research indicates the companionship of a dog can enhance human physical health and psychological wellbeing. Dog and cat owners have been shown to have better mental and physical health than nonowners, making fewer visits to the doctor and being less likely to be on medication than nonowners. In one study, new pet owners reported a highly significant reduction in minor health problems during the first month following pet acquisition, and this effect was sustained in dog owners through to the end of the study. In addition, dog owners took considerably more physical exercise than cat owners and people without pets. The group without pets exhibited no statistically significant changes in health or behaviour. The results provide evidence that pet acquisition may have positive effects on human health and behaviour, and that for dog owners these effects are relatively long term. Pet ownership has also been associated with increased coronary artery disease survival, with dog owners being significantly less likely to die within one year of an acute myocardial infarction than those who did not own dogs.
The health benefits of dogs can result from contact with dogs, not just from dog ownership. For example, when in the presence of a pet dog, people show reductions in cardiovascular, behavioral, and psychological indicators of anxiety. The benefits of contact with a dog also include social support, as dogs are able to not only provide companionship and social support themselves, but also to act as facilitators of social interactions between humans. One study indicated that wheelchair users experience more positive social interactions with strangers when they are accompanied by a dog than when they are not.
The practice of using dogs and other animals as a part of therapy dates back to the late 18th century, when animals were introduced into mental institutions to help socialize patients with mental disorders. Animal-assisted intervention research has shown that animal-assisted therapy with a dog can increase a person with Alzheimer’s disease’s social behaviours, such as smiling and laughing. One study demonstrated that children with ADHD and conduct disorders who participated in an education program with dogs and other animals showed increased attendance, increased knowledge and skill objectives, and decreased antisocial and violent behavior compared to those who were not in an animal-assisted program"
People kill other people a hell of a lot more often than any pit bulls ever will, I'm all for getting rid of the freaking humans, the dogs will get along fine.