Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701698)

But what's the point?

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701698)

It like saying your car is blue but if i paint it red it would be red. Common sense.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701722)

if you cant figure it out then i wont bother explaining how statistics work

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701714)

Haha, I believe that is what he is getting at. Let me see if we can put this in some statistical terms where he might realize his argument is retarded.

(fake numbers)
top 3 aggressive dogs kill 30 people a year
the 3 dogs after that kill only 10 people a year
You eliminate the top 3, and now there is only 10 deaths a year by the "new" top 3 and 30 people are now saved!

Smokey, maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to get it.. but does this help you understand why your argument just makes no fucking sense?

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701722)

if you cant figure it out then i wont bother explaining how statistics work



no its like saying "red cars are involved in 80% of all accidents, if we remove all red cars accidents will suddenly vanish "

get it yet :)

removing all red cars because they are statistically more "dangerous" will accomplish nothing, there would just be a new color or the numbers would be spread amongst other colors


Maybe there are other factors involved , just maybe.. like maybe idiots buy red cars , speed and cause accidents, and if they dont have red cars they will go get blue cars or green cars

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701724)

So far the only one getting it in this thread is you. Why don't you explain it to us Smokey.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701743)

If you take away the most agressive breeds we'll end up with way less agressive breeds

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701743)

If you take away the top 3 of agressive drivers there would be less accidents. No matter what colour car.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701739)

no your theory is flawed , all the people that had pitbulls would now have other breeds. ( forgot about that didnt ya :) )


let me explain to you like i did to franck why your stats theory makes no sense

lets say top 3 colors of cars kill 3000 people per year the 3 colors after that kill only 500 , by your math if we remove the top 3 colors of cars we will save 2500 people every year from dying..

do you really think that would happen or do you think idiots would buy another colour

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701769)

what is an "aggresive breed" ? do you mean the top 3 statistically aggresive ? if you remove the top 3 there will always be TOP 3 moron.

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701772)

Dude you have got to be fucking kidding me. So all the other breeds have the same power as a pitt?

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701772)

lets say the only breed that existed was a chihuahua, now what if the only breed that existed was pitts? "

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701800)

Omg :1orglaugh

Ok, i'm not gonna bother anymore since you simply won't understand it.

Sad.

Originally Posted by 12clicksMichele (Post 15701783)

I think Smokey's point is if you eliminated Pitbulls then the people that get Pitbulls that are either irresponsible and neglectful owners, criminals that get them for image and intimidation and the people that get them to fight them would then get another breed and display the same traits which in turn could turn a statistically less dangerous dog into just as dangerous as the pitbull.
So if all the examples above were applied to german shepherds then I am sure the statistics for german shepherd attacks would increase.

Again this is just my opinion of what I think Smokey is trying to get across.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701713)

Why bring up other stuff when talking about Pittbulls. Wtf does it have to do with parents?

Whats next? Pittbulls are ok because cars kill more people?

Why do people always do that? If theyre defending something they know is bad they always try to find stuff that worse to make it look like what theyre doing is ok. Its fucking pathetic.

Were talking about dogs and not parents. And coming up with that vid to defend your case is just fucking stupid.

Originally Posted by pinupglam (Post 15700144)

Pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed. I've been around them most of my life and have two now and will have more. All the negative coverage they get in the media is merely done for shock/fear factor so that the news-types can get ratings.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701831)

finally some common sense arrives .. hello common sense , may i introduce you to my bewildered friends franck and ahoy :winkwink:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701831)

finally some common sense arrives .. hello common sense , may i introduce you to my bewildered friends franck and ahoy :winkwink:

Originally Posted by pinupglam (Post 15701776)

To be quite blunt, this argument is racist. Pit Bulls are used as attack/fighting dogs not because they are naturally aggressive, but because they are probably the most trainable dog breed there is. They also look tough, so the bottom-feeder element of our society has adopted this breed as its dog of choice in order to promote the thug/gangsta lifestyle they employ. These dogs are trained by this element of society to fight, be aggressive, attack, etc. and I certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone take a fighting dog into their home and have it around their kids. But the bottom line is that the vast majority of pits out there never attack anyone and are amazingly loving and loyal dogs.

There's probably 10 million of them out there and we have a couple hundred attacks a year, so therefore the entire breed is bad? Right. I suppose that since blacks commit seven times more violent crime in this country than whites, therefore all black people must be dangerous and avoided and banned from entire cities, right?

Get the facts, people... don't just cherry pick sensationalistic news stories and base your entire opinions on them.

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701918)

Yes , you are right, the only pitbull deaths that have happened were by pits that were trained as special killing machines.

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701918)

1000 pitbulls will and could kill more people then 1000 fucking Chihuahuas. Can you guys really argue this point

Originally Posted by ahoy (Post 15701918)

I don't care what kind of special killa training program you put a Chihuahua through, he simply doesn't have the NATURAL strength as a pitbull.

Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 15702005)

65 posts and Smokeythebear still doesnt get it. Please be our guest to breed and leave them all alone in a candle lit room. enjoy.

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear (Post 15701980)

you are wrong, child molesters should not be trained as school teachers..


oh i thought we were playing , "make stuff up out of thin air that nobody ever said "

Originally Posted by wizzart (Post 15702066)

Originally Posted by 12clicksMichele (Post 15702159)

I am just saying that pitbulls weren't "created" in the last 10 years. If there has been a rise of pitbull agression in the past 10 -15 years there has to be reason other than the dogs are just bad.

Originally Posted by maxjohan (Post 15702206)

No they were breed in the 18th century. And used primery as sporting dogs. Gaming with dogs and bulls and other animals became illegal in England 1835 . When more people moved to USA they took their
pittbulls with them to breed.

That's the history, they didn't come from the sky... but the arise in pitbull attacks are simple. Media write about them a lot more, and a few self destructive mental nuts read these news and get them for the wrong reasons.

Originally Posted by pornguy (Post 15702239)

If you want to compare imges of dogs and kids. Compare the images of the ones that have been bitten,, I will bet you that at least 7 out of 10 times you can tell which was a pit and which was not.

Originally Posted by 12clicksMichele (Post 15702159)

I am seriously asking this question, not trying to argue or push my opinion on anyone, but when do you first remember hearing about how pit bulls were so aggressive and were "killer" dogs? My question is sparked by the paragraph below which came from the site that wizzar posted.

I remember growing up with a huge shepherd and people telling my mother and father how crazy they were for having such a dangerous and aggressive dog around children. I had an aunt that refused to come to our house unless we locked the dog up. We heard the same about our Doberman. I honestly cannot remember hearing anything like the negative press pit bulls receive until about 8 years ago.

I am just saying that pitbulls weren't "created" in the last 10 years. If there has been a rise of pitbull aggression in the past 10 -15 years there has to be reason other than the dogs are just bad.

Originally Posted by AaronM (Post 15701352)

Kindly show me where I have slammed anybody who was anti-gun. Beyond that, a gun is an inanimate object. It does not have a mind of it's own and it's not an animal. It is a tool which is 100% harmless on it's own. It will not act sweet one minute then shoot somebody the next. It will not turn on it's owner, a child, or another gun. Guns are controlled by others, not themselves. They do not thirst for blood and it in not in their nature to attack, fight, or kill.

Some of what you have to say may be very true...But again, the very study quoted in that initial video states that pits own a 21% share in human deaths from dog attacks.

Yes, poodles and other kick dog types do bite, but they do not have what it takes to rip apart the head of a 5 year old.

http://pit-bull-awareness-center.chr...old-attack.gif

Or a horse.

http://images.morris.com/images/lubb.../242962242.jpg

And the argument of how sweet everybody says their pit is...Well, that's just fucking dumb. How many serial killers have neighbors who said they were the perfect neighbor?

Here's an example of that:

__________________________________________________ _______________________

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...0/33415908.jpg

The dog rarely barked. He never growled, and his teeth - until a vicious attack Saturday night - had been reserved for chewing food, his owners say.

Chocolate - a caramel-colored pit bull a little more than a year old - was one of the most tranquil dogs Kenneth and Melissa Garrison had until, unprovoked, he snapped and nearly bit the nose off the couple's 1-year-old son.

Two days after the attack, sitting in the living room where their child's blood stained the carpet, the Garrisons were at a loss to explain Chocolate's actions, which left their son hospitalized for a night. Half of Jadyn Garrison's face was covered in a red scab yesterday, but doctors predict he will make a full recovery and not need surgery, the family said.

"Had we seen any signs that the dog was violent, he would have never came here," Melissa Garrison said.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Try to convince me all you like but facts are facts. I hated pit bulls before my dog was almost killed by 2 of them. Now you think I'm going to change my mind?

My fiance had a half lab half pit mix. I knew the dog since it was a puppy but I would never even let it in my home. When we moved in together she had to give him up. Not one single shelter would take the dog unless she signed papers understanding that they would put it down immediately. People who run shelters typically love dogs so why was every shelter, within a 100 mile or so radius, be against taking in a pit mix? These people are dog experts who have dealt with pits and other breeds for years. What are your qualifications?

I've was bitten by 2 dogs in my childhood. My own families Cocker Spaniel and some little runt dog that lived down the street. In both instances I did something to provoke the bite. The first bite didn't even draw blood, the second one was on my earlobe and required a few stitches. Although both were very minor, they were still painful for a child. I was never mad at the dogs for my own stupidity......I've never heard of 2 Cocker Spaniels dragging a 7 month old baby out and tearing it apart. Have you?

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 15701620)

Just look at your avatar to confirm that. Fucking moron.

Originally Posted by pinupglam (Post 15701776)

To be quite blunt, this argument is racist. Pit Bulls are used as attack/fighting dogs not because they are naturally aggressive, but because they are probably the most trainable dog breed there is. They also look tough, so the bottom-feeder element of our society has adopted this breed as its dog of choice in order to promote the thug/gangsta lifestyle they employ. These dogs are trained by this element of society to fight, be aggressive, attack, etc. and I certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone take a fighting dog into their home and have it around their kids. But the bottom line is that the vast majority of pits out there never attack anyone and are amazingly loving and loyal dogs.

There's probably 10 million of them out there and we have a couple hundred attacks a year, so therefore the entire breed is bad? Right. I suppose that since blacks commit seven times more violent crime in this country than whites, therefore all black people must be dangerous and avoided and banned from entire cities, right?

Get the facts, people... don't just cherry pick sensationalistic news stories and base your entire opinions on them.