PITBULLS attack BABY - very disturbing video (WARNING)
 

Lets the the stats one which dogs do the most damage when they do attack.

lame

:2 cents:

Now lets examine this part:

"In a study done by Karen Delise it was found that pit bull & pit bull mixes accounted for only 21% of all human fatalities."

THEN they say:

"Mixed breeds accounted for 16% nonspecific breeds accounted for 15%."

So they know that pit bulls and their respected mixes are the largest percentage yet they spin it to seem like it's "only 21%."

Kinda strange that this study has no mention of any specific breed other than pit bulls.

Looks to me like somebody set out to prove that pit bulls are not as harmful as many might believe but at the end of the study, pit bulls were still found to have the highest percentage of human fatalities.

From the very source the video mentions:

http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm

Pitbulls are banned in my town. In 1 year two children were killed and countless attacked by pits. This is just in one little town in IL. Of course the media is going to report stories when one particular breed of dog is notorious for attacking & killing humans. Not saying they're all bad, but A LOT of them clearly are a danger.

Its funny how they can ban a breed when 1 child dies but smoking kills hundreds of people daily including your small town and they don't ban those. Kinda funny how that works.

My pitbull mauls the shit out of my daughter constantly, my daughter laughs the whole time, then we get to spend the rest of that time cleaning up slobber.

great vid ,pitts love kids

I love this, that is what they were breed for, to love and please

vicious breeds have no place around children, sorry.

i was attacked by two dogs when i was about 4. they werent pits but it was still a shitty experience that ill never forget. iv also been to a few dog fights on the indian reservations here in Washington and game dog breeding facilities(ie: 50+ pits tied to 4 foot stakes on 5 foot ropes). anyone saying pits arent mean and bred to kill need to do some smartening up. i know lots of people that were attacked by dogs and they were almost always by dogs of vicious breeds... rots, pits, dobermans, etc. course i know of a few dogs from each of those breeds that never attacked anything in its lifetime but they weren't around children either... why gamble with your child's life? get a calm mellow dog, at least till your kids are old enough to defend themselves if'n the dog does decide to get inside with its animal instinct. because after all, dogs are animals and nothing will change that. however, im not for banning any animal... im for people thinking for themselves and making intelligent decisions, unfortunately most people aren't intelligent enough to accomplish self thought, sad!

Yeah, I was attacked by a poodle when I was young also, guess what? I still go to my mothers and put my face right up to the same dog, which put its teeth right through my bottom lip when it attacked me. What's your point?

A dog gets defensive, it attacks, its nature, humans do the same... I got in the dogs face while it was eating, in return it bit me... I hold no grudge.

Funny thing is, that poodle bit clean through my bottom lip, whereas my pitbull sometimes gets rough playing with me, and the second it's teeth hit skin, she immediately spits out whatevers in her mouth before she even has the instinct of biting down causing harm.

what is a vicious breed ?

every dog is capable of attacking and killing. If you eliminated pitbulls from the face of the planet there would be a new breed at the top of the list and so on and so on until there are no dogs left.


I think common sense tells us you dont put anything vicious near a child, but calling an entire breed vicious because of a few isolated cases would be silly. Kinda like saying everyone in new york is vicious because vicious things do happen in new york.

i have been to a few fights between mexicans , thus they must be vicious , mean and bred to kill. or maybe i was at an event where the individuals were paid to do what the crowd wanted. Pay me money and ill get poodles to look vicious and fight whilst tied to stakes



I know alot of people who were bitten by terriers , poodle and jrt's , alot more than any of the other breeds you mentioned


what breed would that be again ? the calm mellow breed ?

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.

that's so cute

it's really a shame that you, and so many other people, are so ardently against pits.

punish the deed, not the breed.

i was attacked and bitten by a black lab when i was younger, and just recently by a bichon frise. it doesn't make me hate the type of dog, just the idiot owners who don't properly train their dogs and neglect them.

breed based hysteria is just a silly thing. let's turn it around on something i know you like, guns. i would be willing to wager that more people in the united states are killed by 9mm handguns than any other caliber. does that mean we should ban 9mm's? absolutely not, that would just be silly.

pit bulls are just like any other dog, in the hands of the wrong owner they can be dangerous but these dangerous tendencies are far from a hallmark of the breed. your average pit bull loves people more than you could ever understand. there was a time in this country years back when pits were held in very high regard as one of the most loyal, intelligent, and desirable breeds out there, public hysteria has changed this opinion and that is unfortunate.

i will tell you this though. i am committed to changing the minds of people like you one at a time. my mom used to be of a similar mindset and was horrified when i told her i adopted a apbt puppy from the humane society. that changed quickly the first time they met, and now she loves this dog as much as i do.

it seems like an odd form of hypocrisy to me that you can be so for responsible gun ownership, and slam people are anti gun but the responsible ownership argument goes right out the window with you when we start talking dogs. i understand that you're angry your lab got severely mauled by two pits, but you have to understand that an occurrence like that is outside the norm and that like people there are a few "bad apple" pits who have been raised in a way that perverts their personality but the vast majority of these dogs want nothing more out of life than to lick your face, fall asleep in your lap, hang out with you every moment of every day, and occasionally chew on the kitchen cabinets.

so instead of continuing with your ridiculous prejudice i challenge you to meet some more pits. they're lovers, not fighters. and i would be willing to bet that your dog, despite the attack, doesn't hold any grudge against a specific breed. :2 cents:

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...28f3294559.jpg

And I thought humans created the pitt-bull...

i got a very small female mini pincher bundled in blanket in my office that is as small as a kitten, but come near her food and she'll rip your god damned legs off!!!

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?

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

You can't argue with results.

stats are fucked when you look at them like that. Lets just imagine we had a button to eliminate the 3 breeds he mentions.

Now lets redo the same stats you just mentioned, suprise suprise there would be 3 new breeds of dogs up there..

and if you eliminated those 3 breeds there would be 3 new breeds at the top of the list.
and so on and so on until there are no dogs left.



i have my doubts about this guy, he is claiming if other dogs "go bad" you will "not" be killed, thats just plain false, as it has and does happen.


i dont know what this guy is smoking but how did he come to that conclusion

Its very rare to be killed or maimed by a dog especially a pitbull , so "often" is probably a silly word to use.




if you gave 100 labradors to crack dealers, then gave 100 pitbulls to ballerina's, then took stats 50 years later, i guarantee you the labs would be far more dangerous statistically, all these "stats" are useless if you look at the problem so vaguely

Very cool video, yeah, dogs can be best friends sometimes, besides, I believe its all about how we train and treat animals that make future behaviors.

You act like an idiot. You don't know anything about his circumstances around his dog attack, only your own circumstances.

You had lip bitten right through, now that's everything we know.

Learn to analayze things properly before you open your mouth. You're the kind of unaware human sucker breed that makes me ill.

:2 cents:

Yes there will be 3 new breeds on the top of the pyramid chain and much LESS dog accidents and fatal dog attacks.

Now lets make a scenario, we ban all of the top 10 most common attacking dogs. There will of course become a new top 10 common attacking dogs, but the attacks will even more decrease.

Lets play with the thought and scenario that we ban every dog breed and only keep one left.

The Chiuaua.

So now the chiuauas are the top 1 most dangerous breed in the world. But I can safely say with 100% accurance that there will be a lot less Persons killed and getting hurt real bad by Chiuaua's.

:thumbsup

so you say , we dont know do we. you havent eliminated bad owners/behaviour/decision




Thats your theory, my theory is it likely wouldnt change much because of the above factors i mentioned that havent changed


Lets use your theory on humans and see if it would work.. If you took the top race/breed of murderers in a city and replaced them with another race of people would the murder rate decrease ? maybe in 1 year but in 10 ? probably not.

I wouldnt be so sure about that , the type of attacks would likely change but there arent many people killed by dogs anyways so it wouldnt take many to get the same stats as we have now. Think about it , no more big dogs to guard your place so you will get 10-20 chihuaua's and crackdealers will pick the biggest toughest ones and keep them by the dozens.. dogfight will now be dog brawls etc etc chiuaua police dogs, customs dogs.. I bet it would be worse not better , laugh if you will :upsidedow

I hate it when people defend something by saying something else is worse. Pitbulls arent bad because parents kill more children. Same with weed. Weed is ok because alcohol is worse.

Whats the point of comparing 2 totally different things. The people who made that clip are fucking imbeciles.

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

cigarettes dont run around attacking kids, duh.

And btw im not getting into this because of the dog. I don't give a shit about this subject. Just the creator of that video should be kicked in the balls.

Ok, im getting into this because the ignorance is huge on this subject it seems.

Question for you:

Stats lie?

Was just going to respond with this same thing, not sure what kind of logic Smokey was using with that argument...

Me neither. Was he basically trying to say if Pitbulls werent some of the most dangerous dogs it would be another dog?

:error

i hate when people can't understand an example :winkwink:

Nobody ever said pitbulls aren't bad because parents kill more children, the point was parents kill lots of children yet all parents aren't bad, pitbulls kill a few kids so maybe they arent all bad and maybe you can extrapolate results like that ..

not to hard to figure out...

if they statistically were at the top and you removed them, then there would be another statistically higher breed, yes , its common sense.

But you know that's not the case right.

The Crack dealers prefer their pittis and rotweillers because they are bigger and stronger and could make fatal damage. It's in their breed that they are more agressive. If you don't believe me just look back on the Pittis history, they were used to chase/fight bulls and later used them in dog fights in England in the 18th centruy.

The Staffordshire Pitbull breed won most times against other breeds.

Do I have to mention why?

But even if I may come across as a hater against these dogs, I don't have anything against them, but I do have something against people who get them and don't have the time to take care of their dogs.(Or have these macho views on them as moron Jade509 in this thread)

And that's every breed included, but if you don't take care of the top 3 most dangerous breeds you could be sitting on a monster ready to explode any second when he don't get regular exercise and proper living conditions

That's all I'm saying. My family had large dogs when I were a child too, and I've worked in a dog shop in my city....so make no mistake!

All dogs could hurt us, but some are more harmful than others.

But what's the point?

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

I guess you're somehow trying to defend the Pittbull and you do it by saying if they werent the most dangerous breed then they wouldnt be most dangerous :1orglaugh

Come on dude...stop smoking.

i dont disagree it started kinda as an april fools video joke, i agree the stats in the video are stupid. regardless my points stand :)

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.

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?

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

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

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

Normally i consider you a smart guy but somehow in this topic you're dumb as hell.

If you take away the most agressive breeds we'll end up with way less agressive breeds and way less accidents with dogs. You car example is totally different. The cars having nothing to do with it. If you take away the top 3 of agressive drivers there would be less accidents. No matter what colour car.

Your emotions are getting in the way of clear thinking. Move away from the screen for a few mins and come back, calm down, read the thread again and try to make sense.

so far it seems your the only one who doesnt understand how statistics works in this thread, and i just schooled you on why :) read up.

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.




there ya have it franck, theres your answer , the accidents aren't caused by the car but the driver..
dog = car
driver=owner

if you took away the top 3 aggresive idiotic dog owners you would greatly improve the stats compared to taking away the top 3 dogs , just as in the cars example you pointed out , taking away the dogs wont decrease accidents, only taking away the driver/owner :)

Dude you have got to be fucking kidding me. So all the other breeds have the same power as a pitt? By your logic, lets say the only breed that existed was a chihuahua, now what if the only breed that existed was pitts? What scenario is going to have more death by dog? Please don't answer back with something so fucking dumb as "well yeah but now drug dealers will have packs of 300 chihuahuas to protect them"

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.

crazy shit

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.