Gulfport Woman Mauled to Death By 2 Pitbulls

ultramanhyata said:
Haha. The joke's on you. The site doesn't need to pull arbitrary dates. They just classify any dog they want to as a "pit bull". I just got woke and you need to get woke, too.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you again... how do they identify the dogs in those stats?
 
ultramanhyata said:
Yeah, there's a conspiracy against pits. So that's the only breed that the compilers of the statistics play fast and loose with. It's so obvious. Can't believe I missed it.
Click to expand...
The stats are taken from media reports.
https://gizmodo.com/a-shocking-number-of-dogs-in-shelters-are-misidentified-1759879362
https://petsci.co.uk/animal-welfare/pit-bulls-misidentified-shelters/
A lot of people that THINK they own the breed don't they own crosses. Sometimes not even with American Pitbull Terrier just a dog with a phenotype they've come to associate with the "Pitbull" umbrella like Staffordshire Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers.

To reiterate what I said in another thread. I see plenty of dogs like these:
AmericanStaffordshireTerrierPacoPurebredDog.jpg

Not many like these:
d380ea2b2eb5b32f03aeede2afe0abec.jpg
 
No one is saying we should ban dogs. We are just saying that there should be reasonable restrictions on the types of dogs you can own. A background check should be required so people that have a history of animal abuse can't own them. Prior to owning a dog it just makes common sense that you should attend a class on get certified in handling a dog. The reality is no one needs a dog that was built for combat. In addition raising the minimum age for buying a dog just makes sense. That ensures that the dog gets a owner that is responsible enough to own him. Finally I propose a 10 day waiting period so that potential owners can think about the commitment they are making. These are just common sense measures most Americans are in favor of.
 
alanb said:
No one is saying we should ban dogs. We are just saying that there should be reasonable restrictions on the types of dogs you can own. A background check should be required so people that have a history of animal abuse can't own them. Prior to owning a dog it just makes common sense that you should attend a class on get certified in handling a dog. The reality is no one needs a dog that was built for combat. In addition raising the minimum age for buying a dog just makes sense. That ensures that the dog gets a owner that is responsible enough to own him. Finally I propose a 10 day waiting period so that potential owners can think about the commitment they are making. These are just common sense measures most Americans are in favor of.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Honestly for most legitimate dog rescues the background check before you can adopt is more strict in a lot of aspects than it is to purchase a gun. No matter the breed.

But since this is America. We should actually do nothing.
 
Last edited:
alanb said:
No one is saying we should ban dogs. We are just saying that there should be reasonable restrictions on the types of dogs you can own. A background check should be required so people that have a history of animal abuse can't own them. Prior to owning a dog it just makes common sense that you should attend a class on get certified in handling a dog. The reality is no one needs a dog that was built for combat. In addition raising the minimum age for buying a dog just makes sense. That ensures that the dog gets a owner that is responsible enough to own him. Finally I propose a 10 day waiting period so that potential owners can think about the commitment they are making. These are just common sense measures most Americans are in favor of.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Brilliant
 
headkicktoleg said:
At least it wasn't dachshunds
Click to expand...
If it was dauschunds , the dauschind lovers ( like pit bull defenders ) would say “ how do we even know they were dauscund dogs . ?! Just cause they look like wiener dogs doesn’t mean they were!”
 
When did "shocked" get replaced by "in shock?" It's fucking retarded.
 
Sohei said:
Just a couple bad apples who weren't raised right.
Click to expand...

Well, do most pitbulls maul women to death?
No
So, it must be something else besides it is X breed.

HunterAcosta said:
If it was dauschunds , the dauschind lovers ( like pit bull defenders ) would say “ how do we even know they were dauscund dogs . ?! Just cause they look like wiener dogs doesn’t mean they were!”
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Amy Schumer could taste test them. She knows a wiener when she tastes it.
 
The issue is complex.

All breeds of dog have the potential to be aggressive.

All breeds of dog have the potential to be loving caring pets.

All breeds of dog can bite a human.

Only a select number of breeds can kill a man. Tear a child to pieces in seconds.

Stricter licensing to own any large / dangerous breeds of dog.
Serious sentences for anyone who owns a dog that attacks humans.

Spade bitches and neuture dogs that are sold to the public.
Only allow kennel clubs to sell puppies.

Kill all these shit dogs like pit mixes in these kennels awaiting rehousing. Destroy them all.
 
ithinktheymad said:
The stats are taken from media reports.
https://gizmodo.com/a-shocking-number-of-dogs-in-shelters-are-misidentified-1759879362
https://petsci.co.uk/animal-welfare/pit-bulls-misidentified-shelters/
A lot of people that THINK they own the breed don't they own crosses. Sometimes not even with American Pitbull Terrier just a dog with a phenotype they've come to associate with the "Pitbull" umbrella like Staffordshire Bull Terriers or American Staffordshire Terriers.

To reiterate what I said in another thread. I see plenty of dogs like these:
AmericanStaffordshireTerrierPacoPurebredDog.jpg

Not many like these:
d380ea2b2eb5b32f03aeede2afe0abec.jpg
Click to expand...

Breeds that originated through the crossing of terriers and bulldogs fall under the designation "pit bull". It is not rocket science. This game is tired.

For example, there are 6 formal breeds that fall under the designation "Retriever". And 5 formal breeds that fall under "Pit Bull". So let's compare "retrievers" to "pit bulls" and see which type accounts for more human deaths each year.

You apologists either need to find a new con or engage directly on the lethality of the breeds, relative to all other breeds, that fall under the pit bull umbrella.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Breeds that originated through the crossing of terriers and bulldogs fall under the designation "pit bull". It is not rocket science. This game is tired.

For example, there are 6 formal breeds that fall under the designation "Retriever". And 5 formal breeds that fall under "Pit Bull". So let's compare "retrievers" to "pit bulls" and see which type accounts for more human deaths each year.

You apologists either need to find a new con or engage directly on the lethality of the breeds, relative to all other breeds, that fall under the pit bull umbrella.
Click to expand...
And that's what we keep trying to get through obstinate heads like yours. It is not just 5 breeds. Have you ever heard of the terms bully, bandog, or molosser? It has been an extremely common practice to cross bully type dogs for ages with molossers in particular for dog fighting, looks, and from the ignorance of both breeders and owners. Did you bother to read the links? They explain how animal care professionals frequently misidentify breeds in this case bully type dogs. Genetic testing is the only way to reliably distinguish breed.

Again dog bite stats come from media reports. Dogs like this come in shelters all the time and they're labeled "Pitbull" when they're not even a bully type dog. When they bite someone the ignorant are up in arms.
Dogo_argentino_sylwetka.jpg


Unrelated breeds are lumped into the stats which makes them flawed. By 5 breeds I'm assuming you mean Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Are you not aware how widely the temperaments differ among these breeds? That and the different phenotypes are why they're different breeds. Are you aware of what constitutes a breed?

By the way, Golden Retrievers fall 3rd on the list of frequent biters. Sharing company with other very common dogs such as German Shepherds and Rottweilers.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8112394
 
ithinktheymad said:
By the way, Golden Retrievers fall 3rd on the list of frequent biters. Sharing company with other very common dogs such as German Shepherds and Rottweilers.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about frequency of biting. We're talking about frequency of killing. Stories about pitbull attacks wouldn't be in the news all the time if they were just nipping the mailman's leg. For you to even try and insert that conflation into the discussion makes you look like a charlatan.

My sister had a pit for fourteen years. She just had to put her down two weeks ago. My sister is still brokenhearted. That dog was a sweetheart and never harmed a fly.

But that's a single case and only a moron would use their personal experience with one dog - or even a small handful of dogs - to argue against the totality of the clear statistical evidence.
 
ultramanhyata said:
We're not talking about frequency of biting. We're talking about frequency of killing. Stories about pitbull attacks wouldn't be in the news all the time if they were just nipping the mailman's leg. For you to even try and insert that conflation into the discussion makes you look like a charlatan.

My sister had a pit for fourteen years. She just had to put her down two weeks ago. My sister is still brokenhearted. That dog was a sweetheart and never harmed a fly.

But that's a single case and only a moron would use their personal experience with one dog - or even a small handful of dogs - to argue against the totality of the clear statistical evidence.
Click to expand...
That's funny that you talk about things not being rocket science yet you still fail to make such an elementary logical connection. I hate explaining basic shit to people but I'll do it for you.

There are distinctions or classes of dogs formed when they CONFORM to certain inherited traits(phenotype AND temperament). These are breeds. Many breeds may look similar or be mistaken for one another but again are distinct especially in regards to temperament since they were bred for different purposes. Currently there is an aggregate of many of these classes and hybrids listed under the umbrella of "Pitbull." There are over 15 breeds of dogs that are stocky, muscular, and shortcoated that can and historically have been crossed. The offspring quite frequently carry similar phenotypical characteristics but the temperament is not necessarily as predictable. Can you understand that a Boxer is not the same thing as an American Staffordshire Terrier or a Presa Canario and that none of these three are the same thing as an American Pitbull Terrier? Can you understand that many people are breeding crosses and that say an American Bulldog/Boxer mix or even the occasional outlandish pairing with something like an English Mastiff with a Whippet will produce a stocky, muscular, short coated dog that both the general public and professionals lump into one category even though they are obviously different dogs?

This makes the statistics flawed. If you again, read what I linked you'd see that vets and shelter workers routinely fail to identify dogs properly. In fact dogs with actual bully heritage go unidentified often in shelters. So ironically enough, there are many people with dogs that unknowingly have actual American Bulldog, Bull Terrier, American Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire Bull Terrier(since they are all the SAME dog to you :rolleyes:) heritage.

Can you understand why the statistics are pretty much worthless now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,286
Messages
55,548,595
Members
174,825
Latest member
Monsterbomb

Share this page

Back
Top