What Would You Say About This to the Management?

I'd like to add that the press sometimes incorrectly labels an attack as a "pit bull" attack, when in fact it was not. Some even leave out little details, like how the attacker was a Lab or how the victim was a pit bull.
[linkhttp://understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm]http://understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm[/link]
[linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html]http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html[/link]

Here are some current non-pit bull attacks. There are quite a lot by Labs (or Lab mixes) and GSDs, but that certainly doesn't mean those breeds are inherently vicious or have a propensity to suddenly turn on humans.
[linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm]http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm[/link]
 
ETA: You can check the results of the ATTS and you will see that the pit bull has a high passing rate, higher than other breeds.

Getting to the basics: Is a Pit Bull more likely than a traditionally tame breed to lethally attack and are they fundamentally more likely to do so?
And yes, a Pit Bull is more likely than a Lab to attack because they have been bred to do so. Why are you ignoring this? Any tame-breed attacks indeed have been isolated incidences because they have not been bred to fight like the Pit Bull has and any objective person would recognize the lab as a safe dog.
As for me? I'm going to bed...

Pit bulls have never been bred to be human aggressive.

Statistically, pit bulls are also almost always safe dogs.  

And somehow they always seem to find the courage to be human aggressive.
Sure they are statistically nearly always safe; that is why they are unpredictable and that is always what their owners typically say (look it up) after their Pit Bull has just killed an innocent bystander.
Focus like a laser beam: Is a Pit Bull more likely or less likely to violently kill an innocent individual than a traditionally tame breed?

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't seem to understand the breeding history of pit bulls, you don't respond to statistics and you ignore temperament testing that clearly disputes your assertions.   I don't know what else anyone can tell you.

I just did repond to the statistics and showed how irrelivent they were. I know the breed history and know that anyone will tell you that they have been bred to be extremely violent for good show at dog fights for over two-hundred years. This is indisputable.
Again, focus like a laser beam: Is a Pit Bull more likely or less likely than a traditionally tame breed to violently kill an innocent individual?

Let's see, there's got to be thousands of Pit Bulls living in the United States yet only a handful have been involved in fatal attacks. If Pit Bulls have such a propensity for just snapping and killing people, wouldn't there be way more fatal attacks? While it's horrifying that some people had to die from a dog attack, I'm not going to live in fear of Pit Bulls when the facts have shown that dying from a fatal dog attack is extremely low that it makes no sense to live in fear of it.
 
Do I think that Pit Bulls should be kept out of the hands of some people? Absolutely. Pit Bulls, as well as every other breed out there, are not right for everyone.
 
Does that mean we should ban them because they *might* harm someone? No.
 
Am I the only one who doesn't understand the point of this thread?

ORIGINAL: peter_89

Focus like a laser beam: Is a Pit Bull more likely or less likely to violently kill an innocent individual than a traditionally tame breed?

Statistically, pit bulls are responsible for more deaths than other dogs, but this is still an extremely small number (I have posted the statistics for you previously) [Edit:  Actually, I don't even know if this is really true in terms of percentages.   I have not seen any numbers that account for number of deaths in proportion to the breed's general population - except for pit bulls - to compare to.].  There is absolutely no way to know if the attack was unprovoked, nor are the conditions in which the dog lives and was raised recorded, so it would be completely irresponsible to blame attacks on some inherent quality of the breed.     Also, as has already been shown, some attacks attributed to pit bulls actually turn out to be caused by other breeds, so there is really no completely accurate way to know how many attacks were actually the work of pit bulls.

ORIGINAL: peter_89

I just did repond to the statistics and showed how irrelivent they were. I know the breed history and know that anyone will tell you that they have been bred to be extremely violent for good show at dog fights for over two-hundred years. This is indisputable.

You have not responded to the fact that only only .000385% of pit bulls were involved in attacks in 2000 or that 99.96% of pit bulls didn't bite anyone in Toronto.    Anyway, there is a HUGE difference between being bred to be dog aggressive and human aggressive and not acknowledging or understanding this difference shows a lack of awareness about the breed and dogs in general.   Dog aggression tendancies do not translate into human aggression.

Inne, you're doing a great job.
To let you know I support your efforts, Im just gonna chime in with a couple random thoughts:

The terrier has tenacity.  A pit bull has the same tenacity of a yorkie, and probably a better temperament!  Of course, they can do more damage, but it doesn't mean that they will!

And in response to someone saying that their pit bull suddenly "turned" on a human.  I think that this person was missing some very important signs.  It could be that they are uneducated, inexperienced, or too busy to notice.  Dogs don't "just turn."  Sure, pits may be unpredictable with dogs, but as a pit owner with a dog who shows *zero* dog aggression currently, Im still always on the lookout.  I would never "assume" anything when it comes to other dogs, considering their nature.  People, on the other hand, is a serious issue.  This is an unstable dog and will show other signs. 

ORIGINAL: peter_89

I just did repond to the statistics and showed how irrelivent they were.

 
How on earth are statistics irrelevant? Or are they irrelevant because they are proving everything you believe to be wrong?
 

I know the breed history and know that anyone will tell you that they have been bred to be extremely violent for good show at dog fights for over two-hundred years. This is indisputable.

 
If you know the history of the breed so well, and if you have a clue about canine behavior, you should know that there is a distinct difference between dog aggression and human aggression. And if you truly know the history of the breed so well, you should know what happened to dogs that showed any type of human aggression.

Again, focus like a laser beam: Is a Pit Bull more likely or less likely than a traditionally tame breed to violently kill an innocent individual?

 
No it's not. In fact, no dog is likely to violently kill an innocent individual as so far [linkhttp://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/fataldogattacks.html]1 person has been fatally killed by a dog in the United States this year[/link]. And that's out of 60+ million dogs living in the United States. Not something I'll lose sleep over.
 
 

In addition to this, it is ideas, attitudes, misconceptions, and determinedness in people with this view that breeds breedism.  Breed Specific Legislation is not the answer.  It is important, for all the aforementioned reasons, to target owners.
 
Statistics and research show the solid temperament in most pit bulls.  They are not human aggressive animals, and the responsibility for such a dog should fall in the hands of the irresponsible owner.  Target bad owners. 
 
 

*sigh*

Can anyone tell me what THE most dangorous thing to a young human female is?  A young human male.  In fact, men are responsible for THE most murders, beatings, sex crimes, robberies, assalts, etc.  1 in 4 women will be sexual assalted by a man. 

Therefore, I propose GSL (Gender Specific Legislation).  All men will be subject to microchipping, heavy restrictions, and if they are not good breeding material or are shown to be violent, castration and/or death.

Why not stop the attacks BEFORE they start?

This will reduce the number of attacks and violent deaths much MUCH faster than any BSL will.

Since we were already comparing wild and domestic animals, why not compare domestic animals and humans?

What the heck is a traditionally TAME breed??
 
Our own departed Betsy Perkins (maybenot) just got banned from ODO for beating up on pitties.  I suspect this is old BP in drag.
 
There is no changing the minds of folks who have closed minds.....in this case it seems to be soldered shut.  Don't feed it.

ORIGINAL: sillysally

*sigh*

Can anyone tell me what THE most dangorous thing to a young human female is?  A young human male.  In fact, men are responsible for THE most murders, beatings, sex crimes, robberies, assalts, etc.  1 in 4 women will be sexual assalted by a man. 

Therefore, I propose GSL (Gender Specific Legislation).  All men will be subject to microchipping, heavy restrictions, and if they are not good breeding material or are shown to be violent, castration and/or death.

Why not stop the attacks BEFORE they start?

This will reduce the number of attacks and violent deaths much MUCH faster than any BSL will.

Since we were already comparing wild and domestic animals, why not compare domestic animals and humans?

I agree.

You're not going to get anyone here to agree to your opinion. You're not going be able to gather any dog nazis here.
You keep saying innocent people attacked or unprovoked attacks, but then you mention how you know the hype about pitbulls in the media is just that, a bunch of unwarranted hype and blown completely out of proportion, and now... now you're telling us to read the papers, watch the news, blah blah blah. Which side are you on? Which do you believe? Your opinion is inconsistent at best.

You want us to keep posting facts about pitbulls and proof that they're not vicious creatures ready to eat human babies as treats.
And I guess my question is: Why should we have to? But then it's already been proven to you but you are REFUSING to see the proof. You came here with your mind made up that pitbulls are angry, wild animals that crave human flesh or whatever.

I can't believe it. You come here all but demanding that we PROVE to you that our beloved pitbulls won't hurt people.

You do not hold the owners of these "bad" dogs responsible.


Maybe I'm not a good advocate for my dog's breed. But you came here with your preconceived notions and I'm not going to break my brain trying to prove to you that pitbulls are one of the most human loving dogs on this planet.