Originally Posted by
Briareos
Hmm...For those who advocate the extermination of a breed of dog because "they're dangerous", let's take a look at the example given here...
Black people account for a large population of prisoners, yet their race is only 10-12% of the overall make-up of the country's races. That's a somewhat disturbing trend wouldn't you agree? There is obviously something very wrong going on here.
Would your solution be to kill or imprison all african-americans?
Yeah...I didn't think so either.
While you're thinking that one over, I'd like to ask those who favor killing "dangerous breeds" to do one thing for me...
Try to convince someone that a woman who lost an arm in a car accident will then give birth to babies with one arm.
I can't wait to hear the results!
In case that last one flew over your head, let's explore the reasons why pit-bulls may or may not be naturally aggressive dogs...
First, lets ask ourselves why pit-bulls are chosen to be fighting dogs. If you could actually ask someone who actually understood why he chose them, he'd say this: "because they have ridiculously strong neck muscles, and their bites are notoriously hard to get out of". Sounds like a good breed to start abusing or otherwise torturing to bring out aggression.
Before you interject with your claims that I just proved your theory right, try to remember one thing. These owners are torturing and abusing these dogs. I'm pretty sure if they did that to you, you'd be pretty pissed off too. Unfortunately dogs are much simpler creatures than we are. They don't have the ability to figure out that this human riding a bicycle WON'T be abusive just because their owners and trainers are.
But why would they chase you, if all they want to do is escape your abuse you may ask. Like I mentioned before, dogs are simpler creatures than we are. They don't have the reasoning abilities to overcome traits that have been trained over hundreds of years. Traits like fetching, chasing things their master preys upon.
"There you go again! Proving our point again!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but masters and torturing owners are completely different things. Dogs trained by masters who love them and revere them for their abilities do not abuse their dogs. My experience is that they actually more often than not, spoil their dogs. They train their dogs to chase prey and be aggressive towards prey. But these people also train theirs dogs to be highly disciplined. Have you ever seen a hunting dog work? They will stand two feet away from a grouse, waiting for YOUR command. They will not do anything unless told to do so. At your command they will flush the bird out, and you can shoot it. Afterwards, they will very gently get the bird and bring it back to you; they will not eat or ravage it either.
Horrible owners merely torture dogs into becoming mean, aggressive creatures that will lose the respect for life that their "trainers" also lack. They're missing the discipline and love that a wing-shooter would have given the dog.
Anyway, I'm tired, and I want to go out and have fun with my friends. Hopefully y'all might think a bit more before you make sweeping generalizations; especially those that would ultimately kill thousands of dogs. You owe it to them to think about what you do before you do it.
First of all. As someone else said, we are talking about an animal, not a human.
Second, your claim implies that the only dogs that attack are those that are abused or trained to attack and fight. How can you make that claim when the facts prove something different. See the last sentence below. In 2/3 of the cases, the attack was the 1st known incident. Are these dogs the ones that are trained to fight and attack? Not likely, more likely is that these incidents are of common owners that treat their dogs well. I will continue to believe that in some breeds, there are traits (obviously they have been breed for this over the years) that make them more aggressive and unpredictable.
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: