Michael Vick, the Pit Bull fighter.

TwistedCopper said:
Yeah that's what I said :lol:

Obviously I'm no fan of either :?|



Hey... I never said ban them. Let's get that straight! I don't like them, I wouldn't want to live near one, and I'm not allowing my kids around them (they're very young).

Your comparison to handguns is really a far stretch from reality. My XD can't breathe, doesn't have it's own mind, and can't bite you unless I want it to and make it do so. A dog can act on its own. A dog can kill on it's own.

If guns can kill all by themselves than mine are all defective :lol:


What makes me suspect of whoever the organization may be is their findings.

Again, I never implied they should be banned. Don't know why you are arguing against that. I think that owning a pitbull is fine if you are capable of properly training it and are aware of the potential tragedies and act accordingly. Someone who merely thinks that pit bulls are harmless unless trained to fight or kill is kidding themselves and needlessly and unnecessarily endangering those around them. Now if they do so and tragedy does happen they should be held accountable. That I believe. As for government involvement, you know I am no proponent for that!
Click to expand...

Oh, well than I recant that part of my arguement....I inferred you were suggesting that. I thought you were a proponent of them being banned.

Of course I agree that you can choose to not let your kids around them. That's fine, and prudent... with any strange dog. You should do that with just about any animal with claw or tooth. (I never implied you didn't have a right to be cautious of pits) I was just explaining why one shouldn't necessarily be worried about pits than any other breed. You can avoid ground squirrels for all I care, it's your prerogative. :lol:

As for the comparison of to guns, that's not a stretch of reality, it's a reality. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to that. And while I don't think that you were intending for that to sound condescending, it reads as if you were suggesting that I'm not playing with a full deck or something. (Again, I know you don't mean it to sound that way...besides it's debatable as to whether or not I am short a club or a diamond or two)

As for my comparison to guns...
My comparison has nothing to do with whether a gun can act on it's own, in fact, that's irrelevant. My comparison has to do with responsible control. For example, leaving a gun loaded in a room with a child (Whether it requires human intervention or not) can harbor the same results as leaving a child alone in a room with a large dog. Although, I'd argue that the gun in that case is more likely to kill the child than any dog. (Obviously a responsibly handled dog or gun is safe in that scenario.)

The fact that guns don't act on their own is completely irrelevant in the argument that I'm proposing. Again, it's about responsibly owning both. And just because humans are required when a gun harms another person...doesn't make it "safer" anyway. I personally trust most people less than I do dogs, as PEOPLE are less predictable.
 
Last edited:
Sparky-Watts said:
I'm sorry, Mingez, but I'll have to side with TC on this one in saying that the "aggressiveness studies" were biased by an agenda.
Click to expand...

That's okay, you can be just as wrong as you want to be. :purple:

But to you I say, prove it. In fact, prove that by showing me data to the contrary. I implore anyone to come up with that? Let's entertain the possibility that those orgs are agenda biased (although study was brought about for reasons of insuring dog based businesses {kennels, doggie day care, vets etc}...insurance companies don't like to dish out money if they don't have to, and would have no reason to want to believe that pits are less dangerous then many other breeds....they'd WANT to charge higher premiums to Pit specific businesses. But all they care about is the data and making money)

But for all of the people out there that claim they are dangerous...as I said before, all I hear is conjecture. Show me data that says they are a worse temperament than other breeds of the same size. I want proof. I don't want to hear about your neighbor's dog, who deflects bullets, leaps buildings in a single bound, and can check mate a Russian chess champ in 5 moves. Show me the studies. You can't...because they don't exist. And the sad part is that governments, anti-pitbull organizations are using this "Non-data" as reasons for banning.

It's Bull-hizzle.
 

man, the numbers are stacked up against those adorable pit bull dogsp0p
 
redrooster said:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
Since you implored... Reference the attached 20 some odd year Clifton Study. It was the first thing that popped up on Google under a search for pit bull attacks.
Click to expand...
Good Job!

So, now the question is, does this site have an agenda and is it valid? Seems pretty thorough and doesn't appear to at first glance. But there is some controversy! Is it a dependable source?
First off, it cites on the study that the numbers represent "Press Accounts". Meaning, it's merely a tally of what reporters decided to report. That means nothing, and obviously the media has been in a frenzy over the pit bull in recent years! What makes better news, the chow that maimed a person or a pit?

Even the site "Dogbitelaw.com" puts in this disclaimer:
Current information about fatal dog attacks is found in publications by individuals, not governmental agencies
Click to expand...
and then it goes on to list sites that have numbers to support that pits are dangerous.

In addition, there are a lot of questions floating out in cyberspace about it's validity:
That report was written by Merritt Clifton, editor of the self-described "independent" magazine "Animal People" ([ http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/current.html ], whose distribution information is not readily available.

It was not commissioned or certified by any organization.

It was not peer-reviewed.

It uses such language inappropriate for academic research, such as the phrase "hell of a problem."

The report consists of a table of bite information followed by an editorial on breed specific laws and pit bulls. It cites no sources. It says only that statistics were compiled from "media reports."

Fear of pit bulls is undeniably a major media topic. Reporters report what gets read. Richard F. Stratton, who has been writing about America Pit Bull Terriers since 1976, asserts that "I have known many cases where reporters were there to cover a 'Pit Bull attack' and left when they discovered it was some other breed. Even worse, some reporters have been known to cover any dog bite as a 'Pit Bull attack.'"
Click to expand...

So the question begs...where can we find a qualified source? The sources I cited are not peer-reviewed either. However one was indeed money motivated..but motivated how?

I think the gov needs to conduct comprehensive study. (especially those counties litigating to ban them, and conducting what are the equivalent of dog holocausts within those areas)

BTW if you do a search for "Clifton Study" that's essentially the only hit there is. Every other hit is of forums and wiki discussing the topic...just as we are.

It's a very polished website (for what that's worth) And I must admit, that's more than I expected you to find.
 
Last edited:

And here's your solution. Done.

image-missing.png


Kinda like locking up your firearms. ;)
 
Some people are just not willing to admit defeat so this will be my last posting on this discussion since it leads to more what if's. Once again, I work in the field of veterinary medicine, nope not going there.
Why don't we just all agree to disagree and leave it at that. Mingez, if you want to continue to debate for the breed, then go all out and seek a group out to further your cause. All the countries in the world are wrong and mingez is correct. Please don't take this in a condescending way because it is not meant to be in no fashion. My only point is if you feel that strongly, then maybe you should be actively supporting it in other forums that will help the breed. Like I have said in the past postings, we have to blame the cause and effect on the owners for the most part, but this breed is dangerous as a majority. No offense to those who own loving pitts. I know there are some out there. If you really want to get down to why this occurs, I suggest you look at demographics of the owners of such a dog. That's enough said, because I don't like where this will lead, but everyone is afraid to state the obvious anymore. Not just with Pitts, but with anything when it comes to financial status, race, color, gender or religion. Some things are assumptions and some are not, you be the judge because I will not.
 
KrazyJeeper said:
Some people are just not willing to admit defeat so this will be my last posting on this discussion since it leads to more what if's. Once again, I work in the field of veterinary medicine, nope not going there.
Why don't we just all agree to disagree and leave it at that. Mingez, if you want to continue to debate for the breed, then go all out and seek a group out to further your cause. All the countries in the world are wrong and mingez is correct. Please don't take this in a condescending way because it is not meant to be in no fashion.
Click to expand...
Uh, okay. Forked tongued post there.
:roll:
[sarcasm]No, that wasn't condescending at all.[/sarcasm]

We are debating, and not arguing. Perhaps you hear something in the writings that I don't. Debate is nothing new hear. It's the GEN CHAT SECTION!! MEANING WE CAN POST ANY TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION. All members can post NON-Jeep related issues or topics there. If YOU wish to go to another board and discuss this, see ya.

I didn't say I was correct, and that the whole world is wrong, I said it's up for debate and not a foregone conclusion. But I stand corrected, and bow down to Krazy Jeeper because you are in "Veterinary Medicine"...and for the record, you can't "Go there" and then say "Nope I won't go there." It doesn't work like that. I didn't know you were in Veterinary Medicine, I never responded to your posts, and I don't know why you decided to personally attack me.

FYI, I wasn't the only one supporting the breed, there are others who posted and agreed. I just like to debate, I don't have a pit, I don't plan on getting a pit, I don't even like them.

Secondly, if you dislike the way I post so much, there's a simple solution...don't read my posts. Self censor, you don't have to click on the URL. Personally, I barely remember seeing your posts on this thread...ONE BTW which I started, which wasn't even originally meant to be about this topic, but rather about Vick as a dog fighter. So in the future, feel free to not read any of the threads I start...there's no rule that states you must read a topic that offends you.
My only point is if you feel that strongly, then maybe you should be actively supporting it in other forums that will help the breed. Like I have said in the past postings, we have to blame the cause and effect on the owners for the most part, but this breed is dangerous as a majority. No offense to those who own loving pitts. I know there are some out there. If you really want to get down to why this occurs, I suggest you look at demographics of the owners of such a dog. That's enough said, because I don't like where this will lead, but everyone is afraid to state the obvious anymore. Not just with Pitts, but with anything when it comes to financial status, race, color, gender or religion. Some things are assumptions and some are not, you be the judge because I will not.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't your only point. You're real point was to suggest that I was wrong and you were right. You are far more educated in veterinary science than I, I admit. But are you suggesting that I make a decision on something without more proof than some dude I've never met telling me that's the case. It would be irresponsible of me to make that decision without data...right? Is it so wrong to insist on proof? I guess you don't require it, but I do.
You have to admit, that report only proves that pit bulls have more reported incidents..right? I'm not surprised by those numbers based on the knowledge that they acquired the data from news reporters.

And why the drama? What do you mean by:
That's enough said, because I don't like where this will lead, but everyone is afraid to state the obvious anymore. Not just with Pitts, but with anything when it comes to financial status, race, color, gender or religion. Some things are assumptions and some are not, you be the judge because I will not
Click to expand...
I don't know where race comes into this? If you have a problem with me personally, then just PM me. We can talk it out there.

I don't get your response. Frankly, it's strange. :?| :?| :?| :?|
 
Last edited:
Mingez,
You are a rock and can't be swayed.
I could really care less about Vick or Pit Bulls, but I am enjoying the debate. I don't know the first thing about Merritt Clifton or his/her study. But one thing that is apparent is that this person spent 24 years compiling this data and even went as far to explain the strange killings and maimings at the bottom. That's dedication.
They not only compiled data against Rottweilers and Pit Bulls, but against all breeds. Even my Weimeraner had one case listed.
I agree that they couldn't possibly have captured all dog bites in the 24 year study. Many go unreported and I'm sure more rotts and pits get reported than Pomeranians. Let's face it though, they are far more intimidating breeds and scare the crap out of people so they get reported to the authorities more often. Even if you discounted half of the pit and rott attacks and fudged all the other breeds upward 50% then rotts and pitts would still be the highest on the list.
 

READ THE STATS ! pit bulls vrs all aother breeds and learn...before your dog "accidently " maims or kills and your in the crosshairs . our community lost a young girl to a pit bull that was desctibed EXACTLY as you describe yours.....it was tragic and a freak thing ....and preventable....don't have kill dogs in public or around anything but a chin link fence....
 
Read the second to the last paragraph on the Clifton Study. I think it sums up the argument for the "con" side.
 

redrooster said:
Why? TC and Sparky are going to argue no matter what the topic is...that's half the entertainment.
Click to expand...

well, instead of locking the thread, I will just refrain from reading it or posting in it any longer and watch it continue to spiral downward along with the comments posted.

What did Mudd say about arguing on the internet and being in the special Olympics......:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Married Vegan Monastic
Am I allowed to sell my Jeep here; I?m trying to find the rules page
Replies
5
Views
19K
Married Vegan Monastic
Married Vegan Monastic
M
New to forum - the list of Help ME Please Advice is below - Please and Thank you
Replies
2
Views
5K
JPNinPA
JPNinPA
D
clutch issue
Replies
1
Views
9K
Dave Allen
D
HexedHero
What’s this thingy?
Replies
2
Views
7K
JPNinPA
JPNinPA
7
Out Boarding Spring Hangers on a 72 CJ5 Frame to fit a 74-76 Cherokee Dana 44
Replies
1
Views
8K
TerryMason
TerryMason
Back
Top