Attacked by Pitbull.. What would you do?

[KSDeputy]

I love dogs, and I hate to have to shoot one. I lived on 24 acres, and had a bunch of low life's for neighbors. He let his dog roam free, after I had told him many times to keep it off of my property. One day I heard a racket coming from near my chicken house, ran out with my Model 63, and saw that his dog had killed 4 birds, and had another in his mouth. When the dog saw me he dropped the dead bird and headed for home. I led him with my pistol and shot him in the butt, he went home and died on their porch. Next time I was out on my tractor the cracker came out flagging me down. He asked why I killed his dog, I said because he was killing my chickens. I also repeated that I had told him many times to keep his dog off of my property. He said he didn't think that was neighborly (shooting his dog) I said neither did my chickens. That was our last verbal communication before he died (of natural causes). His dog wasn't a pit bull, but a mixture of breeds. As I had to shoot it, I included it in the thread.

 

[Gulfecho]

CoMF

Hey, Gulfecho. I see your Google-fu is strong.

Did you, perhaps, cut and paste "sources" from this forum?



Doesn't tell the whole story. Allow me to provide the context from the abstract that pit bull restrictionists seem to have difficulty including.

So what can we gather from this context? Only 7% of the study group required inpatient care (i.e. major corrective surgery), and the "unprovoked attacks" involved freely roaming animals.

What it doesn't tell us is how many of the "Pit Bull attacks" required inpatient care, how many of them involved dogs known to the patient, and so on. Unfortunately, the actual study is behind a paywall, so these questions are left unanswered.

What is more telling, however, is the conclusion reached by the study:



What? No breed-specific legislation? No mandatory microchipping and carrying of insurance? Do they not care for the children?!

Consequentially, this perfectly illustrates the difference between respected members of the scientific community and nutjob restrictionists. The former realizes that no one number tells the whole story, where the latter will "cherry pick" numbers that support their agendas while diminishing or outright ignoring the others. (See: Confirmation Bias)



You mean this study which states the following in its abstract?



Notice there's that tabulation of news stories, again. I'll hazard a guess that the Media and not the National Center for Health Statistics was the source of the "42%" figure.

Still, considering the "danger" involved, "something must be done" about those dangerous Pit Bulls RIGHT NOW! What do the authors suggest?!



Again, this is the difference between respected members of the scientific community and activists.

Look, Gulfecho... So far, you've cited anti-Pit Bull organizations with "goals" that sound like something right out of the Everytown for Gun Safety playbook, except with "guns" replaced by "Pit Bulls." You've also cited "sources" posted on another forum that omit signifigant context and cherry-pick numbers that support the premise. So yeah, you could tell me the sky was blue and I'd be very skeptical of you. I don't put much stock in the statements of people who resort to intellectual dishonesty.

First you are using supposition that I copied and pasted from other posts. Bad habit and an incorrect assumption on your part. I was asked to sight references, so I did. These are cited from respected journals in the medical community. I don't presume you read them all in their entirety. You paraphrase well. Again, cite specifically your claims as I did. Otherwise, your rant is not based in fact. If you don't believe Pit bulls are a problem breed based on paraphrasing my argument, that is fine and the sky is not blue.

 

[Arc Angel]

Gladly, here they are:

Sacks, Jeffrey J.; Lockwood, Randall; Hornreicht, Janet; Sattin, Richard W. (1996). "Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989–1994". Pediatrics (American Academy of Pediatrics) 97 (6): 891–895. PMID 8657532. ........

I'm going to address the first referenced source: 'Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989–1994' which contains this quote,

'Results. We identified 109 dog bite-related fatalities, of which 57% were less than 10 years of age. The death rate for neonates was two orders of magnitude higher than for adults and the rate for children one order of magnitude higher. Of classifiable deaths, 22% involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, 18% involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 59% involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property. Eleven attacks involved a sleeping infant; 19 dogs involved in fatal attacks had a prior history of aggression; and 19 of 20 classifiable deaths involved an unneutered dog. Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).'

24 (of 109) is 22% of the total - OK! So, what does this prove? In my considered opinion: Absolutely nothing! (But it sounds great; and it's sure to have high entertainment value.)

In the past, whenever statistics like these have been carefully studied, the majority of the canines examined were found to be, 'pitbull like', or merely labeled by an investigator as being a, 'Pitbull'. The same thing goes for the Rottweilers and German Shepherds. A lot of other dogs could just as easily been included in those statistics; and, if past inclusions are an indication, have been included in order to support the desired conclusion. (Which is what my veterinarian has often stated.)

People like me who've bred and trained Pit Bulldogs keep detailed lists of their dogs' antecedents; and bloodlines are very important to them. A big dog, a mastiff type head, or an aggressive surly disposition does NOT make a dog a, 'Pit Bulldog'.

(At least not anywhere except in prejudice quasi-academic reports that are simultaneously as politically correct as they are pandering for additional funding to produce more reports.)

I have used the same veterinary surgeon for the past 20 years. He is a man who is widely respected for, both, his surgical as well as his diagnostic skill. During the time that I've known him he has built up a large, eminently successful veterinary hospital that is, today, one of the finest in New Jersey.

At the height of the great 1990's Pitbull scare I asked him what his professional opinion of Pit Bulldogs is? Now he is a terse guy; and he needs the likes of me for next to nothing. He thought for a moment before replying,

'I prefer to work on them because, unlike many of the dogs that come into this office, Pitbulls are NOT, 'fear biters'. He, also, said that Pitbulls have a higher tolerance to pain than many other dogs; and, consequently, they're easier for him to treat or perform emergency procedures on. Once the Bulldog got to know him there was a lot less chance for him to be bitten while he was working on the animal than with a great many other breeds! (His words, not mine.)

He, also, told me that he receives frequent requests from a wide variety of legal, political, and academic sources to provide testimony against Pit Bulldogs. (Not for, but against!) He said he has told everyone who's asked that he has no extraordinary problem with the breed, frequently treats them, and expects to continue to do so.

Like myself he believes that, 'Bad people produce bad dogs'; and he refuses to be a part of today's prejudice and hate-mongering against Pit Bulldogs. Dogs are dogs, just like politicians are politicians, and TV newscasters are TV newscasters. Dogs - all dogs - should be judged individually and on their own merits (or lack thereof).

 

[Gulfecho]

Arc Angel

I'm going to address the first referenced source: 'Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989–1994' which contains this quote,



24 (of 109) is 22% of the total - OK! So, what does this prove? In my considered opinion: Absolutely nothing! (But it sounds great; and it's sure to have high entertainment value.)

In the past, whenever statistics like these have been carefully studied, the majority of the canines examined were found to be, 'pitbull like', or merely labeled by an investigator as being a, 'Pitbull'. The same thing goes for the Rottweilers and German Shepherds. A lot of other dogs could just as easily been included in those statistics; and, if past inclusions are an indication, have been included in order to support the desired conclusion. (Which is what my veterinarian has often stated.)

People like me who've bred and trained Pit Bulldogs keep detailed lists of their dogs' antecedents; and bloodlines are very important to them. A big dog, a mastiff type head, or an aggressive surly disposition does NOT make a dog a, 'Pit Bulldog'.

(At least not anywhere except in prejudice quasi-academic reports that are simultaneously as politically correct as they are pandering for additional funding to produce more reports.)

I have used the same veterinary surgeon for the past 20 years. He is a man who is widely respected for, both, his surgical as well as his diagnostic skill. During the time that I've known him he has built up a large, eminently successful veterinary hospital that is, today, one of the finest in New Jersey.

At the height of the great 1990's Pitbull scare I asked him what his professional opinion of Pit Bulldogs is? Now he is a terse guy; and he needs the likes of me for next to nothing. He thought for a moment before replying,

'I prefer to work on them because, unlike many of the dogs that come into this office, Pitbulls are NOT, 'fear biters'. He, also, said that Pitbulls have a higher tolerance to pain than many other dogs; and, consequently, they're easier for him to treat or perform emergency procedures on. Once the Bulldog got to know him there was a lot less chance for him to be bitten while he was working on the animal than with a great many other breeds! (His words, not mine.)

He, also, told me that he receives frequent requests from a wide variety of legal, political, and academic sources to provide testimony against Pit Bulldogs. (Not for, but against!) He said he has told everyone who's asked that he has no extraordinary problem with the breed, frequently treats them, and expects to continue to do so.

Like myself he believes that, 'Bad people produce bad dogs'; and he refuses to be a part of today's prejudice and hate-mongering against Pit Bulldogs. Dogs are dogs, just like politicians are politicians, and TV newscasters are TV newscasters. Dogs - all dogs - should be judged individually and on their own merits (or lack thereof).

I encourage you to keep reading. There are six references listed at your request. I did you the courtesy of supplying you the references. Please extend me the courtesy of reading all six.
Thanks

 

[Arc Angel]

You ARE courteous. You, also, write very well; and I appreciate your lengthy reply. I hope you won't mind if I remain just as close-minded, and, 'bulletproof' as you, yourself, are. OK!

Besides, it's nothing I haven't read, or listened to many times before. I assure you, I am intimately familiar with the genre as well as the motivation behind these reports.

(I mean, 'Why not?' I am, after all, a gun owner; and I'm used to this sort of quasi-honest, pseudointellectual twaddle.)


PS: I DID peruse the entire list.

 

[Gulfecho]

Arc Angel

You ARE courteous. You, also, write very well; and I appreciate your lengthy reply. I hope you won't mind if I remain just as close-minded, and, 'bulletproof' as you, yourself, are. OK!

Besides, it's nothing I haven't read, or listened to many times before. I assure you, I am intimately familiar with the genre as well as the motivation behind these reports.

(I mean, 'Why not?' I am, after all, a gun owner; and I'm used to this sort of quasi-honest, pseudointellectual twaddle.)


PS: I DID peruse the entire list.

Thank you and thank you for perusing all six. See you on another thread!

 

[CoMF]

First you are using supposition that I copied and pasted from other posts. Bad habit and an incorrect assumption on your part.

Wrong again. I entered one of your cited materials into my search engine, and that was the very first website that popped up. When I noted the similarities in tone and syntax, I figured it didn't take a great leap of logic to surmise that your response was copypasta.

I was asked to sight references, so I did. These are cited from respected journals in the medical community.

And I have demonstrated that two of those references had largely ignored contextual data and information sources of questionable verity. Cherry-picking select numbers out of context from medical studies that did NOT reach the conclusion that Pit Bulls as a breed need to be singled out through legislative efforts does not a convincing argument make.

I don't presume you read them all in their entirety.

And I'm not going to because I'm not paying to read them in their entirety. The abstracts are telling enough. You are, however, more than welcome to provide others and me access to those studies at your expense. Although in all likelihood, you'll just accuse me of not wanting to "face the facts" or some other nonsense. To which my reply would be a Dana Carvey-esque: "How conVEENient."

You paraphrase well. Again, cite specifically your claims as I did.

All I've done was draw attention to the radical nature of some of your "sources" and point out missing context in others. I do not have to cite counter-sources to prove any of this; the evidence speaks for itself. I am also not wasting my time researching data for the purpose of presenting it to someone with clear and obvious confirmation bias.

In short, it's far more easy (and satisfying) to demonstrate the flaws in your logic using the very "proof" you furnish. I guess you can say that I'm putting about as much effort into this as you've put into your "research."

Otherwise, your rant is not based in fact.

I'm sure you feel that way. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

If you don't believe Pit bulls are a problem breed based on paraphrasing my argument, that is fine and the sky is not blue.

You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies if you want to be taken seriously...

This will be my final reply to you. Take it however you will. You should be able to perform an admirable job of further discrediting yourself without any additional assistance on my part.

Edited to Add: I would just like to recap and give one last hurrah for our "new member" Gulfecho

We've been provided two "sources" that have glaring anti-Pit Bull sentiments, which throws the integrity of their data into question.

We were then provided references to medical studies that had lone numbers plucked out of context, had data compiled from tabulated media reports, and whose conclusions did not reflect any anti-Pit Bull sentiments. In fact, of the two that I dug into, it seemed like they were making arguments for responsible dog ownership (e.g. supervising your pet around children, not leaving your dog roam "free range," etc.) more than "clamping down" on Pit Bulls as a breed and their owners. (Sorry. Couldn't resist that pun. )

When called out on this, the person who cited these sources insists that "counter-sources" are the only acceptable method of discrediting his claims, despite the fact that the full studies he cites are behind paywalls and, thus, very difficult to really examine in any depth.

How convenient.

 

[Gulfecho]

CoMF

Wrong again. I entered one of your cited materials into my search engine, and that was the very first website that popped up. When I noted the similarities in tone and syntax, I figured it didn't take a great leap of logic to surmise that your response was copypasta.



And I have demonstrated that two of those references had largely ignored contextual data and information sources of questionable verity. Cherry-picking select numbers out of context from medical studies that did NOT reach the conclusion that Pit Bulls as a breed need to be singled out through legislative efforts does not a convincing argument make.



And I'm not going to because I'm not paying to read them in their entirety. The abstracts are telling enough. You are, however, more than welcome to provide others and me access to those studies at your expense. Although in all likelihood, you'll just accuse me of not wanting to "face the facts" or some other nonsense. To which my reply would be a Dana Carvey-esque: "How conVEENient."



All I've done was draw attention to the radical nature of some of your "sources" and point out missing context in others. I do not have to cite counter-sources to prove any of this; the evidence speaks for itself. I am also not wasting my time researching data for the purpose of presenting it to someone with clear and obvious confirmation bias.

In short, it's far more easy (and satisfying) to demonstrate the flaws in your logic using the very "proof" you furnish. I guess you can say that I'm putting about as much effort into this as you've put into your "research."



I'm sure you feel that way. Thank you for sharing your opinion.



You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies if you want to be taken seriously...

This will be my final reply to you. Take it however you will. You should be able to perform an admirable job of further discrediting yourself without any further assistance on my part.

Has no one taught you the value of writing in thrift? So you deduce from abstracts...and read in thrift.

Your behavior in responding to me is to say the least irresponsible. Do not accuse members of stealing from other's posts. Reckless judgement. My suggestion is that you skip the talk about dog breeds and read much more on internet posting edict.