Thursday, November 18, 2010

cost benefit analysis: pit bulls and product safety

tarantulaguy1976 showed up to thump his chest and threaten a lawsuit. he is taking credit for shutting down a blog that posted his video. he said my blog will be next if i don't step in line. little does he know, that kind of attitude will not bring the results he desires.

if the pit nutters are so certain that their positions are correct and ours are so dead wrong, why is there such vehement opposition to our voices? why do they devote so much time and energy trying to silence us crazy haters? i can only surmise that it is because they know deep down that their position can not withstand close public scrutiny. but back to tarantulaguy...

recall mr pit nutter, "my pit bull saved my child's life while i was surfing the internet". he described a scene that "no parent should ever have to see" when his pit bull pulled him away from the computer and saved his son from death by mini blind cord. tarantulaguy1976 went on to wish us haters would all fall down a cliff and into a river with a really fast current. he blessed the internet with his tribute to nanny dogs way back in august 2009, long after the danger of mini blinds was well known. but i suspect most people either don't think about it or assume those accidents only happen to others. his video is quite the youtube sensation boasting 120,000 views and almost 1900 comments. i was told that he won't allow dissenting comments, so i posted a comment. a question really, not only did he allow it in, he responded. i asked, "after the alleged strangling, did you get those blind cords out of the house?" he replied yes, immediately, he tore them off of the wall.

i think that it is safe to assume that tarantulaguy acknowledges that the mini blind cord design is dangerous and needs to be corrected. let's dissect these two dangers and crunch some numbers. i will take LEE IACOCA'S cold hearted unemotional ford pinto approach and leave the blubbering and fear mongering to tarantulaguy1976.

according to this website, 768 carbon based units (CBU) have been terminated by mini blind cords since 1973. that averages out to the termination of 20.75 CBU each year by mini blind cords or approximately 1 CBU every two weeks. the window blind industry estimates there are one billion corded blinds in the united states.

according to this website 2009 statistic, there are 77.5 million dogs in the united states. let's round that up to a nice round number 80 million. let's assign a nice round number to the percentage of pit bulls. let's say 10%.

according to this website 110 CBU have been terminated by pit bull type dogs since 2005. that averages out to the termination of 18.3 CBU each year by pit bull dogs.

the difference between 20.75 and 18.3 per year, hardly seems significant, until you factor in the number of potential killers; one billion mini blinds and a very generous estimate of eight million pit bulls. then the difference is staggering.

where's the tipping point? at what point do pit bull fanciers, animal behaviorists, veterinarians, etc grow a pair and acknowledge that the pit bull as a product is defective and harmful to society? at what point do they admit that you are more likely to be killed by a pit bull than a mini blind cord?

the pit bull breeders should breed safer dogs before the government regulates.

tarantulaguy, here's another image that no parent should ever have to see.
hint: this CBU was not terminated by a mini blind.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

That dumb shit didn't shut down sniffer's blog... Sniffer shut it down themselves.

Yet again, Robert proves that it's ok to do what he wants, but not for the other people to oppose his stances and analyze and dissect his lies.

Since when is it wrong to analyze a video that HE POSTED ON THE INTERNET?

Since when is it wrong to write about such a thing WHEN HE SAYS CLEARLY THAT YOU CAN?

I'm sorry but if you invite people to take screen caps of their video they're going to voice their opinions....

He seriously needs some B12 in the common sense department.

Anonymous said...

Excellent breakdown and comparison. Funny. You never see the pit nutters chiming in on the comments with the photos of the mauled children. I guess deep down, some of them do have a tiny sense of shame.

Bagheera Kiplingi said...

Here we go again. I am the PROUD owner of mini blinds!!! I have owned them all of my life. Sure they require extra care but this is an IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER ISSUE!!! The media hypes the mini blind but heavy drapes and wood shutters are MORE dangerous!! When I was a kid, I got my finger pinched in my granny's shutters. I had a bruise for THREE DAYS!

It's all how you RAISE and LOWER them!!!

Anonymous said...

Bagheera:


HAHAHAHA!

You are insanely genius with your quotes. If only the nutters were as clever as you.

Kurt A. said...

Bagheera, good post! :-)

Paul said...

there's a saying about lying loudest when we're lying to ourselves, right? ya, these guys are pretty loud alright.

"lawn darts" is another interesting one that i remember when i was a kid. i think after 3 children died in america(?) those things were permanently banned, and i don't recall anybody bitching about it.

i daresay we could have more family fun with lawn darts than with a chickenwire-chewing staffy infection.

Anonymous said...

Hey Craven, it's me....the old, bald, cool looking, wannabe firefighter.

I've noticed you've turned your attention over to this "TarantulaGuy"
Your comment, "after the alleged strangling, did you get those blind cords out of the house?" he replied yes, immediately, he tore them off of the wall."

Your rebuttle is to comeback with; well, if you can get rid of blinds that kill less kids than Pit Bulls....common sense is to get rid of the Pit Bulls.

But see this is where your logic falls short.
You're acting like a Pit Nutter when they use the excuse of "Guns kill more people than Pit Bulls."
Shutters, cords, guns, and blinds are inanimate objects.
1.lacking the qualities or features of living beings. Thus, you cannot compare the two.

Let's take a look at one of your 'websites' you posted in your blog.....the HSUS. First of all,

"let's assign a nice round number to the percentage of pit bulls. let's say 10%."
I don't think that is a factual statement even by HSUS standards. I can't find "10%" anywhere on that website.

2. That very same website has this,
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/dogfighting/

A Winning Team of Two
Terrence and Elmo, youngster and dog, are stars in the latest crop of graduates from The HSUS' End Dogfighting program

The boy seems to love his dog, and vice versa.


3. "according to this website 110 CBU have been terminated by pit bull type dogs since 2005. that averages out to the termination of 18.3 CBU each year by pit bull dogs.

THIS website gives a little bit more information about the bigger picture of dog bites and how little, "pit bull attacks" are.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/biteprevention.html

NOTE: I'm not stating those 110 deaths are insignificant. It's tragic that over a 5 yr period, pit bull "type" dogs have caused THAT many fatalities. I assure you I'm sincere about that.

Also note that Yes, I am quoting the CDC on dog bites. But as far as I know, it's been the closest to accurately keep track of dog bites throughout the years.

"About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
Almost one in five of those who are bitten: a total of 885,000: require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.
In 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs."


31,000 underwent reconstructive surgery. Let's just say 10% were by pit bull type dogs. That's 3,100victims that needed extensive surgery from pit bull "type" dogs.
What about the other 27,900 victims? If they weren't attacked by pit bull "type" dogs, then what WERE they attacked by?

And that was 4 years ago. We both can only assume that number has gone up.

Anonymous said...

Your math is flawed. The majority of severe injuries from dog bite requiring plastic surgery occur from pit bulls. That's 10% of the dog population responsible for easily 80% or more of severe injuries requiring plastic surgery from dog bite, not to mention deaths from dog attack.

I feel much safer with blinds and guns. Blinds will never jump off the wall and strangle you. A gun will never shoot you by itself. A pit bull attacks of its own volition. Yes, safety between the two most certainly can be compared. Last I checked, dogs are sold as commodities, same as blinds and guns. If manufacturers can be sued and held liable for their faulty products, the same should be true of breeders of faulty dogs.

Anonymous said...

"Your math is flawed"
the numbers come from CDC (a well established department of the US Government) and basic division. Where does Craven's numbers come from?
"let's round that up to a nice round number 80 million. let's assign a nice round number to the percentage of pit bulls. let's say 10%."

---That doesn't sound like hard evidence or a factual statement.


"The majority of severe injuries from dog bite requiring plastic surgery occur from pit bulls"

---show me.
pit haters are notorious for asking nutters for facts and links, then you accuse us of lying. I 'rarely' see haters posting links with their comments.

"Yes, safety between the two most certainly can be compared"

---then let's compare gun fatalities against pit bull fatalities.......There is NO comparison to that.


"If manufacturers can be sued and held liable for their faulty products, the same should be true of breeders of faulty dogs."

Ummmm, they are sued, if not MORE.
"Dog bites accounted for more than a third of all homeowners insurance liability claims paid out in 2009, costing $412 million and up from $387.2 million in 2008, according to a study released this week by the Insurance Information Institute"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-08-18/news/ct-talk-dog-bites-insurance-0819-20100818_1_dog-bites-dog-bite-standard-homeowners-policies


Next....

Anonymous said...

FUzzy is a little weak on the brain power. he doesn't understand percentages. He's insisting that pit bulls kill less. He doesn't know that he has to divide 20.75 by one billion and 18.3 by 77.5 million and see which number is bigger...

He isn't aware that by saying pit bulls are 10% of the dog population, you're being extremely generous and in line with what most nutters claim.

How truly idiotic of him to propose that we accept as a given that pit bulls are responsible for 10% of bites because they're 10% of the population. There would be no issue if that were the case! The whole problem is that pit bulls are disproportionately responsible for FAR MORE BITES, MAULINGS AND DEATHS - as many or more than ALL OTHER TYPES OF DOGS COMBINED. That's why they should be REGULATED.

These studies show that pit bulls are responsible for at least 50% of the bites requiring hospitalization and that people who study and work with pediatric bite victims CONCLUDE THAT BREED IS SIGNIFICANT AND SUGGEST BSL IS IN ORDER.

http://www.aaps1921.org/abstracts/2008/P13.cgi

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19644273

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/768875-media


FUzzy is truly clueless if he doesn't get that. He thinks this is a game - he's playing, he says - he has no grasp of the gravity and reality of the problem. To him, the problem and the arguments are just an arbitrary way to get attention with no consequences.

snack sized dog said...

The most disturbing part of Tarantuala guy's videos...

ok i have to take that back...

One of the MANY disturbing aspects of Trantuala guy's videos is that his family is only there to show that his pit bull won't kill them. The christmas video where the poor kid is standing there with the dog's gift, which is then grabbed by an impatient tarantuala guy to give to the pit is truly pathetic.

Oh, and Bagheera's comment is HILARIOUS... It's all how you raise and lower them...classic!

Oh and as for FUzzy - I agree with anon 7:09. And I think he's a narcissist and craves attention. I propose talking about him but not to him. It is truly disgusting that he doesn't get that this is a grave reality for many people - including people here who have been attacked by pit bulls.

silence of the nincompoops said...

"if the pit nutters are so certain that their positions are correct and ours are so dead wrong, why is there such vehement opposition to our voices? why do they devote so much time and energy trying to silence us crazy haters? i can only surmise that it is because they know deep down that their position can not withstand close public scrutiny."

I think this is so true, and a similar aspect is that they try to dismiss sites like DBO out of hand. They pretend to refuse to look at links to DBO because its "biased." When, in reality DBO is scrupulous about citations and dedicated to preserving factual news reports and gathering research allowing people to scrutinize it.

It is pathetic that FUzzy says that pro BSL people rarely include links. Ha! nutters make a pronouncment I won't read it its from DBO.

I know for a fact that craven and others dig deep into biased pro-pit websites with no fear looking for the truth.

Nutters can't look at DBO precisely because the facts and research are there, staring them in the face.

I agree with the people before that say FUzzy is a narcissist. Intelligent ones will get your head spinning real fast. But ones like FUzzy will insist they are prevailing in the argument when in reality they're just making a jackass of themselves. They can be very annoying because as long as you engage them, they won't go away.

Now I wish there was a third option for the poll "a narcissistic nincompoop" for the poll.

Anonymous said...

FUzzzzzzzzy here.

GREAT research for specific cities.
I learned a lot. I learned that plastic surgeons perform surgies on dog attacks and the majority are either pit bulls or rottweilers. And the VAST majority were caused by either family dogs or dogs that the victim knew, which 'could' be an owner issue.

As for snack size......how can I be a narcissist, if I'm simply giving my opinion on a blog? Do you call every responder a narcissist?

I do get it. Dog attack victims have the same trauma related issue like someone who lost their daughter in an misID'ed shooting. They have the same distress as a brother who was killed by a drunk driver. Or a child that has been abused by a parent for their whole life. Believe me, I get it


I totally agree with you that DBO has every single shred of microscopic factual evidence on pit bull type dogs.

what about the other (at least)
480+ dog breeds?

"why do they devote so much time and energy"

-I devote only a couple hours every weeknight.
All the other time....well, that's mine.



p.s. are we starting with the insults again??
"narcissistic nincompoop"

I'll vote for that one!

cravendesires said...

"Your rebuttle is to comeback with; well, if you can get rid of blinds that kill less kids than Pit Bulls....common sense is to get rid of the Pit Bulls."

your reading comprehension needs a little work. here is what i said:
"the pit bull breeders should breed safer dogs before the government regulates."

and it is closer to six years. five years bumps the average up to 22.

1) 2005
2) 2006
3) 2007
4) 2008
5) 2009
6) 2010

as for injuries from mini blinds, i didn't have any figures, so i didn't go into non fatal dog injuries. please try to stay on topic.

dogs are property. guns are protected by the second amendment.

regarding pit bulls numbers, i rounded up. i have seen estimates of 3-5% of the dog population are pit bulls. merritt clifton i think came up with 3-5%. i couldn't find it quickly so i didn't use it. it wouldn't surprise me if the pit population is twice that high, especially when you take into account all of the fighting dogs and other losers who own them, don't license them or deliberately mislabel them. my increase in dog population to 80 million and pit bull population to 10% HELPS your argument, and hurts mine.

P. said...

Sic 'em Craven. When will these fools learn that they can't mess with you? You have the truth backing you up and the truth always wins. You send them running with their tails tucked and we love it.

Seth said...

Craven rounded up to 80 million and then estimated a high number for percent pit bulls (10%). We all know for a fact that 1 in 10 dogs is not a pit bull. I'm assuming Craven did this for the same reason I would, so that the number of deaths by pit bull per (dog) capita COULD NOT BE ACCUSED of being inflated. Craven wanted a conservative number. It's a funny thing what happens to the result of division when you increase the denominator, FUZUPF, you should work a few practice examples to figure this out.

Also, FUZUPF, just asserts that pit bulls are animate and so you can't compare them to inanimate objects. And this is some obvious flaw. You can't just assert this, FUZUPF, you must actually show why the comparison is made faulty by the difference you bring up.

I would say that pit nutters treat their pits as inanimate objects more than anyone. The nutter always asserts that something "was not the dog's fault", even without any evidence. Their line of reasoning is that: well trained, cared for, etc pit bulls DO NOT attack and therefore any attack can be discounted as human error. You see, this argument relies upon a first premise that cannot be asserted but must be supported via inductive reasoning. Having a good pit bull and going from that is not inductive reasoning. This chain of logic used is not only faulty, but it also implies that NOTHING can be a pit bulls fault. I see that perhaps the word "fault" is best reserved for dissecting the moral implications of human actions, but if we do not want to allow the word "fault" to be used with dogs then this must be stated upfront. If everything a dog does is because of factors outside the dog's control, then the dog cannot be faulted for anything. BUT the dog cannot be credited for anything either, and the dog can be viewed somewhat as inanimate. So, the pit that saved the kid, can't praise the pit for it. Your pit that is so loving, sorry you only have yourself to thank. Why don't we stop anthropomorphizing dogs and not talk about faults but instead contributing factors. Obviously, a dog's genetics, environment, the situation it is found in, etc all contribute to whether the dog will maul or not.

A further flaw in the nutter logic is to state that you cannot generalize about the breed based upon a specific instances. Well, then how are we to generalize? Based upon no instances, your instances, how many instances do we need before we form an opinion designed to protect us and ours? The nutter should realize that humans generalize constantly in order to be able to think at all. Come to think of it, maybe nutters don't generalize then. Sorry, no they do, because they constantly talk about how the pit is the most loyal dog, etc. Is this not generalizing based upon their experience?

That's the inconsistent pit nutter logic that I've seen, in a nutshell. They create a system where pit bulls cannot be faulted for anything but can be praised for things. They do not want anyone generalizing about the dog unless it is their gushing praise.

I wonder if they realize that the only reason they are around to gush about their pit is because nothing has happened to them yet?

Seth said...

One more point on animate vs inanimate...

Let's say an inanimate and animate object have a similar death statistic. I'll take the inanimate object any day. Why? You can friggin' lock it in a safe and forget about it until you need it.

Seth said...

FUZUPF is a zoo-like example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Anonymous said...

"what about the other (at least)
480+ dog breeds?"

When those dog breeds start mauling and killing at the rate of pits and pit mixes, I'm sure DBO will cover them just as assiduously. Until they do, there's not much to talk about.

Anonymous said...

What is this Tarantula person's name?

Robert something?

(That FUPerv is back trying to get attention? This is like the country's number 1 Lonely Guy. All this guy does is post misspelled inanity that makes no sense. I guess his butt is hurting after all the kicks it took. Even the Mastiff people kicked his ass, and they aren't the sharpest.)

Anonymous said...

Mr Tarantula Guy was neglecting his child and not supervising it.

How well does he think that will go down in any court?

snack sized dog said...

DBO covers all dog bite related fatalities. The DBO site is unbelievably HUGE. There is a wealth of information, research and statistics on dog attacks in general. And all of it is meticulously organized, analyzed, cited and sourced.

That is why nutters are so afraid of it, if you try to send them there, they SAY they refuse to go there because it is biased, when in reality what nutters mean is, "I went to DBO, I cannot refute the evidence there, and I would rather appear willfully ignorant than accept the truth."

Anonymous said...

"It wasnt a husky. Maybe a mix...but not a purebeed"
"Go look at my page and you will see exactly how a Husky acts around people and kids"
"Pure bread huskys don't get to 120lbs, possibly a hybrid."
"But a husky would never and i mean NEVER do that.....NO WAY!"
SpiritsoftheWolf
"a husky did not maul that kid, they don't get that big."
StayFreshXD
"theres no way thaat it was a husky? suchha liie"
"how the fuck doe s one get MAULED by a golden retriver? licked to death? bitch please..."
"As a Greyhound owner, the only thing I have to say to you is FUCK OFF."
frozone121
"its her own fault she shouldnt of let it sleep n her bed"
greythound64
"i dont know if i believe this story....but if it did happen it sounds like it happened while the dog was having night terrors"
zolevokpk
"I have a bullmastiff. He was adopted like one and half a year ago. He is the most nice, patient dog ever. We can let any children or dog close to him"
"@FUzupf bullmastiffs are in the top 10 for breeds that are trustworthy with babies and little kids. this was obviously a bad apple or the owner is just ignorant."

I have hundreds of quotes saying the same exact thing.

SO how can pit nutters be slammed for stepping up for their dogs and other breed owners can get away with saying, "that's a lie" "a purebreed doesn't do that" "it's the owner, not the breed" "the victim MUST'VE done something to agitate the dog."

How can THEY get away with making statements like that?


oh. one more thing,
"That FUPerv is back trying to get attention"

Craven decided to do a blog on ME. I didn't ask them. And for that reason, I have every right to voice my opinion on this blog.

Seth said...

Fuzzy doesn't seem to realize that all these people standing up for a specific dog they don't know or making knee-jerk defenses of all members of a breed are idiots. So, Fuzzy is one member of a subclass of these dog-idiots known as pit nutters. I hope that makes him feel better.

It seems Fuzzy is realizing that the logic of the other dog-idiots is faulty.That is a good first step there.

Perhaps the reason that pit nutters get called out on their class of dog lies is because there are just more maulings and killings by pits. Therefore, within the population of dog-lies their lies form a large chunk. Enough to draw heat.

I do not think this blog is about Fuzzy, as he states. There are blog posts about Fuzzy though. Did someone mention narcissism?

Anonymous said...

In addition to mini blinds, cribs and toys, there are also sweatshirts for kids. The STRING around the neck was deemed too dangerous due to strangulation hazards.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10144.html

NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from dangerous dog breeds, specifically pit bulls who are teetering on the 200 American death mark since these attacks started being recorded in the late 70s.

THERE IS NO DIRECTIVE, THUS WE GET NO POSTER AND NO HELP!
http://www.cpsc.gov/nsn/nsnposter.html

Anonymous said...

You haters like numbers. Answer this.How many children have been killed by their parents in the last 10 years? How many people killed by drunk drivers. Now tell me how many people have been killed by dogs in the same period?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:02, child abuse is illegal, and whenever it occurs and is discovered, it is prosecuted. Quite often the children are removed from the home. The abuser does jail time. There are countless charities and non-profits dedicated to the prevention of and amelioration of child abuse.

DUI is also illegal, and whenever it occurs and is discovered, it is prosecuted. The drivers suffer consequences ranging from suspension or removal of their drivers licenses to jail time. When they kill someone, they are usually convicted of manslaughter or even second degree homicide. There are countless non-profits dedicated to the prevention of and the prosecution of DUI.

Pits kill hundreds and maim thousands. Their owners regularly get off scott free, even when the dogs kill. It's called a "tragic accident". It's said that nobody could've seen it coming. People care more about the dogs than the people they hurt. There are almost no charities or support groups for people who are victims of catastrophic dog attack.

We're working to get laws in place to make owning these dangerous animals illegal and to give those who do own them real consequences when their dogs do what their genetic heritage demands, maim and kill. The only people who don't like that are the misanthropes who own them and like the excuse of getting away with murder by canine, and the other misanthropes who profit from their crippling insecurities.

april 29 said...

Sixty two American children have been killed by pit bull dogs since 2004, and I DO hate that number. These children died violent, brutal deaths. More than half of these children were killed by family owned pits. Anon 4:02, you should be ashamed of yourself to minimize the suffering of the innocent with your straw man argument.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:02 pm,

Way to throw out random stuff without any clarification on what points it makes and how. A few notes for nutters.

1. You have to determine proper stats by normalizing by exposure. All kids are exposed to parents. All drivers pass drunks on the road more often than they think.
2. Just because something is less dangerous than a few things does not mean it is non-dangerous.
3. You have to separate things into essential (having parents) and non-essential (owning a pit bull).
4. Dogs seriously injure many more than they kill.
5. You ironically mention things that are prohibited because they negatively influence others. Is your point that things we know are dangerous and disallow are dangerous?
6. We know that some people can't be trusted around kids. So, we discourage/prohibit them from being around kids. Perhaps this is a good model for pit nutters.

Anonymous said...

Dear April 29:
The world is full of irresponsible, stupid people who should not raise dogs OR children. But they do and spend zero time or money "raising" them leaving them to flounder in the world with their "instincts" OR, worst yet, they "create" monsters. To lump every parent with those idiots is ludicrous. Just as it is unfair and unreasonable to lump any group with the minority. I am raising a man (he is currently 10 years old), I have raised a rescued German Shepard for 14 years, I have watched another family raise a Rottweiler for 12 years, and now I have rescued a pit. I've done the research, seen the statistics and I have read both sides (this blog has been interesting) And it all comes down to one thing.
The world is full of irresponsible, stupid people who should not raise dogs OR children. But they do.

Chisa said...

:/ As a student who took five college English courses I can say that you're attempt at being "clever" and "funny" by comparing the deaths of children via mini-blinds and dog-mauls is sad and pathetic.

Your argument is filled with false assumptions, for example: how 10% of dogs are pit-bulls (yeah, right, because there are just SO MANY OF THEM). Also, the connection between mini-blinds and dog killings is flimsey, considering that the dog SAVED the girl from a mini-blind accident. It wasn't a question of "WAS THE GIRL GOING TO DIE FROM A MINI BLIND OR A PIT BULL?" it was the fact that the dog was doing what good dogs do: being faithful and loyal to those who care for him. So how does this play into your arguement? Are you going to give us an analysis on how many pit bulls save people?

I'm not for the protection of dogs who harm people in the least, but I'm definitely not for the scapegoating of an entire breed. It's basically like being Hitler in the animal community. All dogs have the potential to be bad dogs, and all dogs are different. Some dogs will have aggression issues and other ones are sweet as pie, but this is true for all breeds, not specific to certain ones.

Also, I'll just leave this here: The latest CDC "Dog Bite: Fact Sheet" includes a disclaimer regarding this study, saying that
"it does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill. "

You're an idiot asshole.

dawn james said...

"comparing the deaths of children via mini-blinds and dog-mauls is sad and pathetic. "

but you idiot asshole hypocrites do it all of the time. go here, see your master karen delise do the very same sad and pathetic thing that you are scolding me about.


"Are you going to give us an analysis on how many pit bulls save people?"

no, but please do.

ozzette said...

No proof either that the image you have posted was as the result of a pit bull attack. And SHAME ON YOU for posting the image of someone's child like that without permission. (I know this because there is no "Image used with permission of disclaimer").
Yes, I have a pit bull. Has it ever saved the lives of one of my children? No. I also have a 12 gauge shotgun. Has it ever saved one of my children? No. However, my best friend's 4 year old was mauled by a Rottweiler mix. So, should all Rottweiler mixes be banned?
Moron. I'm so sorry I stumbled onto this blog and wasted 5 whole minutes of my life, that I'll never get back.

dawn james said...

i found the photo in a medical journal article about pit bull attacks on the internet.

Ravi Gautam said...

Thanks r all this info. I was going to buy a Pit bull because "they" all said it's a very "people friendly" breed and very loving towards children. And that child....horrible...I won't buy "any" dog in my life.

DubV said...

" As a student who took five college English courses I can say that you're attempt at being "clever" and "funny" by comparing the deaths of children via mini-blinds and dog-mauls is sad and pathetic."

Yes, because taking 5 college courses in English makes one an expert in logic and critical thinking. LMAO

DubV said...

Many of chisa's criticisms were around points of the analysis that actually help the pit bull's case. I'm very surprised that a college student with 5 english courses under their belt hasn't already moved to super brain status and is able to parse these things better.

Carley Norton said...

I have to say however that is very unfortunate for that family and child and my heart goes out to them. But pitbulls solely are not the only dogs that attack people I have had numerous pitbulls and not one of them has ever bitt anybody if anything they have been around childen and let them jump all over and pull there ears amd did nothing to harm them but kiss them to death. You cant punish a dog for doing what the owner taught it to do its the owners fault not the dogs. The people who need to be punished are the ones thag are misusing there power and rasing them to fight. Out of all the dog breeds pit buls are the most loyal to there owners and strive to make therw owners happy. You dont see all this when a german shepard for eample attacks some one or any other breed at that. Dogs are all on how who train them and people need to stop stereotyping this breed. Hell their are other breeds out there that are more aggressive and strongee then pitbulls. How about people start talking about banning them too. I will always have pitbulls and my kids will grow up with a pit bull.

Anonymous said...

A dog is only as good as the owner who trains them and chihuahua is just as likely to bite a child as a pit bull its what the owner teaches them that makes their personalities. Plus your asking that the government kills other people dogs what would you do if I asked them to kill you pet? You wouldn't be to happy would you? I have a neighbor that has 2 pit bulls, 1 german shepherd, and a rottweiler, we also live right behind a park so we get a lot of homeless people trying to live near our house those dogs have scared so many of them away trying to protect both me and their owners. I love those dogs and their not even mine.

United We Stand said...

You know it's funny you say people should be able to state and defend their opinion on things quote: "f the pit nutters are so certain that their positions are correct and ours are so dead wrong, why is there such vehement opposition to our voices?" then why is it that you ONLY approve the comments that agree with your opinions, why don't you let other people share their opinions? Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Anonymous said...

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/11/12/wikipedia-chihuahua-strikes-again/ you should really look at this website I think it might teach you a thing or two about dog breeds. (P.S. it might have something to do with the fact that all dogs and be dangerous)

United We Stand's Follower said...

My friend tried putting a quote in her post by you "if the pit nutters are so certain that their positions are correct and ours are so dead wrong, why is there such vehement opposition to our voices?" Well you need to approve every one's opinions well your a hypocrite if you want to here facts United We Stand will give you all the facts that not all pit bulls are dangerous and if you want I will give you a several page comment on why pit bulls can be very loving creatures. I suppose you won't post this because it goes against what you believe in but if you do decide to post this I am glad that you decide to not be hypocrite. I am not saying this to be an ass I just want me and my friends opinion heard I hope that is not to much to ask.

dawn james said...

"Plus your asking that the government kills other people dogs"

no you fucktard. no where in there have i "asked the govt to kill other people's dogs". seriously, are dishonest, dumb or too fucking emotional to follow the conversattion?

"then why is it that you ONLY approve the comments that agree with your opinions, why don't you let other people share their opinions? Seems pretty hypocritical to me. "

you have no fucking idea what i approve and don't approve. you are self entitled, impatient little twat. just because you don't get immediate gratification, you assume that i am censoring. why would i censor you? you're an idiot. you help prove my point.
did you actually READ the link or just look at the photo of the snarling chihuahua and assume that it proved your point? there is nothing in that to bolster your opinion.

by the way, you are not fooling anyone pretending to be 2 or 3 people. 8:21, 8:31, 8:33 and 8:50. c'mon stupid.

feel free to post you "facts". i'm sure we will all be amused.

REAL FACTS, not the histrionic bullshit from the mothership.

Anonymous said...

Funny how you jump down rob's throat for moderating comments when you clearly do the same.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

what the fuck are you talking about? do you even know?