I hate all dogs, so I guess I have no "dog" in this fight.

But you do like jammin cats right

I guess I do. I do have chickens, but they serve a purpose.

No.... I can be objective and open minded about the issue. The only problem is that no such data exists. All compiled data says the opposite of your point and you guys turn a blind eye to it or try to discredit it because you got one with a decent temperament. You guys need to look past your living room and look at the big picture.

All of this talk slamming PITBULLS and grouping them all together without removing variables like how they are raised just amuses me, it would be like grouping all BLACK MALES into the same category as thugs. So with this in mind does it mean you think all black males should be exterminated?

You would have better luck convincing Al Sharpton he is racist than to get a pit owner to admit pits are a dangerous breed.

There's a reason why virtually no insurance company will insure your property if you have a pit, or even a bulldog period for many companies. Everybody has their isolated exceptions, but for the most part they are powerful and aggressive. It's not necessarily that they even are the most frequent biters, it's the severity when they do (vs other breeds). Pits didn't get an arbitrary reputation, it's well earned.

Because the research is very skewed. The only time data is collected is when a fatality occurs. It is very simple to say, "oh, most dog bite fatalities are due to pit bulls, therefore pit bulls must be an inherently aggressive breed". Association does not equal causation. It is clear that certain breeds are over represented. But why are they over represented?

Top three aggressive dogs I see in the veterinary field? Without a doubt, pit bull, rottweiler, german shepherd dog. What do all of these dogs have in common? Usually the dogs are not socialized, have very poor medical care(we typically only see them when they are in bad shape), and spend their life on a chain in the yard. Most of the time the owner is afraid of the dog. Are they abused? Usually easy to tell, but hard to prove.

But why these breeds? 95% of the dogs aforementioned, were owned by blacks. For some reason, the culture of most of them places status on tough, macho dogs, hence the breed selection.

A basic tenet of the scientific method is to collect data, formulate a hypothesis, then collect MORE data to test this hypothesis. These "studies" collect data, actually collect isn't the right word, copy data and jump to conclusions that aren't scientifically valid.

I do look past my living room. That why I said "people" problem. A dog is just a dumb animal in comparision to human intellect. Usually anyways. Some people are just dumb, and have no business taking care of any animal. Just like if you brought a goat into your house and it chits on the floor. Aint the goats fault. Its the stupid human.
How can you call yourself open minded when you fail to look at anything other than some one sided, propoganda, b.s. You say you hate them. Fine. But know your enemy. Try getting both sides of the story, before you make your decision.

Now thats funny!!!

No. To compare a problem animal with a race of human beings is asinine.

This will be my one and only serious reply to this thread, only because I know everyone was sitting around saying "man, I just wish Gomer would weigh in on this topic", so here it is.

As a Doberman owner, I'm familiar with the "vicious dog" stereotypes from people that don't know much about a breed other than what they read in the news or what they've seen from 1 or 2 isolated incidents. Dobermans still get stereotyped as vicious or aggressive, although much less than 20-30 years ago. Keep in mind they were originally bread as a personal protection dog for tax collectors who were prone to being robbed. They also were used extensively by the Marine Corp for many years as war dogs. But, over the last 3-4 decades, most of the aggression has been bred out of them. That, coupled with their extreme intelligence (generally considered to be in the top 5 smartest breeds), makes them extraordinary family pets.

I say all of that to say that I am sensitive to unfounded stereotypes about breeds in general, and I try to keep an open mind about them and not judge individual dogs, of any breed, by their reputation that may or may not be deserved. That includes pit bulls. One of the sweetest dogs I've ever been around was a 90# pit.

BUT.....while I won't necessarily judge them all by their reputation, I'll never fully trust one either. Does EVERY pit bull deserve the reputation that the breed as a whole has? No. But it's not completely unfounded. To say that the entire breed is not more inclined to "snap" than most other breeds is just ignorant or flat out denial. And what makes them particularly dangerous is that if/when they DO flip, they are more capable of inflicting serious damage than just about any other breed.

I won't "kill every pit I see", but I won't trust them around my family, especially an unfamiliar one that runs up. It may be the sweetest dog in the world, much like my friend's that I mentioned above, but I will never fully trust one.

I don't like pits. But as a damn American we should be able to own whatever dog we want. The owners need to have better sense. With that said, A damn blue heeler is a mean stupid dog. Imo. I had a blue lacy one time. Dang good dog, she bit me, then she went to see baby Jesus. Had a Jack Russel bite my two year old daughter. If you got toddlers and dogs, it's a risk you take. Just my $.02

I haven't been to that site you are talking about. There are hundreds of instances in the newspapers every single year.





I don't recall saying I hated them. I don't trust them but I don't "hate" them.

As far as getting both sides of the story, how about showing me some data that refutes what we hear all the time. Nothing subjective.... some good ol hard data showing Pitts are trustworthy and are truly a "misunderstood breed".

This completes today's discussion.

Because evidence that flat out shows a dog is a "safe" breed cannot be obtained, just as evidence that shows a dog as a dangerous breed cannot be obtained. There are way to many variables that come into play that cloud the data.

I think that actually makes the point. There's a reason every brutha doesn't have a beagle chained up in the back yard. Yet, statistically, I think that's the #1 most frequent biter (according to crap we see in insurance reports). Even if I thought your beagle was agressive, I'm not afraid of it. But if a pit, or Shepherd, or Rottweiler comes at me, that's a different story. And there inlies the "deal" with those dogs...again, it's the severity.
Those stats shown probably aren't reflective of "frequency of attacks", but that's not the deal is it??? Again, your beagle can bite my ankle 20x and it just pisses me off. But when that pit jumps on someone (especially a youth, or person unable to fight it off), it's curtains.

Good post

I agree and disagree with your statement. Sure there are variables that cloud the data. With that said even if it were only 70% (hell even 40%) accurate the Pitt is still the runaway winner by a landslide for most dangerous and unpredictable breed.