We Should Ban You From Owning Dangerous Things...
Ha, I really need to stop listening to idiots argue. It distracts me later on from enjoying my freetime to do things like play Skyrim.
I started reading a discussion on banning of dangerous dog breeds. Mainly, the dog to be banned was Pitbulls, since that is a very popular breed to ban at this moment in time. In yesteryear, those dog breeds would have been the German Shepherd, the Rottweiler, the Doberman and the Chow Chows.
I don't agree with dog-breed bans. Hell, I don't really agree with total bans of anything, even if they are proven to be dangerous to everyone (such as smoking. Smoking is a terrible habit, and truly has lasting consequences for both the smoker and those involved with second-hand smoke. But while I don't think it should be legal to smoke in public places, I can't support a total ban of it-hooray for freedoms to be an idiot I guess). I do, however, agree with not letting certain irresponsible people have pets, but that's a different matter.
First off, the term Pit Bull is not actually about a type of dog breed. They are a compilation of dog breeds. While most official sources put about 3-5 dog breeds into this blanket group, the Average Joe (the average media is included) includes about 15 separate breeds into this category. We do not do this for any other type of dogs to this degree. We do not use a general grouping for all Shepherds (German, Australian, Afghan, Anatolian, etc.) or for all Terriers (Yorkshire, Silky, Airedale, American Wirehair, Cairn, etc.) when one of the breeds get into trouble. Nobody doubles down on all Shepherds in case a German Shepherd attacks a person or even just attacks another dog. They focus on that specific breed, the German Shepherd. If we follow this same logic, than not all Pit Bulls would be banned but those specific dog breeds that are directly related to attacks.
We also find out that overall, the Pit Bull attacks are much smaller than the media hypes, because having the attacks spread across 15 separate breeds dilutes down the number of attacks to numbers resembling other breeds on the list per year. Ironically, even with encompassing all the breeds they do in Pit Bulls, because of the national popularity of the dogs; the attack ratio is actually much less than dogs that are not being proposed for bans, such as the Rottweiler, the German Shepherd, the Chow, the Great Danes and the Saint Bernard. The actual chance of being attacked by a Pit Bull type of dog is small. I'm more likely to die by a falling coconut in the good ol' USA than be attacked and mauled by a Pit Bull. I don't cower in fear of raining coconuts, so I am perfectly fine knowing there are Pit Bulls in the world. Does it mean I don't practice common sense if I see a dog I don't know? I keep my distance. make sure not to run suddenly (whether towards or away), make sudden sounds, or piss my pants in their presence. I act normal, keep walking, and keep an eye on the dog. I have yet to be attacked by any dog that is wandering the streets.
The Pit Bull as an overall group of dogs also has a much higher pass rate of docility when tested than other breeds. The docility test (whether they attack with/without stimulus, when near food, get defensive, nip, etc. when stressed, pushed, reached over, etc.) includes all dog breed results. The average pass-rate is considered to be 77%. Some breeds score lower than that, and some higher. The Pit Bull group is at 83.9% pass rate. That beats out the Beagle and the Retriever as family-friendly dogs. The Beagle is at 78% and the Retriever is at 83.2%.
The Pit Bull reputation is also hurt by the fact that we are demonizing them as dangerous animals. If raising a certain breed becomes more work (such as requires more check-ins, paperwork, insurance) than another breed, or quite frankly, isn't well received by neighbors/causes tensions than a family expects it to; it is more likely to be viewed as a hassle to the owner. It is than more likely to be neglected, and more likely to be abandoned. Abandoned/neglected dogs are more likely to revert back to aggressive behaviors since they are usually not well-fed, not well-socialized and not well adjusted to their surroundings. The Pit Bulls are also more likely to be used in dog fighting, a very abusive and negligent environment that leads to physically aggressive dogs. Since the breed is being hyped as 'dangerous' and dog fights gain money by people betting on the dogs that will likely win (the scary/dangerous dogs), than the Pit Bull becomes a favored choice. That's not the fault of the dog breed itself, but a fault of people. We create our own monsters. Cracking down hard on the people who bet/participate in such a sport, and not the breed itself, would cut down a lot of that problem.
The Pit Bull isn't a more aggressive dog breed, but it is indeed a stronger dog breed. Pit Bull attacks (due to their jaw strength/shape) will deal more damage, that is true. Any large group of animals that feed into pack mentality is also dangerous. Large groups of dogs tend to have the same outcome of having a large group of kids watching a fight. Instead of the others stopping the fight, they cheer it on. By-stander effect, pack pressure, whatever you want to call it, feeds aggression and territorial behavior into dogs. Larger numbers are also harder to fight/scare off. This occurs in all groups of dogs. The reason why we hear so much about Pit Bull attacks is because of the victims (despite the fact that victims are about the same across all breed attacks). Its a fact that most of the Pit Bull victims are children and elderly people, and this seems to only exacerbate this trend of dangerous bites. Children cannot fight off a dog attack as much as a healthy adult can. They are quicker to perish from serious wounds as they have less blood, less muscle mass, and less resistance to infections from the wounds. Elderly people face the same problem. However, children have been killed by small dogs like the Jack Russel Terrier when left alone with the dog. Children dying from dog attacks is a trend of dogs being dangerous when left alone with small children. Which, to be fair, all things are dangerous to small children. Bathtubs, plastic bags, blankets, dressers, washers, dryers, statues, pennies, electrical outlets, etc. Small children should not be left alone with anything when they are practically a walking hazard sign, especially since small children do not read body language at all. They will not understand that yanking a dog's tail is unacceptable without another human there to stop them before the dog retaliates with physical aggression.
This rate of dog attacks is due to humans underestimating the dangers of dogs, a specie that has been domesticated but has roots from the wild. With humans living more and more on top of each other, and with more households owning dogs than ever before in the USA; we experience more dog attacks. More dogs are being abandoned, or left to roam outside for hours while the owner takes a break from watching them. Dogs, however, are their own sentient specie, and thus can act outside of your expectations. Whether that be through defending your life when a burglar breaks into your house, or by attacking you when you run past them is up to the dog and most likely, how well you have trained/raised the dog. Lax dog owners who laugh when a dog nips will more likely have a dog that turns to a full-on bite. Most attacks by any dog is due to human actions (suddenly running away, sudden jerky movements, squealing, getting in dogs face, breaking up dog fighting, leaving a baby/toddler alone with a dog, etc.). If a dog attacks me because of something I did, it is due to the dog being an animal and I was being an idiot. I don't hold that against a dog, or a dog breed. This is the behavior that people have to change, not the fact that there are breeds out there that cause dog attacks/fatalities. If people were smart (a tall order, I know) than we could really lower the amount of dog attacks the USA sees every year. But we won't, because it would require knowledge, and a willingness to not focus on the easy way/least amount of work, method.
I started reading a discussion on banning of dangerous dog breeds. Mainly, the dog to be banned was Pitbulls, since that is a very popular breed to ban at this moment in time. In yesteryear, those dog breeds would have been the German Shepherd, the Rottweiler, the Doberman and the Chow Chows.
I don't agree with dog-breed bans. Hell, I don't really agree with total bans of anything, even if they are proven to be dangerous to everyone (such as smoking. Smoking is a terrible habit, and truly has lasting consequences for both the smoker and those involved with second-hand smoke. But while I don't think it should be legal to smoke in public places, I can't support a total ban of it-hooray for freedoms to be an idiot I guess). I do, however, agree with not letting certain irresponsible people have pets, but that's a different matter.
First off, the term Pit Bull is not actually about a type of dog breed. They are a compilation of dog breeds. While most official sources put about 3-5 dog breeds into this blanket group, the Average Joe (the average media is included) includes about 15 separate breeds into this category. We do not do this for any other type of dogs to this degree. We do not use a general grouping for all Shepherds (German, Australian, Afghan, Anatolian, etc.) or for all Terriers (Yorkshire, Silky, Airedale, American Wirehair, Cairn, etc.) when one of the breeds get into trouble. Nobody doubles down on all Shepherds in case a German Shepherd attacks a person or even just attacks another dog. They focus on that specific breed, the German Shepherd. If we follow this same logic, than not all Pit Bulls would be banned but those specific dog breeds that are directly related to attacks.
We also find out that overall, the Pit Bull attacks are much smaller than the media hypes, because having the attacks spread across 15 separate breeds dilutes down the number of attacks to numbers resembling other breeds on the list per year. Ironically, even with encompassing all the breeds they do in Pit Bulls, because of the national popularity of the dogs; the attack ratio is actually much less than dogs that are not being proposed for bans, such as the Rottweiler, the German Shepherd, the Chow, the Great Danes and the Saint Bernard. The actual chance of being attacked by a Pit Bull type of dog is small. I'm more likely to die by a falling coconut in the good ol' USA than be attacked and mauled by a Pit Bull. I don't cower in fear of raining coconuts, so I am perfectly fine knowing there are Pit Bulls in the world. Does it mean I don't practice common sense if I see a dog I don't know? I keep my distance. make sure not to run suddenly (whether towards or away), make sudden sounds, or piss my pants in their presence. I act normal, keep walking, and keep an eye on the dog. I have yet to be attacked by any dog that is wandering the streets.
The Pit Bull as an overall group of dogs also has a much higher pass rate of docility when tested than other breeds. The docility test (whether they attack with/without stimulus, when near food, get defensive, nip, etc. when stressed, pushed, reached over, etc.) includes all dog breed results. The average pass-rate is considered to be 77%. Some breeds score lower than that, and some higher. The Pit Bull group is at 83.9% pass rate. That beats out the Beagle and the Retriever as family-friendly dogs. The Beagle is at 78% and the Retriever is at 83.2%.
The Pit Bull reputation is also hurt by the fact that we are demonizing them as dangerous animals. If raising a certain breed becomes more work (such as requires more check-ins, paperwork, insurance) than another breed, or quite frankly, isn't well received by neighbors/causes tensions than a family expects it to; it is more likely to be viewed as a hassle to the owner. It is than more likely to be neglected, and more likely to be abandoned. Abandoned/neglected dogs are more likely to revert back to aggressive behaviors since they are usually not well-fed, not well-socialized and not well adjusted to their surroundings. The Pit Bulls are also more likely to be used in dog fighting, a very abusive and negligent environment that leads to physically aggressive dogs. Since the breed is being hyped as 'dangerous' and dog fights gain money by people betting on the dogs that will likely win (the scary/dangerous dogs), than the Pit Bull becomes a favored choice. That's not the fault of the dog breed itself, but a fault of people. We create our own monsters. Cracking down hard on the people who bet/participate in such a sport, and not the breed itself, would cut down a lot of that problem.
The Pit Bull isn't a more aggressive dog breed, but it is indeed a stronger dog breed. Pit Bull attacks (due to their jaw strength/shape) will deal more damage, that is true. Any large group of animals that feed into pack mentality is also dangerous. Large groups of dogs tend to have the same outcome of having a large group of kids watching a fight. Instead of the others stopping the fight, they cheer it on. By-stander effect, pack pressure, whatever you want to call it, feeds aggression and territorial behavior into dogs. Larger numbers are also harder to fight/scare off. This occurs in all groups of dogs. The reason why we hear so much about Pit Bull attacks is because of the victims (despite the fact that victims are about the same across all breed attacks). Its a fact that most of the Pit Bull victims are children and elderly people, and this seems to only exacerbate this trend of dangerous bites. Children cannot fight off a dog attack as much as a healthy adult can. They are quicker to perish from serious wounds as they have less blood, less muscle mass, and less resistance to infections from the wounds. Elderly people face the same problem. However, children have been killed by small dogs like the Jack Russel Terrier when left alone with the dog. Children dying from dog attacks is a trend of dogs being dangerous when left alone with small children. Which, to be fair, all things are dangerous to small children. Bathtubs, plastic bags, blankets, dressers, washers, dryers, statues, pennies, electrical outlets, etc. Small children should not be left alone with anything when they are practically a walking hazard sign, especially since small children do not read body language at all. They will not understand that yanking a dog's tail is unacceptable without another human there to stop them before the dog retaliates with physical aggression.
This rate of dog attacks is due to humans underestimating the dangers of dogs, a specie that has been domesticated but has roots from the wild. With humans living more and more on top of each other, and with more households owning dogs than ever before in the USA; we experience more dog attacks. More dogs are being abandoned, or left to roam outside for hours while the owner takes a break from watching them. Dogs, however, are their own sentient specie, and thus can act outside of your expectations. Whether that be through defending your life when a burglar breaks into your house, or by attacking you when you run past them is up to the dog and most likely, how well you have trained/raised the dog. Lax dog owners who laugh when a dog nips will more likely have a dog that turns to a full-on bite. Most attacks by any dog is due to human actions (suddenly running away, sudden jerky movements, squealing, getting in dogs face, breaking up dog fighting, leaving a baby/toddler alone with a dog, etc.). If a dog attacks me because of something I did, it is due to the dog being an animal and I was being an idiot. I don't hold that against a dog, or a dog breed. This is the behavior that people have to change, not the fact that there are breeds out there that cause dog attacks/fatalities. If people were smart (a tall order, I know) than we could really lower the amount of dog attacks the USA sees every year. But we won't, because it would require knowledge, and a willingness to not focus on the easy way/least amount of work, method.