You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
-1

[–] draaaak 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I'm not trying to dispute the stats or statements you've posted, but there are some things worth considering, some of which you already hinted at...

The media mostly only reports on bites from specific breeds. A few decades ago it was Dobermans, then it was German Shepherds, then Rottweilers, and now it's Pits. All these dogs have something in common, they are strong, highly intelligent, loyal, and trainable. They excel in these departments more so than most other breeds, which is why they are selected for protection/defense services.

Ever notice how the media likes to demonize firearms every chance they get so they can push the gun control agenda? Well, they seem to do the same thing with dog's used for defense. The way the Pit Bull is portrayed by the media is much like how they use the AK47 to symbolize the "evil" of firearms. And Pits and AKs also have quite a bit in common. They are easily identified by silhouette alone, cheap, rugged, dependable, and powerful. They are the perfect dog for people who need a guard dog, but can't afford a Doberman or a Shepherd, just as the AK is the ideal firearm for the poor, low skilled, and desperate. This comparison is not a criticism of either Pits or AKs, they are both popular for very good reasons.

There are different lists out there of the dog breeds which are guilty of the most bites. It can be hard to find, but I have seen top 10 lists featuring Poodles, Goldens, and Labs in the top 3 spots. Having worked with dogs for several years, I can confirm that these "family" dogs are rarely trained or controlled by their flippant owners and get into a lot of trouble with bites, but they are also often treated differently by the legal system than are Pits. Many cities have breed specific legislation requiring the immediate execution of Pits, while offering second chances for other breeds. Thanks to the media's influence, people have become radicalized against Pits, and are more likely to report bites from Pits, even if no actual bite has occurred. I have dealt with this first hand, it's infuriating. It's like how SJWs call rape when a man looks at her "with intent". Something else to consider, I've found that when a Pit bites, it's more likely to do more damage than a less burly breed, they are just really strong and committed. They do less bite-release-bite-release, and more bite-hold-shake. The former leaves punctures and some tearing, the latter shreds flesh down to the bone. This isn't to say that a Golden (or whatever) isn't capable of inflicting serious trauma, it's just more likely from a Pit or other Bully breed. Ever look inside an English Bulldog's mouth? It's the stuff of nightmares.

Also, Pits are victims of systemic black irresponsibility, they are victims of thug life. Just like with guns, responsibility is the difference between owning dogs safely, keeping them from hurting others, and owning dogs recklessly, by not training them, and not keeping them out of trouble.

Also also, I guarantee that those stats you've presented include bites occurring when the dog was rightfully defending it's owner and/or it's owner's property, just like how "gun death" stats include suicides, which more than double the figure. Just a little typical statistical tinkering to push the disarmament agenda. So maybe in this way, I am trying to dispute Time's stats, but I don't have the figures, just a theory.

I'd like to see some stats about what percent of pits are owned by Blacks and Hispanics, and what percent of Pits, and dogs in general, that bite are owned by Blacks and Hispanics. And I'd like to see that same stats for Whites and Asians.