Father's 4 Pit Bulls Kill His 22-Month-Old Son

[Calphool]

so I'm wrong for having a chow mix in a family house?

No, not necessarily, but you're taking a statistical risk that you might want to consider. If you're like many chow owners, you didn't even consider it when you decided to get one.

it is NOT the dog that kills, it is the PEOPLE. Seriously.

This is like saying "it's not the gun that kills people, it's the people using it", which of course is true, but it doesn't negate the fact that gun control legislation has a legitimate purpose (few people agree that it would be ok for you to have a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon).

think about the type of people that <i>generally</i> own pits- the shady type of people who want their dogs to be mean.....

In the case of these breeds, both the risk severity and the risk frequency are elevated. This is indisputable, and has been studied by the CDC for 20 years or more. It's not relevant who owns them. (Unless you'd like to argue that we should lock up dog owners whose dogs bite neighbors or their own children, in which case you'll find me on your side.)

AND there are a lot of dogs that are wrongly labeled as pit bulls so of course the "numbers" for bites by pitbulls are rather high- because it's the wrong breed of dogs.

I trust the CDC to label properly and to cross check their statistics. Apparently you don't.

U know those little toy breeds that run at you and start growling/nipping at your ankles? that's techincally considered an attack- but because they're small nobody thinks its aggressive behavior- instead oh gosh its cute!

Yes, well, in the risk management discipline, both frequency AND severity must be considered. Statistically it takes thousands of bites from a toy to match the damage done by one attack from a large dog. Both mean severity AND mean frequency must be considered in assessing risk.

people saying that all chows/pits/rots are "bad dogs" and cannot be "trusted" are racist- literally. it's like saying "well, black people commit the most crime in inner cities, so LETS BAN THEM!" think labs are sweet dogs? no they're not.

This is a poor argument on multiple levels. First, I didn't say anything about these breeds being "bad dogs". I said that they're dangerous. If we define "dangerous" to mean "statistically more likely to result in my death by attacking me" (which seems quite reasonable as a definition to me), then statistically, they ARE more dangerous. Second, this argument is insipid because it equates dog breed ownership rights with human rights, which is an affront to all humanity. Am I a genocidal racist because I believe we should destroy all traces of anthrax except one or two specimens in a lab somewhere? After all, it's just another race of bacteria. Where do we draw the line? Bacteria? Worms? Rodents? Cats? Dogs? Primates? Where does common sense stop and racism start in your world? For me, racism starts at humans. All organisms do not have the same rights as people.

I'm quite stubborn about this issue- because people who think like you are (im sorry) idiots.

This is "argumentum ad hominem", and I will not comment on irrelevant opinions about my mental status.

so here's just a few light readings

I read your articles, briefly. These appear to be a series of articles composed largely of:

1) Red herrings
2) "Who is to say?" fallacies
3) Fallacies of exclusion
4) Argument by innuendo
5) Straw Man fallacies

I'm not saying pit bulls <b>never</b> attack people, they do, BUT I'm saying you cannot JUST ASSUME that if its a pit, it's dangerous. OTHER DOGS DO bite and injure/fatally kill people.

Of course other dogs bite people. I never argued the opposite. This is an example of a "false dilemma" and a "false attribution" fallacy. I simply stated that pit bulls, and several other breeds, are qualitatively more dangerous than other breeds, and as I've explained above, I think my definition of "dangerous" is quite reasonable, and supported by statistics.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you guys who think all pits/chows/etc are vicious would get FACTS, not just "i saw, i said, she saw, she said, he saw, he said."

My opinions are based on CDC reports and aggregate CLUE data for the United States (shared property casualty insurance industry claim information -- perhaps you're unaware that many insurance companies won't write homeowners insurance for you, or will jack up your rates if you own one of the breeds listed in the CDC's studies). However, the CDC stats alone are enough to justify the conclusions I've made without regard to the CLUE data. Ultimately, to form an opinion based on evidence, you must trust some source. I've chosen to trust the Center for Disease Control.

again, it's the PEOPLE that make the breed dangerous- even if it might not be the owner itself it's the breeder for purposely breeding to make the dog mean.

Your argument is accurate to the extent that it is relevant to what we're discussing, but it does not encompass the totality of the argument.

Can a person make an animal mean by mistreating it? Yes, of course. Is there a correlation between the size of an animal and the severity of the damage it can do to a human being? Yes, of course. These are both facts, and should be indisputable by all (however if you'd like to debate them, go ahead and put up some credible arguments or statistics showing the contrary). Now, correlation can never be assumed to represent causation (that's a fallacy), but from a pragmatic perspective, we often don't deal specifically with causation in law, for a number of reasons (too expensive, too dangerous, too time consuming, etc.) So, correlation is often used to justify law, or to set insurance rates, or many other things.

• If we can agree that these two assertions are facts, then we should be able to agree that large dogs are statistically more dangerous than smaller dogs by nature of their size alone. We should further agree that there is some theoretical size limit, which all sensible people would agree should be imposed on dogs. (In other words, it's not reasonable for someone to breed a 10,000 pound dog through genetic engineering, because said dog would be inherently dangerous due to its size.)
• If we agree this far, then we can discuss natural selection, and its effects on temperament. We should be able to agree that through natural selection, or through animal husbandry, selective pressure can be introduced to a species to give it characteristics that make it more or less amenable to cohabitation with people. Elephants for example have been naturally selected to be poor companion animals. Tigers, cobras, scorpions, lions, and hosts of other animals are poor companion animals due, largely, to selective pressures. We should further agree that it would be possible, but undesirable, for someone to breed or genetically engineer a dog with unfavorable inherent characteristics (like razor sharp teeth, or a spiked club-like tail, or 12 inch claws, etc.)
• If we agree this far, then we can discuss dog breeding. As a result of animal husbandry practices and natural selection, we should be able to agree that some dogs are more fit for human cohabitation. Wild wolves for example tend to be poorer companion animals (even those raised as puppies), than say, a beagle.
• If we agree this far, then we should be able to agree that some of us have a legitimate concern about large dogs, and/or dogs with particular animal husbandry histories. You may disagree with where we've chosen to draw the line, but you cannot legitimately call us "idiots". We simply disagree on where to draw the line.

I can keep on going all day all night, people. That's because I'm well-equipped with the FACTS.

As am I, and while I enjoy a spirited debate, I question your use of the word "FACTS". It appears that you are actually "well equipped" with "fallacy", and those anecdotal articles you pick and choose which support your cause. This, in and of itself, is a fallacy, called "biased sampling." If you would like to point out where I have miscategorized your argument, I'm more than willing to listen and discuss.

 

[oneeeyore98]

For all of you who say they are bad. Does she look like she is hurting my daughter. No looks like love and happy to see you after school. She is a year and I also have a 3 month old male who just happens to be deaf. Also just to let you know all the dogs that are reported on some are not pit bulls they are look a likes. Dogs that look like pit bulls.

[/IMG]

 

[Fo'Shizzle]

For all of you who say they are bad. Does she look like she is hurting my daughter. No looks like love and happy to see you after school. She is a year and I also have a 3 month old male who just happens to be deaf. Also just to let you know all the dogs that are reported on some are not pit bulls they are look a likes. Dogs that look like pit bulls.

[/IMG]

EXACTLY!!!!


btw beauitful girl and puppy you got!!

 

[Maria]

Aw that's so cute ! Perfect example !

 

[Angel]

Be aware that there is controversy over the safety and appropriateness of pit bulls around children. You will not find unbiased information about any breed if you confine your study to conversations with nonprofessionals, websites of breed fanciers, breed specific publications, or rescue / adoption groups. In the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips, the most dangerous breeds, and therefore the most unsuitable, are pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and Chows.

It is apparent that the "pit bull gene" is slowly spreading into the traditionally gentler breeds and producing vicious Labradors, Golden Retrievers and other anomalous progeny. You cannot look at a puppy and know its pedigree.

The source of the dog therefore is also very important. A responsible, professional breeder can be counted upon to show you puppies that are normal and healthy. A pet store is more convenient but you must immediately take the dog to a veterinarian for a thorough check-up.

Other sources include a nonprofessional breeder, an animal shelter, and a rescue / adoption group. However, a dog from any of these comes with a degree of risk. There are three factors that produce the risk. One is the dog lobby's refusal to acknowledge the dangers of the pit bull, and its organized opposition to the enactment of reasonable restrictions on the proliferation of this unpredictably vicious dog.

Another is the lack of standardized evaluation protocols, which would have to include the taking of a thorough history of the dog's behavior and lineage, a thorough veterinary review, and the administration of a reliable temperament test.

The third is the absence of a uniform code of ethics which would include a prohibition against releasing into the community any dangerous dog or any dog that could not "pass" the comprehensive evaluation previously described.

If you do not seek a responsible, professional breeder or a good pet store, it will be difficult for you to determine whether the party with whom you are dealing has appreciation for the dangers associated with certain breeds, has made a responsible decision that the dog being shown is indeed adoptable, or can be trusted to strictly avoid placing a vicious dog in your home.

Incredible as it may seem, at this time there are some official, governmental animal shelters which release dangerous dogs to rescue groups that are known to place these same dogs in the homes of seniors and families with small children -- all of which is done under the misguided belief that viciousness, which in fact was bred into certain breeds, will always evaporate in a loving home. These shelters and rescue groups actually believe that they know dogs better than anyone else, and that their practices are ethical. In fact, they are misguided.

None of this is meant to discredit animal shelters and rescue / adoption groups in general. A parent simply has a tougher time and more risk getting a dog from them as opposed to a reputable breeder or store. This will remain true until there are standardized evaluation protocols and a strictly enforced code of ethics along the lines mentioned above.

For more information, visit the American Kennel Club's very informative web pages for Future Dog Owners. The AKC provides a wealth of information and advice about selecting a dog, choosing a breeder, caring for your dog, and much more.


DOG BITE LAW - Advice for Parents About Getting a Dog

 

[oneeeyore98]

Angel I do agree that you should check your dogs background but, a pit bull can pass a temperment test too. I have had my girl (Angel) since she was 10 weeks old. I have had no problem with her and besides my 8 yr. old daughter I have a 2yr old son. They have never been attacked all she does is love them with kisses. I also have friends with kids my dog does not harm them. My boy (Stubby) who is deaf he is about 4 months he has not harmed them either he is still a puppy and is trainning but, I know that he will do just fine. Not cause I love them to death but because I do train and walk my dogs every day. That is what it really takes.

 

[oneeeyore98]

Royal Majesty thank you they are beautiful.
This is a picture of my boys sleeping.

 

[Calphool]

For all of you who say they are bad. Does she look like she is hurting my daughter...

First, I never said they were "bad". I said "dangerous", and I defined my meaning of dangerous.

Your photo is anecdotal... it doesn't mean anything when we're talking about law and social policy. I'm sure you love your dog. You're missing the point (or you're choosing to miss the point).

I'm sure Adolf Hitler was sometimes nice to people. That doesn't mean he was a model citizen. It doesn't mean that we should encourage people to act like him as a matter of public policy, which is the heart of the debate we're having.

 

[Calphool]

Angel I do agree that you should check your dogs background but, a pit bull can pass a temperment test too. I have had my girl (Angel) since she was 10 weeks old. ..... Not cause I love them to death but because I do train and walk my dogs every day. That is what it really takes.

No one disputes that taking good care of a pet will reduce the likelihood that it will attack you.

The heart of the argument is this:

• There are breeds of dogs which are statistically more likely to harm you due to the combination of their size and their breeding history.

It is not disputed that harming ANY animal will encourage it to attack. This is common sense. It is, however disputed that this is the only factor that determine's a dog's likelihood to harm you. I totally disagree with that idea. No other behavior of any organism anywhere is determined SOLELY by one variable.

If we agree that an animal's breeding has SOME influence on its behavior, then it is only a matter of degree that we disagree on. Once it becomes a matter of degree, then the question becomes: "How much does a dog's breeding affect its behavior versus its training?" Since we presently have no credible studies (at least none that I've seen) that quantify this unknown by breed, as a matter of public policy, I believe we should err on the side of caution, and should encourage legislation (perhaps with sunset clauses contingent on better information) that either limits my ability to purchase certain breeds, or in the very least requires certain breed owners to prove that they have adequate insurance coverage for any potential victim of their animal, and to prove that they have notified their insurance carrier that they own such an animal.

 

[oneeeyore98]

First, I never said they were "bad". I said "dangerous", and I defined my meaning of dangerous.

Your photo is anecdotal... it doesn't mean anything when we're talking about law and social policy. I'm sure you love your dog. You're missing the point (or you're choosing to miss the point).

I'm sure Adolf Hitler was sometimes nice to people. That doesn't mean he was a model citizen. It doesn't mean that we should encourage people to act like him as a matter of public policy, which is the heart of the debate we're having.

Do not compare my dogs to Adolf Hitler. All I am saying is that it is in the way they are cared for is how they will be. And I read a article by the cdc they say right there pit bull types which means not just pit bulls so there are some that are good. And I was not just talking to you. Oh and did you that Petey the dog from Little Rascals was a pit bull.

 

[Calphool]

Do not compare my dogs to Adolf Hitler. All I am saying is that it is in the way they are cared for is how they will be. And I read a article by the cdc they say right there pit bull types which means not just pit bulls so there are some that are good. And I was not just talking to you. Oh and did you that Petey the dog from Little Rascals was a pit bull.

Ugg... you missed my point in the Adolf Hitler analogy. I wasn't calling your dog Hitler. I was saying that anecdotal examples of good behavior don't mean that a thing is inherently safe. Hitler was just used to illustrate the point that anecdotal behavior is not meaningful. It had nothing to do with your dog, and I wasn't comparing your dog to Hitler. (I was comparing your argument to the idea that Hitler was sometimes nice. In other words, what difference did it make that he was sometimes nice? He was still a dangerous man.) I could have just as easily illustrated my point by using skateboarding. "I'm sure there are skateboarders out there somewhere that have never suffered a broken bone. That doesn't mean skateboarding is inherently safe."

When the CDC says "pit bull types", what do you think they mean? I think they mean dogs with pit bull genetics -- in fact, they track it that way -- they keep pure breads separate from mixed pit bulls. The statistics still show that BOTH types of dogs are qualitatively more likely to kill someone than other breeds.

Obviously there are examples of pit bulls that have never bitten anyone, and will die of old age having never bitten anyone. I'm sure most of them have good owners that walk them and feed them and play with them every day. That's not really the point. The point is that some breeds of dogs (not just pit bulls) carry genes that make them larger and potentially more dangerous than other breeds. This is a matter of public concern, not just private ownership rights.

It's wrong to tell me, or people who agree with me, that we're crazy or uninformed. Some of us are quite informed, and we simply disagree with you. If someone can show me a credible study showing that dog behavior is totally uninfluenced by genetics, I'll kindly apologize and shut up. Until that time, I'm justified in encouraging legislation that limits ownership of these animals, or at least forces owners to be responsible for the inherent risk they're imposing on themselves, their children, me, and my children.

 

[Cheri]

oneeeyore98,

Nice pictures of your pitbulls but pictures can lie too, your dogs could be sweet dogs but in the future? who knows? You got to understand that it's in their blood, Pitbulls do have horrific streak of bloody maulings, pit bulls have gained a reputation as the country's deadliest dogs, Look at pictures, look how many children have been attacked or died in the result of pitbulls attacks. That's not something you could say that oh pitbulls just had bad owners, but that doesn't mean every pitbull that attacked or bite had bad owners. I don't buy it, and I refused to believe it too. Why do you think some states and countries already banned pitbull dogs? Yet, I don't see them trying to banned other certain breeds, just pitbulls. What does that tell you? It tells me that pitbulls are the most aggressive dogs than any other breeds, because there are much more cases of dog bites than any other breeds too. Theyre strong dogs, majority of those who died from pitbulls attacks were children {usually unsupervised} they intend to bite and just rip off a child's face, arms, legs you name it, they won't stop until a child dies, or until someone stops it (the owner or the police). This is the risk you gotta take, because you're the owner of pitbulls dogs, and you know if your pitbull goes out and attacked someone, You'll be the one faces charges do you know that? Even if you weren't a bad owner. I would be frighten if I were you, or if I were in your shoes. I wouldn't want to go to jail because my dog did the deeds.

 

[Mistyrose]

Cheri....You are soo focused on pitbulls only, that i dont understand..we are trying to tell you the whole point that ALL types of dogs, no matter what breed, mutts, ALL animals do BITE. Sure, pitbulls bite, so does, poodles, dobermans, pomeranans, beagles, etc.
As i said, previously, my sister in law had to put her very expensive one year old beautiful Malamute to sleep because he bit a nieghborhood lady in the leg
last October, real bad, i mean it was mangled. Malamute is a very big dog, much bigger than pitbull! This lady had to go to emergency room to have her leg stitched up and my sister in law is expecting this lady to sue them any time soon. Malamute are NORMALLY very good natured and kid friendly dog!
My sister in law has two children, a 12 and 10 year olds...the vet said this dog has potential of 80% of biting again and there are other kids in the neighborhood and the 2 kids in the family, so sister in law is not taking chances of him biting again so she and her husband had to put him to sleep..really sad!
If MY DOG EVER bite anybody, of course, we will have him put to sleep! no
doubt about that at all..
Im just baffled as to why you are so focused on pitbulls only....you have to
understand not only pitbulls, but ALL DOGS DO BITE! OK?
Oh, by the way, sister in law had a malamute before she had this one year old
one, it was a 12 old one before he died and he never, ever bit anybody, weird huh? The vet dont know why this one year old bit this lady..he did autopy this one, he found no reason why he did, he did not have rabies or any disease...geez...
Please dont be mad at me, Im just trying to tell you that not only pitbulls but
all kinds of dogs can be dangerous, ok?
Have a nice, blessed day!!

 

[Cheri]

Defree hun,

The reason I focus only on pitbulls because there are 280 cases of pitbull attacks more than other breeds, While you are correct about all dogs had done their share of deeds on attacks but not as much as pitbulls, Do you understand where I'm going on this? I apology if I'm hurting responsible pitbulls owners like you that we might have gave pitbull a bad name, the way it may sounds like it to you, but you have to understand our feelings too, while I do understand yours.

 

[Fo'Shizzle]

Royal Majesty thank you they are beautiful.
This is a picture of my boys sleeping.

Awwww I like that picture. Its so cute.... Bless their Heart!

Thats also a beautiful dog you got there... Looks like one of my white pitbulls!

 

[Angel]

No one disputes that taking good care of a pet will reduce the likelihood that it will attack you.

The heart of the argument is this:

• There are breeds of dogs which are statistically more likely to harm you due to the combination of their size and their breeding history.

It is not disputed that harming ANY animal will encourage it to attack. This is common sense. It is, however disputed that this is the only factor that determine's a dog's likelihood to harm you. I totally disagree with that idea. No other behavior of any organism anywhere is determined SOLELY by one variable.

If we agree that an animal's breeding has SOME influence on its behavior, then it is only a matter of degree that we disagree on. Once it becomes a matter of degree, then the question becomes: "How much does a dog's breeding affect its behavior versus its training?" Since we presently have no credible studies (at least none that I've seen) that quantify this unknown by breed, as a matter of public policy, I believe we should err on the side of caution, and should encourage legislation (perhaps with sunset clauses contingent on better information) that either limits my ability to purchase certain breeds, or in the very least requires certain breed owners to prove that they have adequate insurance coverage for any potential victim of their animal, and to prove that they have notified their insurance carrier that they own such an animal.

Beautiful, well said there!!!

 

[oneeeyore98]

Look you are entitled to your opionion it is just before I owned one I was just like you. All I am saying is that they are not all bad and there are breeds bigger that can kill. I had a black lab when i was little and I took it for a walk. When it saw another dog it ran with me still holding the leash. When I let my 8yr old daughter walk my 1yr old pit (Angel) she has never done that she stays by her side even when other dogs bark. Oh and the lab was bigger my girl is only 50 pounds my lab was 80.
Also our friends have my girls sister and she is with a chihuahua she has never bit her. As a matter of fact the chihuahua is dominate. Our friends girlfriend had the chihuahua first but has had pit bulls all her life. She is the reason I got my Angel and then got my boy Stubby. Like I said he is deaf. And have you heard that Petey from Little Rascals was a pit bull.

 

[oneeeyore98]

Ugg... you missed my point in the Adolf Hitler analogy. I wasn't calling your dog Hitler. I was saying that anecdotal examples of good behavior don't mean that a thing is inherently safe. Hitler was just used to illustrate the point that anecdotal behavior is not meaningful. It had nothing to do with your dog, and I wasn't comparing your dog to Hitler. (I was comparing your argument to the idea that Hitler was sometimes nice. In other words, what difference did it make that he was sometimes nice? He was still a dangerous man.) I could have just as easily illustrated my point by using skateboarding. "I'm sure there are skateboarders out there somewhere that have never suffered a broken bone. That doesn't mean skateboarding is inherently safe."

Look your argument is that it runs in there blood so if Hitler had kids would you kill them cause it is in their blood? Or any killers kids for that matter. No you wouldn't cause they could be great people no matter what their parents did.

 

[Angel]

Important information to remember that pit bulls are not just like any other dogs breeds out there and they're little more of everything a dog can be.. Pit bulls are strong, energetic, and most powerful dogs which they can easy develop behavior problems if poorly bred, mishandled, abused, unsocialized, etc., that could result in being aggressitive which can do a lot of damage...

Any child don't know any better what it's like to treat or raise a pet, sometimes children can be rough while playing with a dog, or teasing it, they're putting themselves in a risky position in which they can be likely attacked...What happens if the owner already has an older pitbull, and suddenly brings a newborn baby in the house, even the dog hasn't socialized or been around a newborn baby yet, then what's going to happen to this newborn child?...I'm not trying to point this out in reference to pitbulls only, but all I'm saying here is that any large, strong, and powerful dog in which attacks can or could do a lot of damage to a child, an adult or any other kind of household pets....The bottom line is Pit bull owners may need to take extreme measures to assure that their dogs can't be in such a situation where and when a life can be endangered or maimed for life....

 

[GalaxyAngel]

May some owners who giving lot of lovable pit bull will not going attack which it's lucky have great treat good family.
I like to ask you, personally are you adequate your pit bull all the time or let your pit bull alone social w/your children without supervision? If suppose happened pit bull hurt your child. How will you feel about your pit bull have happened *snap* turn into bad behavior for no reason. Will you put your pit bull a sleep or keep this dog must increase discipline more? What if your child or teenager or Elderly got mauled and killed by your pit bull and what will you do your pit bull ? I know it's very hard mix your feeling about this serious questionnaire! Doesn't matter as long you have to prepared in case if happens.


May some owner who not giving lot of lovable pit bull, whatever if owner let pit bull stay outside backyard without leash. May be happen attack child/teenager/Elderly or their pet out for walk.. Lead into worst bad repluation the owner.

I hope this clear it up.. I'm not here to say that your dog is not supposed be.. I will not... as long make sure you're doing right thing.. that is simple.

Happy pet!