Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Are some dogs unsafe?Follow

#1 Nov 07 2005 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,596 posts
Ioph Summary wrote:
A 10-year-old boy was in critical condition Sunday after three pit bulls escaped from a home and went on a rampage, attacking six people before police shot and killed dogs, authorities said.


Entire Story wrote:
Marauding pit bulls attack six
Boy, 10, in critical condition

CARY, Illinois (AP) -- A 10-year-old boy was in critical condition Sunday after three pit bulls escaped from a home and went on a rampage, attacking six people before police shot and killed dogs, authorities said.

No charges had been filed Sunday, but McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren said it was being investigated as a crime scene.

Neighbors said the attacks started late Saturday afternoon when children going door-to-door for a fund-raiser arrived at the home of Scott Sword, 41, who owned the dogs.

"We had music playing, and I heard this bizarre sound," said Debby Rivera, who lives three houses away. "I looked out the window, and I saw a young boy. The dogs were just jumping on him."

"The screams were horrible," she said. The dogs were "relentless, like they were possessed."

The pit bulls attacked the two children, and when the dogs' owner tried to stop them, the dogs turned on him and bit off his thumb, Nygren said. The boy's father also tried to protect his son and was attacked. The dogs went after another neighbor as well.

"The scene sprawled over a couple blocks; it was a very chaotic scene," said Lt. Michael Douglas of the Cary Fire Protection District.

Residents threw rocks at the dogs and honked car horns to try to distract them from attacking before police arrived and shot the animals.

Jim Malone said he and a neighbor tried to beat the dogs back with baseball bats. "He'd hit them, they'd run, and they'd come back," Malone said. "This went on for 15 minutes."

The boy who was attacked, Nick Foley, was hospitalized in critical condition Sunday. His friend Jordan Lamarre, also 10, was in serious condition. Nick's father was listed in good condition. Sword and two others were treated for injuries and released.

Last week, another 10-year-old boy in Colorado was mauled by a pack of pit bulls that attacked him in his own back yard. The boy was in critical condition after the attack, and the hospital said Sunday his family had requested no further information about his condition be released.

The attack in the Denver suburb of Aurora came two days after the City Council banned pit bulls and other "fighting dogs." Owners who already had the dogs could keep them if they paid a $200 annual license fee.




Should some breeds of dogs be restricted or outright banned because of the damage they can do if loose? Is it every persons right to have 7 pitt bulls if they want? Who should choose what breeds are "safe"?
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#2 Nov 07 2005 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
Jim Malone said he and a neighbor tried to beat the dogs back with baseball bats. "He'd hit them, they'd run, and they'd come back," Malone said. "This went on for 15 minutes."


Pitbulls are nails hard.
#3 Nov 07 2005 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Ultimately the owner is responsible for his animals.

Do we need yet another regulation telling us what we cannot do? No, in my opinion, we do not. What we need is stiffer penalties for the owners of violent animals. And we need to enforce them without remorse or pity for those who own these animals and then throw their hands up in distress, claiming "My Petey wouldn't bite nobody!"

The owner of these animals should be sentenced just as if he committed the acts himself. And it should always be so. Would that stop animals form attacking people? Certianly not. Would it stop all dumbasses from from owning violent animals? Certianly not. Would it reduce the likelihood of this sort of incident without infringing on my priveleges? Yup.
#4 Nov 07 2005 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
xythex wrote:
Should some breeds of dogs be restricted or outright banned because of the damage they can do if loose? Is it every persons right to have 7 pitt bulls if they want? Who should choose what breeds are "safe"?


Regardless of breed or common disposition, responsibility should rest soley with the owners. You want 28 pit bulls, go ahead. Those pit bulls kill a kid, guess what; you go to jail for 2nd degree murder or negligent homicide.
#5 Nov 07 2005 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I agree. There are occasionally mean animals, but for the most part these behaviors are encouraged and sometimes even bred for by some dog owners. Pit bulls and rottweilers both have nasty reputations, for example, but I've always found them to be loving pets and kind to children.
#6 Nov 07 2005 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
How to deal with such threats:

1) Get a tranq gun, and go round up some wolves and wombats
2) Break into the front door of the pit-bull owner's house and release said animals.
3) Whilst doing so, have a small group of friends nail his doors shut.
4) Point and laugh.
#7 Nov 07 2005 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This was the topic on morning Pubbie talk radio with the usual host of opinions ranging from "They're wonderful dogs" to "Demand liability insurance" to "Kill 'em all". My personal favorite was someone who said that this incident showed that everyone needed to own firearms because people are being terrorized by criminals and can't fight back because only the criminals have guns. To which my obvious mental question was "Holy sh[i][/i]it -- pitbulls with guns?" Anyway, this is Cary, Illinois we're talking about. It's not exactly the heart of downtown Chicago and someone could have gotten the gumption to take an axe or a sledge to the dogs if they wanted to kill them and were just lacking a .30-06.

I don't claim to know jack about the dogs beyond what the media's told me. Trying to find decent information on the web is slightly more futile than trying to find unbiased studies on abortion. It would seem that one could come up with a study of proportion of attacks per breed and whether or not hospitalization was required ("severe condition" or worse) and make some judgements from there but, without information like that, I'm just saying "Sure seems like a hella lot of attacks -- get rid of 'em."

This of course would only lead to a slippery slope where we're only allowed to own newts and goldfish and both must be encased in bubblewrap at all times.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Nov 07 2005 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
This of course would only lead to a slippery slope where we're only allowed to own newts and goldfish and both must be encased in bubblewrap at all times.


Right up until some kid got wrapped up in the bubblewrap and died. Then we'll have to crusade against bubblewrap.
#9 Nov 07 2005 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
This of course would only lead to a slippery slope where we're only allowed to own newts and goldfish and both must be encased in bubblewrap at all times.


I tried that for my gold fish, but it died of asphyxiation because it kept floating. I learned my lesson, so for the next one I tied a lead weight to it. I don't know who but it died just as fast but we didn't notice until the gold fish became a green fish.

Now I just keep pet rocks in the aquarium. Those don't seem to mind the bubble wrap.
#10 Nov 07 2005 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
The pit bulls attacked the two children, and when the dogs' owner tried to stop them, the dogs turned on him and bit off his thumb


Well, the owner tried atleast...

He's going to have a hard time playing video games without that thumb though...
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#11 Nov 07 2005 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
Now I just keep pet rocks in the aquarium. Those don't seem to mind the bubble wrap.


Real nice, until your rocks crush some kid to death, maybe we should all own rocks, hell lets just let rocks roll wild down the streets, it's the American way right. WTF is wrong with you baby killer. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#12 Nov 07 2005 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
It's per dog, not per breed IMO, as well as the handler. I grew up as a little kid surrounded by German Shepards, Rottweilers, and Dobermans and I could play rough with them and all they would do is lick my face. And then I've watched my brother have his cheek ripped off by a Cocker Spaniel for petting him. It was a dog we knew but was not ours own dog.

Like a person, you can have animals with mental issues, and there will be some dogs out there where no matter what a handler does can not be assured the dog will not attack. If that is the case, the handler should either get rid of the dog or make sure they are no where near kids.

But in most cases its going to be a mixture of the dogs personality and how the handler treats the dog. The handler should be held 100% responsible and if a dog attacks I believe it should be destroyed immediatly
#13 Nov 07 2005 at 10:28 AM Rating: Decent
**
991 posts
Any dog can become "unsafe". Granted, some species are more prone to this sort of behavior. I had a chocalate lab which are, by nature, docile. However, my dog was absolutely crazy and if he ever got out into a neighborhood, I would not put an attack on another individual past him. You can never be 100% sure of the quality of dog you are getting now because of all the cross-species breeding that is occurring. Labradoodle FTW!

With that being said, people should not be allowed to own a "vicious" dog unless they are completely under surveillance at all times. Also, dogs should be required to go to obedience school and owners should be required to take a course on how to keep these dogs under control to the best of their ability.
#14 Nov 07 2005 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lady deadsidedemon wrote:
It's per dog, not per breed IMO, as well as the handler.
Be that as it may, if there's a statisticly significant spike in attacks by a single breed, it's certainly worth looking into. Likewise if attacks result in significantly more damage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Nov 07 2005 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
It's per dog, not per breed IMO, as well as the handler.


It is both, some breeds are specifically bred for aggression and fighting - the pitbull being one example.

These are the real hardcore dogs
#16 Nov 07 2005 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
I agree there are definitely some breeds out there more prone to attacking than others. But is that because they are specifically bred for and taught in a harsher way? I've watched a small dog attack more viciously than a large "attack breed" and have learned from my own personal experience that it is the dogs (not breed) personality and the way it has been trained by its handler that is the most important factor when deciding if a dog is unsafe.

Edited, Mon Nov 7 10:54:10 2005 by deadsidedemon
#17 Nov 07 2005 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
From the CDC

Characterizing deaths from dog attacks
Injury Center researchers examined data about deadly dog attacks that occurred during 1979–1998. They found that at least 25 breeds of dogs had been involved in the fatal attacks. However, pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths for which the breed was known.


I recall seeing a video once where they mentioned jaw pressures. IIR labs were around 500psi vs. pitbulls around 1400psi (I may be off on the numbers but the ratio should be pretty close.)

I believe England has a muzzle law for pitbulls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#18 Nov 07 2005 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
It's allot easier to subdue a terrier with a Dead Blow Mallet than a Rottweiler in an attack.
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#19 Nov 07 2005 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Do most of the attacks occur because of the breed of dog (some kind of genetic marker for violence), or is it because that's the breed that people train to attack?

Not many people buy Chihuahua's for "home security", so is the breed getting a bad rap because it's powerful and smart enough to learn to sic?

Edited for clarity, still not that clear though Smiley: mad

Edited, Mon Nov 7 10:58:42 2005 by Wintaru
#20 Nov 07 2005 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
I agree with DSD, it is the way a dog is raised. The owner who chooses to turn the dog into an attack dog is the problem.

Someone could turn any dog into an attack dog, which would be a threat to neighbors and attack like the pits in the articles.

The problem is that if you chose to create a vicious dog, it would obviously be more effective if it is a more obedient dog, larger and with very strong jaws. Pitbulls fit this description perfectly.

If pit bulls are outlawed then these type of people will just chose the next most suitable breed for which to do this. The problem will not be solved this way.

The only solution is to hold the owner responsible for criminal negligence if the dog is found to be trained into an attack dog that is a threat, and a person is harmed because of this.



#21 Nov 07 2005 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lady deadsidedemon wrote:
I agree there are definitely some breeds out there more prone to attacking than others. But is that because they are specifically bred for and taught in a harsher way?
I think the question is one of whether or not we can determine if the breed is intrinsicly (and significantly) more dangerous than other breeds.

Sure, there's probably people who can breed and train cuddly lovable pitbulls who wouldn't scratch their own ears for fear of harming the fleas. But it's a question of the breed as a whole, not anecdotal evidence about how you knew a nice dog. Saying the dog should be destroyed after it attacks or the owner fined or arrested does little to help those attacked after the fact.

Really though, I'm just playing the other side. I still don't know enough to be the guy who makes the final decision
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Nov 07 2005 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Injury Center researchers examined data about deadly dog attacks that occurred during 1979–1998. They found that at least 25 breeds of dogs had been involved in the fatal attacks. However, pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of the deaths for which the breed was known.


Is a larger dog that was bred for fighting more likely to inflict serious damage? Certainly.

The numbers are also skewed to make these dogs look worse than they are because of the owners involved. A lot of the people that buy pits and other "vicious" breeds fall into the category I call "dumbasses." These same people, no matter what breed of dog they own will wind up owning a dog that's poorly or not trained. I bet if you were to survey the families of the owners involved in the statistcs above, you'd find an abnormally high number of arrests for various offenses involving theft, drug abuse and domestic violence. Why? Because that's how trashy people exist.

Until you outlaw trashy people, you'll always have this sort of problem. Putting requirements on ownership will only make them into outlaws, it won't make them into responsible people. Life is full of nasty suprises and the best I think we can do to deal with this is to penalize the owners of animals that attack so harshly that the risk vs. reward factor kicks in.
#23 Nov 07 2005 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
Putting requirements on ownership will only make them into outlaws, it won't make them into responsible people.


It might make the first generation and even second generation into outlaws but eventially it will cost several thousand dollars to obtain one of these "illegal dogs" the people you describe are unlikely to be willing to commit that many resources to obtaining one. It's the same reason you don't read about rampant tiger attacks, its not because people are too responsible to know they might not be able to reasonably care for a tiger.
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#24 Nov 07 2005 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Until you outlaw trashy people, you'll always have this sort of problem. Putting requirements on ownership will only make them into outlaws, it won't make them into responsible people
Meh. You hear the same arguement in gun control arguments.

Likewise, belt-fed machine guns remain illegal for the simple reason that they're significantly more dangerous in Bobby Trailerpark's hands than a .45 pistol.

I don't know if "they'll just raise mean poodles" is a good reason to not restrict or prohibit pitbulls.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Nov 07 2005 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
I fail to see how it's "worth it" to restrict the privileges of everyone in order to regulate some people. I have no intention of owning another pit (had several when I was a kid) but I don't want anyone telling me I can't do so.

I'd rather take the risk of having my dumbass neighbor own a vicious dog than to give up my right to own one even though I will never exercise that right. As far as I'm concerned, you can shove the greater good where the sun doesn't shine when the cost is my freedom of choice.
#26 Nov 07 2005 at 11:24 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Outlaw dumb droolong attack dogs and before you know it people will have bred attack cats. That would be REALLY scary.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 296 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (296)