Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's beyond me how people think owning a pitbull as a family pet is a good idea...
- Thread starter tzhu07
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are welcome to expose you kids to whatever pet you want to, no insinuations.
I'm more of a cat person, to be honest. And I doubt anyone here will have a statistic about how cats kill people. Oh, and I never plan on having kids. I don't like kids.
So now you just want to argue that dog attacks are rare in general, which completely skirts the actual topic. I thought this thread was oriented along the lines of "pitt bulls are more dangerous than other dogs" (admittedly, I haven't read the whole thread). It seems, from your own statistics, that pitt bulls are not only vastly overrepresented in dog attacks but they inflict more serious injuries. To offer that dog attacks are infrequent overall is immaterial, the question is how do they behave relative to other dogs.
Actually, this thread's initial post states that having a pit bull around a child is dangerous period. Not dangerous relative. It's "a disaster waiting to happen", apparently. The notion pushed by the first post is that it is likely for a pit bull to attack a child. And that is what I'm arguing against. Having a Pit Bull around a kid doesn't equate to "and then it attacked my kid" in 99.9% of situations.
When discussing the safety of a particular dog breed, it is reasonable to infer that this is a relative risk under discussion, otherwise why mention a particular dog breed?
However, post #3 establishes a concern with the relative danger compared to other dog breeds.
You may read it that way. Another reading is that "in the event of an attack, having a pit bull (as opposed to another breed) around children is a disaster waiting to happen." The OP is at best ambiguous, but I think the intention is clear, especially in light of post #3.
That's a pretty simple assertion to argue against; and I don't think anyone here has actually argued that in 99.9% of "situations" a pit bull will attack. Actually that's pretty vague. So you're arguing against a vague and non-existent point.
My roommates has one and is the sweatiest thing unless you are a cat. He even slept with me once.
That's until the day you wake up with his jaws clamped on your throat. <--- a joke in poor taste, admitted in advance.
We have 2 pits. Both are lap dogs. One is 14 and the other 8 years old. They get along great with each other and the 3 cats we have. In fact one on our cat will walk right over a sleeping dog. They look up and go back to sleep. So vicious.
You do know that any animal can suddenly turn and bite. They are animals not humans.
Yep. In fact my cairn nipped me last night because I accidently pet one of the sensitive areas on his legs from where he was abused. I am lucky I own a small terrier, didn't even break the skin.
Had I owned a pit that could have left me with a maimed hand. That's the difference.
The only dog bite I ever had was from a toy poodle. The little **** got me on my leg. 10 stitches. Came out of nowhere. No growling just bit me.
I've had Shepards and pits. All were sweet. Never a nip. Both pits we have now try to sleep with us every night. We don't allow it but the try. I can take food out of their mouths with no issues.
Agreed. It's how they're raised, not the breed. Plenty of other viscous dogs out there that aren't pits. The stereotyping of this breed is just getting out of hand; the vast majority of them are wonderful pets.
If the dog didn't break the skin, it wasn't trying to hurt you. Any dog including a pitbull, can nip without breaking the skin.
There are three dogs I won't own, pitbull, Akita's, and Rottweilers. I don't trust them around my grandkids.
It's only my opinion.
You better be careful, I was put in the corner one time for using the term "you people".
My friend has 4 pit bulls... I see nothing wrong with having them as pets.
Not all pit bulls are monsters.
Not all pit bulls are monsters.
Lighten up, it was a joke. BTW, when I was put in time out, it had nothing to do with race. Being ignorant, can apply to anyone, including you.
Ok, back to dogs. I will admit that I included the Rottweiler on my list, from personal experience and rumors. In an effort to diminish my ignorance, I googled most "dangerous dogs". Most of the time the Rottweiler comes in second behind the pitbull. The other sites I checked, they come in third and fourth.
http://www.themost10.com/10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/
http://www.curiosityaroused.com/nature/top-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-based-on-bite-fatalities/
http://puppytoob.com/dog-breeds/the-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-based-on-biting-statistics/10/
http://www.dognotebook.com/15-dangerous-dog-breeds-most-likely-to-turn-on-their-owners/3/
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-worlds-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/9/
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-dog-breeds/5/
Ah, some sources. What an excellent idea and thank you for going to the trouble of putting these sources together and posting them here.
Yes ... the most dangerous dog breeds ... when raised by horrible owners. They are powerful dogs and because they are powerful dogs they are raised to do stupid things for stupid owners. That is the entire point of all this. The dogs get a bad reputation because of bad owners. Pit bulls have a better temperament than golden retrievers. Rottweilers are slightly below retrievers.
There are no inherently bad breeds, just crappy owners. That's not to say that dogs aren't unique either. Some dogs, despite having a naturally good temperament, may just have issues, regardless of their breed. This is not breed-specific and can apply to any dog. Most of the time, however, problem pets ... or dangerous pets ... are a result of the owner ... nothing else.
There are no inherently bad breeds, just crappy owners. That's not to say that dogs aren't unique either. Some dogs, despite having a naturally good temperament, may just have issues, regardless of their breed. This is not breed-specific and can apply to any dog. Most of the time, however, problem pets ... or dangerous pets ... are a result of the owner ... nothing else.
Bollocks. This is like saying, "There are no inherently bad people, just crappy parents."
I won't deny that how a dog is treated can play a part in its behavior, but the thing has a brain of its own - it's more than capable of deciding to bite or otherwise attack someone REGARDLESS of how "crappy" the owner is, or is not. And some breeds do it more than others.
Your statement is so absolute as to lose a ton of credibility.
Dogs and humans are vastly different creatures. This is a terrible analogy.
Dogs are far more primitive than human beings. The dog breed in question has a better temperament than those that most people consider "good dogs". I also said that, despite this primitive nature, dogs are unique and are capable of having a better or worse temperament than their breed naturally has. Generally speaking though, when a dog is raised properly ... and socially integrated with children as a puppy ... there are little to no issues as the dog gets older ... and this applies with most breeds. By the way, some of those abused Pit Bulls that Michael Vick used as fighting dogs were rehabilitated and reintroduced into families. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Like I said above, I wasn't speaking in absolutes. There are cases where the dog goes against the grain. But this is not common. If you want to keep defending the incredibly false idea that pit bulls are just bad dogs, be my guest. But you're wrong.
By the way, thanks for taking one thing I said out of context and disregarding everything else I said, which actually somewhat agreed with what you were saying.