Quote from madmunny:
lets see....in the US each year
440,000 people die from smoking
46,000 people die from car accidents
4000 die from drowning
1500 from firearms
350 die in farm accidents
sooo....do they ban smoking?? automobiles???? swimming??? guns??? and what about farming???
Nope....fromwhat i know all of these things are still legal for just about anyone to do anywhere in the US.
Now....how many people have died from dog attacks each year you ask? I will even do you one better...i will give you the numbers for a 19 year period from 1979 to 1998.....
238! of which they claim 76 were from pitbulls or "pitbull types".
so 76 people died over 19 years from these dogs (and i can guarantee you that at least a 1/4 if not 1/2 of these would have been by another breed of dog because the vast majority of people that see a dog with bared teeth automatically call it a pitbull but for this forum i will grant you the numbers are correct) and you want to ban them. So why does your righteousness not want to ban swimming? Thousands of people die each year from swimming and less than 4 people die from pitbulls? Were is your logic? Maybe we should ban farming. Obvioulsy this is a very dangerous profession and we should protect the uniformed farmer that doesnt know better. I would say lets ban guns but then im sure you people would come back with the brilliant arguement that if we banned guns how would we kill the 10 dogs that attack people each year so maybe we should keep guns legal. And cigarettes should definitely remain legal because the we need something to help relieve the stress of all these dog attacks. And vehicles...well we need the vehicles to transport all the dog attack victims to the hospital so we should keep them to no matter how many people die in accidents.
lol...the funny part is im guessing my sarcasm will have no effect on you people. You are all to ignorant to understand that everyday in every city there are people dieing from smoking, guns and car accidents but we never hear about it anymore because they are so common they arent news worthy. But a dog attacks someone once ever 4-5 months in the entire country and it gets sensationalized and splashed all across the papers and news because it is the only thing left that might shock the masses due to its rareness.
So shut the f*ck up about banning a certain breed of dog because two of them a year attack someone. Its the equivalent to saying lets throw every young black male in jail because a few of them in the inner citys are in gangs and sell drugs and kill each other. Ifs a f*ckin retarded mentality that just shows your ignorance at the facts or reality.
Once all you righteous people have banned cars, guns, cigarettes, swimming and farming......and locked up every black male under the age of 40 just in case they might shoot someone or sell someone drugs........then come talk to me about banning pitbulls.
Your swearing and vulgar language looks as bad as an ugly pit bull itself. And your logic is so twisted and fallacious that it's laughable.
Your comparison to smoking, swimming/farm/firearm accidents is fallacious at best and incredibly dishonest at worst. You CANNOT compare the statistical likelihood of an ACCIDENTAL death or the statistical likelihood of a self imposed risk such as lung cancer to the statistical likelihood of a deterministic external threat like that of a pit bull killing or mauling. That is comparing apples to tennis balls, not even oranges. For you to make the statistical comparison you be FORCED to argue that all pit bull attacks/killings are ACCIDENTAL and yet, your incomplete sample set indicates that pit bulls and rottweilers DOMINATE the killing roster. Furthermore, for you to argue that, 'oh look, 46000 people die in car accidents, therefore 238 pit bull killings don't matter much', from a humanistic point of view, is just appalling. Every death, no matter what the cause is a tragedy, and NO AMOUNT of pointing to other causes makes the one we are discussing less urgent or dangerous. If anything, pit bull killings is a horror that we CAN COMPLETELY BRING TO AN END. You can't do that with car/farm/swimming accidents. In keeping with the statistical truth of the matter, can you explain to me why some INSURANCE companies have REFUSED to insure pit bull owners? Surely Mr MadMunny, you are more informed/reasonable than their statisticians and analysts who actually do REAL RESEARCH and number crunching for a living?
Of the 10 breeds/crossbreeds I counted, only 2, or 20% were responsible for 50% of the attacks (66 + 39 + 10 + 5) / 238. The 2 breeds/cross breeds are the pit bull and rottweiler, which belong to the SAME family of dogs. Does that look like randomness to YOU? And you're not even counting the last 10 years of data, which I am pretty sure would reveal even worse numbers because of the fact that pit bulls have only come to be such popular/macho prizes in the last decade or so, fueled by the images of dumb rappers/gangsters and the like on tv. Further, the table you attached (would you care to give all of us the source?) only considers FATALITIES, not maulings.
Based on the numbers alone, I would call you incredibly irresponsible for having those dogs within reach of your children and others. I pray that you won't have to learn through a tragedy that the external risk that you are taking is just not worth it.
Now I strongly urge you, stop and think hard about the above for a second before starting to curse and insult people. And also try getting a basic book on statistics and read up on statistical significance, because your reasoning is extremely weak, full of emotion and not cold hard facts.
