Taoist, your claim in incorrect, please educate yourself before stating such inaccurate comments. Here is the CDC's position on your false statement- 'There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.'

"Peace," my claim is that the pit bull breed is responsible than more human fatalities than any other breed, and the CDC's data agrees with this.

If not, then tell me - which breed is responsible for more human fatalities? You can't answer, because I am correct.

I didn't say anything about the rate of fatal attacks per 1000 dogs of a particular breed. I'm talking about raw totals, regardless of the number of dogs of a particular breed at any given time.

You need to think more clearly about this.

@Taoist -

You know what they say about animals being able to sense evil, right?

Wow how about that, an ignorant biased statement made by an ignorant hateful liberal. You are an idiot, Taoist.

Coconuts are responsible for more human fatalities than all dogs combined. Haven't seen a media call for banning coconuts yet. Don't even get me started about deaths due to people driving vehicles. So if a white, semi-balding, 33 year old man shoots someone; do we throw all white, semi-balding, 33 year old men in jail...stands to reason. Laws need to be inacted to punish those guilty of crime. Breed bans punish those that have done nothing wrong.

Actually, Chow Chow ,German Shepherd , Rottweiler , Great Dane ,Doberman, and St. Bernard are responsible for more fatal attacks in the US every year (per capita) than the American Pit-bull or Staffordshire (see below) The problem is bias news coverage and mis-identification of the breed. Any dog that remotely looks like a bull dog is labeled by the media, and sometime the authorities as a "pit-bull type dog" even though DNA testing could prove they don't have a lick of Pit in them.

Pit Bulls aka killer dogs

My irresponsible neighbor lets his rot and 2 pit bulls run free. They attacked my dog so I filled them with led. Now there's one less rot and two less pits to wory about.

Do you think I care? I don't.

I think it is a personal debate and that is a fact. Truth afer a 2 mth study for college the CDC does counteract their own information. It states that they have bitten more but yet then it states they are like normal dogs. This is true it is all in the way you raise them. Knowen fact. When studying I found that labs have killed 45 people. Surprised! Well just wait, a pomerian, small cute and just a nipper has killed a baby. They were actually bred for gaurd dogs. Every one wants to judge this breed but have no remorse for what the dog breed has been through. Yet we are not susposed to be racist. Pit bulls are used in fights yet no one really looks at pictures of these dogs fighting. Google pictures of dog fights. I know the first thing you will see is blood and teeth. Look beyond that. You will see a starved dog of weeks, with bones showing and possibly even a slab of meat laying on the ground. These dogs fighting are doing what animal instincts allow them to feel. Survival. If they don't win they don't eat. I ask what would you do. In movies it depicts people eating others to survive from plain crashes and other tragic world ending ideas. Yet no one goes off

on that. All dogs are animals. Animals have survival instinct. FYI look at Pit bull fatalities in the US and then look up Pit Bull population. Over 4 million Pit bulls were in the US I believe in 2010. Total of 8 dog fatalities and not all were Pit Bull. What are the stats on that. They have been proven to be the most popular breed. Now look up Pit bull bans I believe in Denver. Over 3,000 Pit bulls were pulled from their homes and killed. Piles of them. For a story that was over rated. First it was a pack of Pit bulls then it went down to one. The story was shocking. When you research and care to speak please have more then one source and also if it is not the full story keep researching. I personally have changed many peoples views on Pit bulls. Also look at how many attacks involved violence with the dogs and how many other dogs have killed. Media does not air and promote other dog attacks like they do Pit bulls

The CDC has 2 different opinions and more research should be done past that. Media is bias. Labs have attacked and killed 45 people. I have never heard of a lab killing anybody have you. Or the pomeranian who killed a little baby like 6 weeks old. Tragdies you probably never even heard of. CDC says they bite more then they say they don't. The writer talks about her dog (not Pit bull) biting someone. Wow surprise surprise, I didn't see that on the news. Fear is error. But To error is human. Do your research and then lets talk. Plus they are highly decorated in the military. #1 dog used in combat. It's okay if they die for you though huh! Not very patriotic I see.

I have known / owned 3 pit bulls in my life and guess what they were sweet dogs, Loved them and never hurt any one. THe female was the actually the sweetest dog I have ever seen. Also educate yourself studies show that no pit bulls are not top. Did you know that dalmations are top of biting kids!! just saying

I'll consider attending if you can tell me which breed of dog is responsible for more human deaths than the pit bull, without wading into the nonsense that "Peace" and Cindi Ashbeck are spouting about how we don't have any way of knowing what breed a dog is. Tell me - what dog is more dangerous, in terms of total human fatalities, than the pit bull?

@Taoist -

Perhaps it's the human beings that spurred the attacks in the statistics you cite - ever stop to think about that?

To James R Hoffa's comments about dogs "Sensing Evil" LMAO, You might be right on that because Pit Bulls are much more likely to attack and kill their owner than anyone else. After their owners most of the victims are children between age 5-9 years of age, and the elderly. So as for your paranoia about "trespassers!" That trespasser is probably some little kid who has tossed a ball or frisbee or some grandma pushing her walker down the sidewalk. This will all be proven when your dog bites your arms off and you land in the hospital. Because it can sense evil, of course.

Okay, so you tell me - what breed of dog is responsible for the most human fatalities? There are people who are killed by dogs, and there are statistics on those deaths.

Don't argue semantics; just answer the question and name the breed.

Uh, check with the UKC, Cindi.

You can't control 'the people'? Then why do we live in a society with laws and rules, with police departments to enforce them??? Communities with BSL on the books, banning particular breeds, have NOT decreased dog bites And zero leading animal welfare groups ( The Humane Society, ASPCA,, Best Friends, American Vetrinary Medical Assoc, etc etc) support BSL. BSL does NOT make communites safer, that is the bottom line.

I guess you just didn't bother reading the part about what my sister runs into on a regular basis, Peace. This isn't a once or twice a year thing. This goes on weekend after weekend. What do you think happens to these dogs, Peace? What kind of life do you think they're living up to the point where my sister comes in contact with them?

Sometimes the principle of the thing is outweighed by the compassion we need to show not only for the human community that suffers attacks from dogs like this, but for the dogs themselves. Use your head, not your heart.

I live in a community that does not have a leash law. A large apartment complex near me has a new owner. Management allows tenants to own dogs, which makes filling vacancies easier. The complex attaches to my neighborhood via a path through a wooded area.
Everyday 30- 40 dog walkers take this path to walk the dogs on the streets of my neighborhood, close to half of them are not on a leash. Also a gripe I have is that half do not pick up their dog waste unless they are being watched.
There are two pitbulls that are walked every day, one on a leash one is not. My neighborhood is full of small kids, thank God the pitbulls are well behaved.
Many of the owner's of dogs are idiots, it is not always the dog's fault that the master is a fool. Everyday I see a poorly trained dog acting up and think to myself if that were the pitbull, someone could wind up dead.
Most homeowners insurance will not allow a pitbull because of the incidence reports of bites. Chows are also on that list as well as Dobermans. Many renters do not have anything to lose, so they feel entitled to have an animal that is dangerous.
Should Pitts be banned? No, but they should be on a strong lead 100% of the time they are out, not a flimsey leash. I know of three good friends who had their own kids bitten/ attacked by the family dog. Only one was a pitbull, which nearly killed the child.How do we legislate owner responsability, and prevent stupid people from owning such an animal?

Bob.

If you ban the dog, then the ghetto scum will either still keep the dog, or choose a different, but similar, dog to fulfill their sick passions. If not a pitbull, it would be a shepard, or mastiff, or a dozen other breeds.

Oak Creek, while I understand what you're saying and I'm not completely sold on bans being a long term solution, there's currently, no doubt, a network of folks raising these dogs for the wrong purposes. If a ban of some sort could be used to short circuit the networks, perhaps responsible owners of other breeds could be dissuaded from giving into the temptation to sell their puppies and breeding stock to disreputable folks who'd set about building fighting stock out of one of the breeds you mentioned.

As noted, pits are not a true breed, but the archetype for fighting is something that's been developed over time. It would take a considerable amount of time to develop the same standard utilizing a new breed. In the mean time, fighting between breed is probably doing to have a limited attraction, since gambling is a crucial element of the :::cough::: "sport".

dogsbite.org is simply a website run almost entirely by an individual person who has an expertise in web design, access to google, and a desire to seek revenge on an attack that happened to her several years. Those are the qualifications behind the website. And it runs no deeper than that. listening to an "organization" that has no expertise, can lead to bad results. Again, their focus is not in the best interests of public safety...it's about getting revenge.

http://bslnews.org/2012/01/24/the-real-dog-bite-statistics-plus-media-myths-colleen-lynn-exposed/

Even the CDC has said the Dogsbite.org has out right lies and skewed information on their page. They are radical on the otherside of the arguement. At least the movie approaches the issue from both points of view.

Does that make what she has to say invalid?

That particular study was flawed. The CDC had this to say about their own study "It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.”

Cindi, you're just raising the "total fatalities" vs "rate of fatalities" issue. The CDC didn't take issue with their own data; they just questioned whether it should be a basis for policy-making. The data is clear. Pit bulls are responsible for more total fatalities than any other breed. You may not like this fact, but it's true.

And now think about your own position - you're elevating the importance of the rights and reputation of a particular dog breed above the safety of adults and children. To my way of looking at things, that is clearly a screwed-up set of priorities.

Yes, Avenging Angel, when a group attempts to spin their opinions into facts, that discounts everything they allege. There are zero valid scientific studies citing anything Dogbites.org reports.

And again Taoist, read my above statement from the CDC...but nice jjob, you keep on trying buddy!!

Taoist Because there is no such thing as a Pitbull, unless you are talking about the American Pitbull Terrier. Pitbull is a slang term for any of about 33 different breeds of dog (Stafford, Dogo, Boxer, Shepherd, etc, etc, etc) to which the combination of such is referred to as a "Pitbull." When they do not know what breed a "little" dog is; they call it a Terrier. So the answer to your question Taoist is "Mixed Breed Dogs."

One of the primary sources of information quoted to justify breed banning is a CDC report titled Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 published initially in 2000.
The Center for Disease Control conducted a 20 year study citing breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans to assess policy implications regarding those breeds and breed specific legislation. From 1981-1992 about 1/3 of fatal attacks were by pit-bull types of dogs and from 1993-1996 Rottweilers were responsible for about 1/2 of fatal attacks. It is important to note that fatal dog bites account for only .00001% of the total dog bites each year.
The CDC report illustrates more than anything that dangerous dog trends change (breed is incidental and subject to popularity and fad) through time.

While many people choose to focus on the numbers and breeds represented in that study, they fail to mention that ultimately the conclusion of the study was:
“Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers) other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates.
Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues.
Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
In fact, the vast majority of the CDC report discusses why breed specific legislation is NOT the proper avenue for addressing dog attacks. The authors of the report have personally gone on record to state that the report is INACCURATE and should NOT be used to justify BSL. "It is frustrating for me personally," Golab says, "because people who want to enact breed-specific legislation keep using that paper to try and make a case against pit bulls. But all we did was match breeds with fatalities over a 20-year period. And the numbers show that the breed that goes to the top changes over time, which suggests that something other than breed is responsible for the fatalities.

I think you should call the police. If anyone or anything is going to hurt me, that is what I would do

But then the dog would be forced to endure years of crank psychotherapy at the hands of Kathy Pobloskie and her ilk. It would be more humane to just put the dog out of its misery.

@Taoist -

You do know that trespassing is against the law, don't you?

Huffa,

It's not trespassing when a vicious dog runs onto your property and lunges at you. Or maybe your "Castle Doctrine" just applies to drunk teenagers, hmmm?

@Taoist -

Yeah, it is trespassing whenever the property of another is found on your property without invitation.

Oh, okay - I thought you were referring to my plans to chop or batter the hateful thing to death the next time it threatens me, my wife or our daughter. I guess we're on the same page, then.

@Taoist -

How you choose to exercise your humanity, or lack thereof, is up to you. Hoffa is merely conveying the legalities of the situation.

Heather, please review my sarcastic Tiger comment above.

Taoist you are so misinformed and misguided. Dogs don't bite because of they're breed, get it thru your head. If you have any goal to understand this topic, you will read this report. http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf

It's amazing how the inability to answer a simple question separates the clear thinkers from the hysterical ideologues. What dog is most responsible for human fatalities?

Take a deep breath (of air, Huffa - not model glue or gasoline) and try to answer the question like a non-crazy person.

Hey Ignorant Liberal DBag (Tao)

I know math isn't your strong suit, but look at the attack percentages listed:
http://www.1800petmeds.com/education/pit-bull-facts-and-myths.htm

Pitbulls are lower than chows, shepards, or rottweilers.

Get a life and an education, idiot.

oak creek reprobate,

My question is, simply, which breed of dog has killed more people than pit bulls in recent history? You have no answer for this question because the answer is, in fact, the pit bull.

Call me all the names you want; your inability to understand the difference between total fatalities and rates of attack is what's preventing you from coming up with an intelligent answer to my question.

Huffa,

It's abundantly clear that you don't have the integrity and / or mental acuity to answer the question, so you don't need to keep driving the point home. Huffa and puffa all you want, it won't make you feel better about being on the wrong side of the facts.

@Taoist

I am sorry that you don't understand percentages, and other simple math topics. More pitbull bites because THERE ARE MORE PITBULLS. LOWER OVERALL RATE.

Hard concept to understand, isnt it? Geezus H Christ you are dumb.

oak creek reprobate -

If the threat that pit bulls pose to the public safety was only a factor of the size of their share of the dog population, and they were no more dangerous than any other dog, then it stands to reason that labs and goldens would be killing more people than pit bulls, because they're more numerous. That's not the case.

So, by being more dangerous than other popular dog breeds AND more numerous than more aggressive dog breeds, pit bulls are an excellent target for regulation.

Not that I expect you to be able to think that through - it would require stringing two thoughts together, and that's an ability you haven't demonstrated to date.

Mixed breeds are responsible for the most dog related fatalities.

Actually, Chow Chow ,German Shepherd , Rottweiler , Great Dane ,Doberman, and St. Bernard are responsible for more fatal attacks in the US every year (per capita) than the American Pit-bull or Staffordshire.

Inrespective order. More childern are attached and injured by duchsands, because they were bred to hunt badgers therefore extremely aggressive dogs. It was not long ago a pomerainian mauled a baby to death.

So, if it's just the media that gives pit bulls a bad reputation, and they're not the breed of dog responsible for more human fatalities than any other, then which dog breed -is- the deadliest, historically speaking?

It's either the pit bull, or something else. If you think that it isn't the pit bull, in light of all of the actual data, then you have to have an alternative answer. An answer which, so far, nobody has been able to give.

And FYI, "statistics and data are all lies and we can't know anything for sure because of the media" isn't an answer.

In any case of violence involving man and an animal, Hoffa always looks for culpability in man first.

OCR: You are right to blame the dumb owner. However; Taoist has valid points, if his neighbor is an idiot and owns a pit that is out of control- that is a serious threat. I know I would have a 410 shotgun at the ready if I were in that situation. (those who reload their own shells can make a lethal but less dangerous load to prevent going through homes)
Call your insurance company and tell them you are considering a pitbull, they will tell you most Insurance Companies will drop your coverage if you own a pit. They can provide detailed studies that rank dogs for their danger. Like it or not, pits are at the top of the list. I might note that so is the German Shepard, but there are many more of those out there so the incidence of bites/fatalities is going to appear high.

Okay Kelly, so if pit bulls aren't responsible for more human fatalities than any other dog breed, then which dog breed is, in fact, the deadliest? It's either the pit bull, or something else, and so far nobody has anything intelligent to say about what that "something else" is.

That leads me to think that, as in most things, this brouhaha is just a bunch of people sticking up for things that they like (or own), without any regard for facts.

I just don't buy it. Why would there be a conspiracy to blame pit bulls for the attacks of other dog breeds? Because that's what you're suggesting - unless you think that people who work with animals for a living, including animal control and law enforcement personnel, who report these incidents, can't tell one type of dog from another.

And as for ripping dogs from homes and murdering them; I think that's a perfectly acceptable response when an individual animal is out of control. However, I don't think that requiring certain dog breeds to be registered, and banning any new dogs from the prohibited breeds, is beyond the scope of what a community should be able to do.

In that case, everyone with a (well-behaved) pit bull gets to keep it, no new pit bulls are allowed in the community, and after ten or fifteen years the pits are gone. If your life's calling is "rescuing" dangerous animals, and subjecting your neighbors to fear and danger, then you should live in a community that encourages your passion. I'm sure that there will be plenty of places where pit bulls are still allowed.

I appreciate the offer, and I'd consider it, if you would be so good as to answer the question I've posed 10+ times above, in good faith. What dog breed is responsible for more deaths than pit bulls?

If the movie in question doesn't provide an answer to that question, then I don't think it would be worth my, or anyone's, time.

@Taoist

overall number doesn't mean a thing unless you tie it in to overall population, and get a rate or percentage.

That is why nobody is answering you, your question is flat out stupid. Only simpletons would follow that route of logic.

Saying that pit bulls are responsible for more fatalities than any other breed isn't the same as saying that all of the dogs in that breed are killers. However, what purpose does it serve to deny the basic facts? My data is from:

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

but a little clear-minded research will yield the same results. Pit bulls aren't responsible for more deaths per dog than any other breed, but they are responsible for more deaths overall than any other breed. Consequently, the impact of regulating pit bulls would be considerably greater than regulating, say, pomeranians.

I don't need to know the answer - I already know it. What I'm emphasizing is that pit bull advocates are failing to be honest about the problem.

My other point is that if a community chooses to ban pit bulls, then that is a reasonable thing to do. They are numerous, and they are responsible for more deaths than any other dog breed.

There are far more labs than pits.
This is the issue with studies, they only report the cases of bites/deaths in numbers. If they would know how many pits are out there they could put a percentage on that.
I guarantee that the percentage of dangerous pits is much higher than the percentage of dangerous Labs, Goldens, and Shepards.

I'm just fascinated by people's ability to delude themselves. Hey, news flash! Pit bulls kill lots of people! More, in fact, than any other breed of dog!

I get that some people are attracted to things that are dangerous and difficult to control; just look at all of the women who visit their boyfriends in prison. I'm sure that there's a certain prestige involved in feeling like you've rescued and changed a dangerous animal; however, I wonder how many of the owners of these killer dogs thought that they had a trained, gentle pet, right up until it ripped some nice person's throat out.

I hope the pit bull advocates posting here don't have to go through that experience; I can't imagine how ashamed and foolish those owners must have felt. And so, in order to save you from ever having such a terrible experience, I'll happily vote for any pit bull ban on the ballot.

I really didn't have a strong opinion about it before today, but the inability of so many of the "animal welfare" people to acknowledge a basic statistic regarding deaths (deaths of adults and children!) caused by pit bulls has really helped clarify my thinking on the subject. Seriously - it's like I say about the GOP positions on climate change, evolution, trickle-down economics, gun violence, and just about everything else: you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If your position doesn't stand without ignoring good data, or relying on faulty data, then you need to acknowledge it.

How about you read some of my posts above, before demanding something that I've posted twice? Wouldn't that be the smart thing to do?

Whether he's delusional or not, what's your point? Jenny McCarthy is an advocate of avoiding vaccinations, and Ricki Lake is an advocate of having your baby in the bathtub. So what?

"Argument by celebrity" doesn't take the conversation anywhere.

Of course, Karen - because you're the only one motivated by genuine concerns.

I've been menaced by pit bulls, and if my community proposes to ban them then that's fine with me. Everyone has things that they think should be banned or shouldn't be banned; I happen to think that dogs who have been trained to fight and kill don't belong in my neighborhood. You're probably hacked off by loud music, or untidy lawns, or something along those lines - just look at it as that kind of issue.

The fact that you have an unhealthy fascination with killer dogs isn't my problem, and if banning killer dogs would break your little heart, then that's none of my concern.

Kathy, please cite one single comment on this thread that implies that the writer is a "dog hater." I find none. You wrote a post about a specific breed of dog and the comments have addressed that. Hating a breed of dog does not equate to hating dogs.

Hey, print away Anne. In the event that the poor, lovable pit bull has to be disposed of in that manner, it will be because it's in the process of maiming me, or maiming or killing my wife, or our infant daughter. If you'd do anything different in my situation, other than prepare yourself to have to put down a killer dog, then you're probably gutless and certainly brainless.

I'm sure the poor, maligned animal would gets lots of sympathy from you lunatics. You'd probably react like my neighbors - suggesting ways that I can avoid provoking their dangerous animal, as opposed to recognizing the basic fact that dangerous animals have no business near schools and children. FYI Wauwatosa residents - there's a dangerous pit bull in your area, very close to several schools, and it might be your kid who winds up getting his or her throat ripped out.

Talk about strengthening resolve - I've resolved to do two things myself. #1, I'm going to report that dog to MADACC the next time it looks at me wrong. #2, I'll go door to door in support of a pit bull ban, if it's ever on the ballot in Tosa.

Now if only there was a proposal to ban idiots who "rescue" dangerous dogs, with no regard for the safety of their neighborhood. One can dream...

Oh, and as to your propaganda screening - I'll just pass the information on to my neighbors, and let them know that animals are encouraged to attend. I wouldn't put it past them to bring their out-of-control dog; after all, they seem to be as delusional about the subject as y'all. Then everyone can meet the little angel!

And FYI, that was a joke - even though I'm truly appalled by the obliviousness on display here, I wouldn't wish a close encounter with that mongrel on anyone. Because it is... ahem... a DANGEROUS DOG.

I can't believe it took 5 hours to get to the fact that Taoist's real issue is with his neighbor's dog. I thought we spent hundreds of years learning to not hate everyone because of the actions of one individual...but I guess we have a long way to go as humans.

I can't believe that after 5 hours, you still think that's the issue. Renee, which breed (or breed mix) is responsible for the most human fatalities?

Taoist Your question has already been answered by me and several others in this thread. It's a small thread, go back and look.

Yes, it was answered by me, many times. Pit bulls. Call that a breed, or a mix of breeds, but the answer is pit bulls.

If not, then what breed? The non-answers that everyone has given amount to "uh, well, we can't really know for sure, because it's impossible for law enforcement and animal control personnel to tell one dog from another, and anyway the media hates pit bulls, so the question is stupid and I hate you Taoist! You're so mean!"

Given the table posted below, it seems that Chow Chows are most likely to kill a person...

Cowdung, have more people been killed by chow chows or pit bulls? Answer in as few words as possible, please. Two will suffice.

The only reason they haven't is because there are relatively few Chow Chows as compared to Pit Bulls...

Looking at the stats, I'd be far more concerned for my safety if a Chow Chow were living next door than a Pit Bull. 0.705% of Chow Chows have killed while only 0.0012% of Pit Bulls are killers. By my figures, that makes a Chow Chow 587 times more likely to kill than a Pit Bill.

Taoist:

Imagine that you have a Pit Bull living next door on one side, while a Chow Chow lives next door on the other side. Which dog is more likely to kill you, the Chow Chow, or the Pit Bull?

Answer in as few words as possible, please. Two will suffice.

True enough, Craig - thanks for the support. My personal philosophy of not suffering fools doesn't exactly lead to many kumbaya moments where the radical left is concerned. The ridiculous thing is that, like all delusional people, they can't even acknowledge basic facts about the problem. They hem and haw and deflect, and try to paint anyone who disagrees as an inhuman monster. Oh well; stereotypes have to come from somewhere, I guess.

Crocodiles and moose do not live in proximity to each other, except maybe in a zoo.

Yes, I cited that study twice above. Thank you for acknowledging that you consider that a reliable source.

Now, just examine the tables presented in that study. They clearly show that more human beings were killed by pit bulls than any other breed of dog.

Or do they show something else? What does that data say, prior to your or the CDC's spin cycle?

I'm guessing that this "fact" is in the movie, because it's been cited multiple times as evidence that pit bulls get a bad rap. If there was any critical thinking going on here, it would be clear to you melonheads that this is cherry-picking of isolated examples. Following this faux logic, the chimpanzee that ate the nice lady's face and hands was discriminated against, because that story was reported worldwide.

Why is everyone so prejudiced against face-eating chimps?

And furthermore, the notion that comparable news coverage of relatively infrequent events can be used to draw reliable conclusions about societal biases is based on a gross misunderstanding of the newsmaking process. The newsmaking process is heavily dependent on biases, sure, but those biases may have nothing to do with the animals involved. They could be based on the ages, races, and genders of the victims, the size of the media market where the story was originally reported, activism by victims' family members, the attention given to other reported events during the story's run, and too many other factors to mention. Assuming that that simple statistic is a damning indictment of anti-pit bull prejudice is simplistic and incorrect.

I have not seen the Movie so I have no idea. The fact that you cannot have a civil debate without name calling peolple names shows who the melon head is here. The bottom line is breed discrimination goes in cycles, and breed discrimination laws cost YOU THE TAXPAYER twice the amount of money and do not change ANY dogbite statistics in area's they are implemented. The only melon head, idiot face eating chimp is you Taoist Croc (more like Croc of....)

Are you seriously defending the face eating chimp from my name calling? Uh... that was a chimpanzee that ate a woman's face and hands.

Hey, I came into this trying to point out a simple fact, which is that Pit bulls have killed more people than any other breed of dog, and I've been called an @sshole, a sociopath, and worse. So, the person who turned on the name calling wasn't me - in fact, it never is - but I won't sit and take abuse for making a single, factual point, without making my feelings clear.

@Craig...See my earlier sarcastic post regarding Tigers on which no one bothered to comment.

I don't care what breed or species of the animal. I would never own any "pet" that had the ability to kill me, especially if I had children in the home. That includes, Pit Bull, Rottweilers, Boa Constrictors, Tigers, Lions or Bears.

Avenging Angel: You are spot on!
An ankle biter is one thing, but an animal who outweighs most adults and has the strength of a gorilla is therefore uncontrollable. There could be a compramise in legislation on pitts- people can own them, but keep them caged and away from the public. The zoo does this with animals humanely, so can pitbull owners.

Now that's what I'm talking about - wishing for an infant to be attacked by a dog other than a pit bull, just to prove your point. Thanks for making it clear that you value dog lives more than human lives, nutjob.

"And by that I mean another breed maims them or their precious infant while they carry a pitchfork and torch."

***************************

It'll be interesting to see if this particular statement gets anywhere near the blowback Tao has gotten for their posts here.

Susan: You make a good point about the rights of large dogs being taken away. In what other Country would the rights of the dog's neighbors have any relevance?
Should Taoist Crocodile be denied of his right to the pursuit of peace and happiness in his own yard so an animal can have free reign? And..
If that dog owner can not afford to feed the dog, should the dog be allowed to eat your children because it is their natural instinct to hunt for meat?
When do the potential victims have rights?