Comparing guns to pit bulls ...

[spin]

Veterinarian fully vets the issue of guns, laws and pit bulls
By Patty Khuly, Special for USA TODAY

At the outset, let me state that I am unwaveringly in favor of gun control measures designed very specifically to keep guns out of the paws of our country's criminal element.

With that in mind, it seems reasonable to assume I'd be blanketly supportive of more restrictive gun control measures. And yes, when it comes to confirmed criminals, I'm all for keeping arms as far from them as possible. Surely we can justify that as a penalty for their offenses.

But recently, I tuned into arguments put forth by those who convene in Washington, D.C., today to march in support of gun rights. In so doing, I couldn't help but observe the almost identical nature of arguments made by those who support the preservation of basic gun rights and those who oppose breed-specific legislation such as the pit bull ban we have here in Miami-Dade County.

Icky though that may have sounded to a leftish-wing animal lover who would never deign to keep a firearm at home, my individual rights-supporting side won out. I got the message — part of it, anyway.

Why?

As a veterinarian, Miami-Dade resident and former pit bull owner, I've been a close watcher of breed-specific legislation. And consequently — let me speak plainly now — I hate these laws.

They are based on:

• Biological misinformation (pit bulls' jaws don't "lock").

• Lack of attention to dog-bite statistics (breed bans have not curbed dog bites).

• A profound lack of attention to reality (pit bulls are even more popular now that they're banned).

• A failure to recognize the obvious (those who want aggressive dogs will raise them, regardless of breed).

And these laws are so arbitrarily enforced that those who would socialize their dogs properly in park settings are predominantly targeted over those who would wreak violent havoc with their (mostly hidden) dogs.

These myopic, tyranny-of-the-majority-enacted bans are fear-based. Aimed at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, they have no regard for science or public welfare — just for the kind of political expediency that prompts municipal leaders to get their names attached to a proposal that any safety-loving voter stands prepared to swallow whole.

But then, I guess it'll always be sexier to ban something than to actually work hard to deliver intelligent laws — or to enforce them.

***snip***

Sure, the problem with the Second Amendment is that our forefathers never foresaw a nation of AK-47-wielding street thugs terrorizing common citizens with their drive-bys, or an urban culture where spike-collared, muscle-bound dogs (of all breeds) straining against their chains was considered the epitome of street-sexy.

As a mother and a frequent animal-bite observer, of course I'd like more laws targeting these evildoing, dog-wielding creeps (not least because the dogs suffer, too). But am I willing to accept the consequences of such laws? Not when they unfairly target the dogs instead of the people. What we need is not more laws crafted to punish the dogs. Rather, we simply need to enforce existing laws to punish animal cruelty offenders and those whose dogs commit violent acts.

As with guns, the push should be to punish the criminal, not his weapon, and not to penalize those who would choose to peacefully keep a dog of any particular breed.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-04-16-vetviews16_N.htm

[DrDan]

1. punishing these non-criminal parents will not bring this 7-day old back

She knocked on the door. It was noon Wednesday and Jackie Frishe wanted to check on her friend Nicole Koezeno, a new mom at age 16. Thomas James Carter Jr. was 7 days old — chubby and pink with a head of thick, black hair.

"Jackie, is that you?" Koezeno said. She sounded sleepy.

"Hold on."

Koezeno unlocked the door.

Frishe, 19, stepped inside and heard her friend scream. The baby was dead on the bed. Sometime while Koezeno slept with her newborn, her 45-pound pit bull mix named Sidon mauled Thomas. Authorities said the infant had more than 50 puncture wounds on his tiny body.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1087370.ece

[ET Awful]

2. Mmmmmhmmmm

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=8746561

A baby boy was mauled by a dog on Monday morning in south Tulsa. Police say it happened while the parents left the child in a baby swing unattended inside their home. The News On 6's Emory Bryan reports they believe the dog was just a puppy.

Tulsa Police have a lot of questions yet to be answered about what happened, but they believe a 6-week-old black lab bit the baby numerous times. It was unclear how long the baby had been dead when an ambulance was called Monday morning, said police. . . .




So tell us, do you want black labs banned too?

[DrDan]

6. just look at the stats - fairly easy to figure out

[Euromutt]

4. I'll see your pit bull mix, and raise you a Jack Russell terrier

Victim was six week-old Justin Mozer; cause of death was suffocation and blood loss.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x607061059

Any dog, of any breed, can be a problem if the owner's an idiot.

[DrDan]

5. want to compare statistics? probably not - we both know the facts

[ET Awful]

7. What facts? That the only studies that you ever mention are lacking validity

because they don't take total population of breeds into account since there is no such data?

You always spew the same tired crap with the same flawed study with the same flawed data.

Your ignorant hatred and prejudice is duly noted.

[DrDan]

8. I am done - comments like "ignorant hatred and prejudice" and "spew the same tired crap with

the same flawed study" are over the top and I have no interest in a continued discussion.

The death of a 7-day old is far from lacking validity. Those are the facts.

[ET Awful]

14. Yet you discount the death of a toddler killed by a black lab. . .

does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you?

If you wouldn't display ignorant hatred and prejudice while spewing the same tired crap, you probably wouldn't see comments discussing the same.

[derby378]

16. His mind's made up

Don't confuse him with the facts. :hi:

[ET Awful]

17. Oh I know, I just find it humorous that he engages in Fox News style sensationalism

and pretends to be an authority.

He'll keep pretending that no other breed of dog has ever attacked a human, all the time not realizing that statistics without population numbers are meaningless.

Then he'll insult people while complaining about being insulted.

I can think of one sign wielding group that he'd fit very comfortably with.

I know his type well.

He's the same type that believed all the BS hype about "cop killer" ammo in the 90's (remember the BS media hype that a hollow point round was designed to penetrate armor .. . BUAHAHAHAHA).

He's the same type that believed that those larger, fiercer, Africanized honey bees were going to take over the US.

He's the type that has to be afraid of something, angry at something and fighting to protect everyone from a non-existent threat.

As I said, there's a certain sign wielding group that he'd fit right in with.

[DrDan]

19. the fact are that a 7-day old child is dead from an unprovoked attack by a pit bull

no confusion whatsoever

[TheWraith]

25. Please learn to discern between anecdotes and data.

Invoking the death of a 7-day-old child as a reason for supporting your argument is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. To produce a reasonable point, you have to provide evidence that a given breed of dog is more likely to attack people, ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL. If one out of every ten average dog owners are assholes who want their dogs to be vicious, but two out of every ten owners of pit bulls want their dogs to be vicious, then finding pit bulls to be twice as likely to be vicious has nothing measurably to do with the breed itself.

Most people make the mistake of thinking that what they see in the media accurately represents reality. It doesn't. The fact is that the more sensational a story is, the more likely it is to go to press. So for instance, if you never see media coverage of gang killings because they're too humdrum, but you do see frequent coverage of mass murders, you might be likely to think that mass murders represent a large chunk of murder in America. In fact, it's very rare.

Likewise, a story of, say, a pit bull killing a baby is more likely to make the news than the same story about a black lab. I was just at a house a few weeks ago where they had a young and very extremely energetic pit bull who did not listen to his owners when it came to meeting strangers. He was extremely aggressive--at least, in wanting to lick my face. Oh, and he peed on my friend's shoes. Does that mean all pit bulls are friendly and not yet housebroken? Of course not. It would be as silly to assume that as it would be to assume that one emotionally charged anecdote represents meaningful scientific information.

Statistics are in many ways the only honest way of looking at wide-scale problems. They deserve attention.

[Euromutt]

9. What would comparing statistics prove?

I'm aware of the statistics indicating that pit bulls and mixes account for ~55% of fatal attacks over the past five years, and rottweilers and mixes for another ~15%. But it does not follow that eliminating pit bulls and rottweilers would reduce the number of fatal dog attacks by 70%.

The kind of irresponsible dog owner who keeps a "dangerous breed" and doesn't know how to properly control it is the kind of person who, if he couldn't get a pit bull or a rottweiler would go for the next nastiest critter on the list, and I'm sure breeders will waste no time in trying to develop new breeds to take the place of the banned ones. And, of course, there's the remaining 30% of fatal attacks that are committed by other breeds.

Now let's get it clear that I'm not particularly interested in trying to defend pit bulls here; frankly, I don't much care for dogs in general. But it's precisely because I don't much care for dogs in general that I don't see the point of playing whack-a-mole with breed bans, when the basic problem is dog ownership in general.

There is one way to prevent dog attacks on humans, and that's to get rid of dogs. All dogs. Not just particular types of dogs other than the one(s) you own.

[DrDan]

15. why the insult? (. . . other than the ones you own") - Why do you think I have a personal stake

in this?

And if you don't understand the importance of those statistics, then any further discussion is a waste of keystrokes.

Why do you assume the owners of that dead 7-day old were irresponsible? It was the dog that killed that child - unprovoked.

[ET Awful]

18. How is "other than the ones you own" an insult?

Good lord, you have a might high opinion of yourself don't you?

I posted a link above about a black lab that killed a child unprovoked. Why aren't you demanding that black labs be outlawed? Still waiting for you to answer that one.

[Euromutt]

22. It was a general "you"

The point being that it's possible to get breed bans passed, provided you have the support of people who own non-pit bull and non-Rottweiler varieties of dog. People are quite happy to support measures that allow them to feel good without requiring them to give anything up themselves. If you were to try to convince the American public to give up all their dogs for the sake of the children (and the livestock), you'd get a frosty reception.

And if you don't understand the importance of those statistics, then any further discussion is a waste of keystrokes.

Well, it might help if you were prepared to explain what those statistics indicate, rather than assuming they speak for themselves. The crucial question--which the statistics alone cannot answer--is whether the problem is pit bulls and rottweilers per se, or whether the problem is dogs (of any kind) owned by the kind of person who feels the urge to own large, aggressive dogs.

It might help to clarify my position if I explain my frame of reference. I grew up in the Netherlands, where pit bulls weren't imported until the mid-1980s, and almost immediately were labeled a "problem breed." What people rather lost sight of was that, prior to the introduction of the pit bull, other dogs had been regarded as "problem breeds," such as German shepherds, Doberman pinschers, and Bouviers des Flandres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvier_des_Flandres), and these rapidly stopped being perceived "problem breeds." Why? Because problem dog owners had stopped keeping those breeds in favor of the newly introduced pit bulls.

That's why I argue that, even if you could completely eradicate pit bulls and rottweilers, the number of dog attacks (fatal or otherwise) wouldn't drop by 70%, because the kind of people who now own those "problem breeds" would simply acquire other dogs, e.g. German shepherds, Dobermans, (non-pit) bull terriers, etc., and those dogs would become the "problem breeds."

Why do you assume the owners of that dead 7-day old were irresponsible? It was the dog that killed that child - unprovoked.

Unprovoked? Not from the dog's perspective. From the dog's perspective, it was the center of attention in the household, and then this... thing came along and took away the love and attention that rightfully belonged to the dog. It's no different from the way some children "act out" when a new sibling comes along; and there are quite a few instances of older children physically harming the new baby, or killing it, either directly or by deliberately placing it in harm's way.. And it's certainly no different from the way the Jack Russell behaved in the story I posted. The crucial factor is the nature of the dog's position within the household, not the dog's specific breed.

I volunteer as a tour guide at a sanctuary for wolves from captive situations. We have a number of wolves and wolf-dog hybrids, and we head stories about plenty more, whom their owners gave up (or had put down) after the animal "turned on" them. What these people did not bother to find out before they got the animals is that when wolves reach sexual maturity (age 2-3), they start entertaining thoughts about challenging the alpha for leadership of the pack. The fact that the animal "turned on" them is not a flaw in the animal's character, it's the owner's fault for not finding out that the animal was likely to behave that way in that situation.

Similarly, anybody who introduces an infant into a household that contains a dog, without considering that the dog may become jealous of the baby and act on that jealousy, is behaving irresponsibly in my book. And fer chrissakes, did you miss the detail that the child's mother in the story you cited is 16? Even leaving aside the fact that that age is considered not fully responsible by statute, I don't think it's a controversial statement to assert that motherhood at 16 in this society requires a certain degree of irresponsible behavior.

[DrDan]

23. I completely understand your concern that should pit bulls be eradicated, that the

problem would not go away.

But at the heart of the problem as I see it with pit bulls is a combination of (1) owner influence/training, (2) owner negligence, and (3) the inate strength of the dog itself.

The first can be and should be criminalized. The problem there, of course, is with enforcement. Seems as though the local jurisdictions do not want to enforce these laws.

Not sure how to deal with #2. This case is probably an example.

#3 is a fact of life. A bite from one of these dogs is going to do damage. Not true with all breeds.

It also seems to me that the pit bull "supporters" want to deal with the problem AFTER someone is injured (or worse). Further, it seems the response is always "its the owners fault - not the dog's". I just don't think that addresses the problem as folks are being seriously injured and killed. I prefer to seek a solution that prevents further injury or death from these dogs. Our town is nearing a muzzle law. That would be a first step imo.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. You might point out.............

...... with some breeds, dogs, other than the mother, will, given the chance, kill any pups in the same kennel or enclosure. I had a friend who raised English Pointers that had that trait. He had to segregate the bitches about to whelp and keep them and their pups from the rest of the the dogs until they had weaned. I don't know enough dog breeders to know how common that trait is but it did strike me that those dogs should probably be supervised around little kids.

With solitary dogs, it might be easier to tell. One real wild card is "pack behaviors". Get to edge of the suburbs and farmlands close to scattered subdivisions and you will see all manner of lap, yard, loose or stray dogs chasing livestock and wildlife. When you come across a cow trying to calve, and encounter a pack of dogs with collars and tags ranging from mutts to poodles snarling and trying to rip open the sack, you shoot them.

Most rural areas if you own a dog that chases cattle, it eventually just never comes home.

[pipoman]

3. She is right

the same arguments are used to try to regulate dogs by breed which are used to try to regulate guns, particularly scary looking guns.

And the opposite. The arguments by owners of the specific breeds targeted use the exact arguments against this as those who argue against gun regulation based on cosmetics.

I recently realized this while reading the other threads on the incident posted by Dr.Dan above where one of the leading gun control advocates on DU argues the exact logic those of us who oppose gun control argue, and that poster couldn't see the hypocrisy of his arguments. Hopefully he comes to this thread and answers the questions about the apparent hypocrisy.

[jazzhound]

10. I agree ---- her analogy is strong. However.............

"Hopefully he comes to this thread and answers the questions about the apparent hypocrisy."

Wouldn't hold my breath here. It's been my experience that the hyperbolic faction of the pro-reg crowd suffers from an extreme lack of self-awareness -- and we've got quite a few members who fit into that catagory.

[pipoman]

11. In his absence I will

post a quote in which the anti-2nd/pro-pit bull poster was defending his right to own a pit bull.

"Irrational fears based on ill-informed hype does not constitute "fact"

No matter how often propagandists repeat it. If you need to talk out of your ass, all you're doing is spewing shit all over.

Actual facts are based on study, real-life experience and knowledge."

This poster also often posts lists of dog bite incidents which were non- pit dogs doing the biting.

I find this phenomenon very interesting in that I have not previously found someone who argues for one and against the other with a straight face.

[jazzhound]

12. An interesting phenomenon indeed.

Of course the anti-gun crowd unwittingly makes statements which support the pro-gun position since they are so poorly educated. Two instances that spring immediately to mind:

The CDC can hardly be considered a gun-friendly organization. Yet they posted a number for defensive gun uses in the home which was extremely close to the figure arrived at by Dr. Gary Kleck.........unwittingly confirming his discovery of a high number of defensive gun uses overall. (both inside and outside the home)

Then there's the current trend to post the number of CC holders who are found guilty of violent crime, without doing the math and comparing those numbers with the overall number of CC permit holders. Whoops! The CC permit holders are of course discovered to be *much* less prone to violence when that simple calculation is accomplished. (This could be a case of intentionally misleading also.)

[spin]

13. My experience with Pit Bulls backs up the statement ...

that if the owners know how to raise a dog correctly, they are great dogs.

People who have little understanding of how to raise a dog have difficulty with the breed. Unfortunately, many people who purchase these dogs want an aggressive dog to defend their family, reward bad behavior and mistreat the dog to produce a dangerous animal.

Rottweilers are another dog that has a bad reputation. My daughter and son in law have raised both pit bulls and Rottweilers and when adult the dogs were gentle and friendly. They were good watch dogs and protective without being overly aggressive.

As with firearms, the owner is the most important factor.

[SteveM]

20. Some pitbull owners treat their animal like their own "creature from the Id." nt

[spin]

21. The really sad part is that the dog was stolen from her fenced in yard ..

She was certain that she seen the Pit Bull on a video from a TV station in Miami which dealt with the arrest of a dog fighting ring. The dog had unique markings. She contacted the station but found that the dog had been put down because of injuries.

She felt that because the dog was small and gentile, it had been used to train the fighting dogs.