No, cause anyone living in the projects have the same if not more opportunities. It's just easier to act pitiful and not take responsibility. As for retardation? The ability to understand very basic concepts, learning disability, not learning laziness. I understand I'm not going to win this one with you, I've seen your anti Leo and establishment comments before. I've dealt with this type of rationalization for years. But I understand your only here to talk and not trade hence the 2200 posts and how many deals?
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Another great reason to carry
- Thread starter Fishhooks
- Start date
People jump to the conclusion that these events are committed by Pit Bulls cause...well...Vegas would tell you to bet on that.
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf
X2 on this... Shot placement. If you don't panic and use your weapons to their potential they're better than trying to negotiate.
Lots of ignorance in this thread.
After reading through the last few pages, I certainly agree. Or maybe it's just bias.
Two points to be made:
1. Our own anecdotal experience means something to us personally, but it does not mean a hill of beans statistically. I.E., don't argue against reasonably gathered statistics with anecdotal experience.
2. You cannot just consider only potential for aggressive behavior, regardless of the cause. You also have to factor in the consequences.
If (big IF) all dogs had the same potential for aggressive behavior (e.g., biting), this would not mean they are equally dangerous. Bigger dogs, especially with larger jaws and stronger jaw muscles, would be much more dangerous than smaller dogs with smaller bites and weaker muscles.
Here ya go. One for each breed that you listed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321999/Toddler-nearly-loses-eye-mauled-family-terrier.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=7844024
http://www.accidentlawillinois.com/blog/child-bitten-in-throat-by-german-shepherd.cfm
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/349229/belgian-malinois-attacks-kills-9-year-old-girl-in-zamboanga-city
These are just the first ones listed. There were plenty more.
I read through that, especially the test method, and I really can't figure out what they are really trying to measure. Sure they spell out the specifics of each test, but I'm not sure how that relates to real world behavior, even though they claim it is. I think my problem lies with a "fail" if the dog does not perform the way they prefer in any single one of the tests. (And I don't agree with their definition of success in some of the tests).
For example, I'm pretty sure my Boston would not want to walk through that 12-ft unfolded playpen, thus failing the test, but I'd take her temperament over most of those dogs any day. (Of course, that's anecdotal, but most dog books regard them as having excellent temperaments.)
Another item that throws this test off was stated near the end:
Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dogâs training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail."breed standard"? This seems to allow for different behavior between breeds, which makes direct comparisons between breeds less than useful.
Wow...
Just wow...
Any other group, breed, or species you feel deserve to be eradicated?
And if you can read some of the comments in THIS thread and NOT think pit bulls get a bad rep, then you, sir, are the idiot...
Last edited:
There are bloodlines within certain breeds that are specifically controlled to create dogs that are useful for personal protection training, police and military work. These dogs would be expected to show some type of aggression when the person comes from behind the blind and acts aggressively. The type of training mentioned intentionally teaches these same dogs to react to a threat aggressively. What they would show instinctively before training would be rather mild. What they would show after training would be intense. These are not unstable dogs and, in fact, a very high level of stability is also part of the desired effect of the breeding programs. However, they are bred for specific work, so they will have more of an edge under certain circumstances. The temperament testers understand all of the intricacies of this, thus they allow an appropriate reaction from this type of dog.
Last edited:
Are you just mad because your Boston Terrier ranks lower than my Pit Bull? What happened to "don't argue against reasonably gathered statistics with anecdotal experience"?
Not at all. I think the test does not mean much and I think each of us should have the dog(s) we want.
Oh, and I did say "(Of course, that's anecdotal, but most dog books regard them as having excellent temperaments.)" so your point is, well, pointless!
Next?
