TexasCHLforum.com

lama wrote:My post apparently got lost in the internet.

I disagree abraham and anygunanywhere on the basis that if we decide that "lethal" is the standard for eradication then the world will be a different (and I would argue worse) place. I will leave it at that and wish you both the best.

One thing I will repeat from my post because who doesn't enjoy a fun quote.

I have heard the saying, and google tells me Tom Wolfe was the first to say "If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." (though I would probably use the word poor rather than arrested).

lama wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Not the same thing.

A firearm is an inanimate object.

An animal is a living breathing creature capable of initiating acts on its own, regardless of how it is raised or treated. Did you read the link I posted????

Yes I did. I see no form of referencing for where they got their numbers (did I miss it?). If, as I expect, it is through "journalistic" searches I will continue to take that with a block of salt. As others have mentioned trusting an article that says a dog attack was perpetrated by a pitbull is as logical as trusting an article that says an automatic rifle was used in a shooting.

They also state they extrapolate the number of attacks due to their "under reporting" "algebra" without mentioning if they did any research as to if the reporting of an attack done by a pitbull is more likely than reporting if a poodle attacks someone. (I expect there is at least some level of that, but like them I have no proof of that.) This seems to me to be a very significant oversight, that limits my trust in the data.

My response to inanimate objects: If everyone controlled their possessions in an effective and ethical manner we would see much fewer incidents of both dog attacks and unjustified shootings. The human intervention is an important and inescapable factor in both.

lama wrote:I can find link after link of guns being used to kill or maim humans and dogs all over the US.
I can find link after link of people dying in car accidents involving Fords.
Whats your point?

Any animal large enough can injure or kill a person or similarly sized animal. You seem to be arguing that the chance is there, so the animal should not exist. I have seen a Labrador try to take a kids arm off. If the risk of something dangerous happening is reason enough for eradication then all dogs, nearly all farm animals, and most cats should cease to exist.

Pit Bulls attract a certain type of owner because of the stereotype and therefor the stereotype self fulfills, few could argue that point but that does not make the entire existence void.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't own a pit bull or particularly care to so I will leave it at that.

Since there are only about 3.7 million pit bulls in the U.S. at any given time, the odds start at about one chance in 80 that any given pit bull will kill a human or animal in any given year––compared to about one chance in 24,666 that any given dog of any other breed will kill any pet or farmed animal.