Submitted by Realistic-Sun3480 t3_10ablr1 in springfieldMO
[ Removed by reddit in response to a copyright notice. ]
Comments
kentfrostphoto t1_j43itab wrote
According to the article the only thing she did wrong was skip some shots they needed. It was her dumbass brother who let them out.
pile_of_holes t1_j43y0uu wrote
Failure to register them when city ordinance calls for it isn’t wrong? Failure to neuter (while not illegal) is certainly a wrong from a responsible pet ownership perspective, along with failure to have an outdoor space capable of containing two large dogs.
Alongside the failure to do the most basic thing, getting your dog vaccinated for rabies, these things are pretty damning to me. Doesn’t matter who let them out the door.
Edit: typos.
feralfantastic t1_j43yl5h wrote
She failed to vaccinate them for rabies. And defended them as being well behaved. She should not own dogs, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and maybe a bill to ban the breed should be named after her. No part of this situation is not her fault. Did her brother force her to let him watch the dogs at gunpoint?
Wrinklestiltskin t1_j4698pi wrote
Not disagreeing with you but for accuracy's sake, it was only one that was unvaccinated, not both.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j441vex wrote
What good would a bill that bans these dogs do? There are already restrictions in place inside of green county. She did not have the dogs properly vaccinated. I didn't see any say of her actually having the dogs registered. And they were also not neutered. Unfortunately none of these things would have necessarily changed this situation whatsoever. Having the dogs neutered might have helped but it's no guarantee. The owner was not the one that let the dogs out. Unfortunately we are unsure if there was a fenced in yard or not. Which if I am not mistaken is also required by greene county when registering this breed. All of this goes to show that even with rules and regulations in place there are not always people that follow them. Banning the dogs is not necessarily going to fix any of this, as the same people that are not following the likely won't follow a complete ban. There's not really a good way to monitor a ban like that.
In my opinion the problem lies much much deeper. I'd be happy to post why I think this if people are interested.
feralfantastic t1_j44cvgx wrote
What would a bill that bans the breed do?
Reduce the number of dangerous dogs over time, humiliate the person singly responsible for doing school-shooting damage to an elementary school and risking secondary fatalities by failing to get them their rabies shots.
We don’t need guarantees that a cure would prevent the harm it’s trying to address, just a reasonable calculation.
lightsrage85 t1_j45xgas wrote
Ok, here i put my two cents in. I have been around pit bulls all my life. I have never been hurt by them. There are bad people who raise pits to do harm and there are great dogs. You cannot punish an entire breed over a couple dogs. I happen to know a couple of pits who would rather lick you to death and love on you than hurt you. So yeah. So here is my question would you ban labridors because of a labridor going off the wall? just my thought. If you would bann one breed and not another perhaps you need to learn more about some dogs and how they can be raised. Pits raised and trained well can be great dogs.
feralfantastic t1_j467qhy wrote
If “well-behaved” pit bulls can randomly go crazy and rip up a school yard, the breed is too volatile to go without significant regulation. This is not an isolated incident. This is not even about punishing dogs (that doesn’t work) but about acknowledging that the average dog owner cannot prevent a pit bull from becoming dangerous to human life.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44e7mb wrote
It goes back to again an matter of training. And bad dog owners. We already have regulations in place for this breed. And people are not following them. If these regulations would be enforced outside of only when things like this happen it might help. But if they aren't following the regulations now, what's stopping them from not following a ban? This woman has already been humiliated has she not?
feralfantastic t1_j44fm9r wrote
No. She hasn’t. She should be in jail. She isn’t.
If regulations aren’t working, you change the regulations, or you step up enforcement, or both.
These animals are too fragile to be owned by people that cannot manage them. You should need a license to own them, should not be allowed to have fertile ones without paying a substantial annual fee, and the fines associated with failing to follow this should be ruinously expensive or result in the death of the animal in question. This should eliminate the breed over time, or keep it in the hands of people that can control it best.
ProgressMom68 t1_j44p2qh wrote
This is the most logical solution I’ve seen yet. I would add to it, requiring a minimum of $100k liability insurance.
Low_Tourist t1_j45s95i wrote
Most insurance companies won't insure pits. It's a common issue with many breeds like Boxers, Rotts and Dobies, too.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44i2fw wrote
Welcome to Missouri where we have an endless number of puppy mills and irresponsible breeders. There's a much larger problem than just the dogs themselves. Inside of green county you are technically suppose to have them registered which is similar to having a license. If I'm wrong please correct me. That didn't change anything.
springfieldmo_17 t1_j44h22d wrote
Humiliated? Who cares if she’s been humiliated! She should be paying for the medical bills her dogs caused. She should have to pay for the therapy these children and teachers may have to go to because of this trauma. She should go to jail for assault and have her picture plastered across media. Then and only then would I say she may have been humiliated.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j445su9 wrote
This is a link to the regulations starting at Sec 18-95. And inside of Sec 18-98 (number 5) there is a link to what is considered confined under subsection 18-59.1
It's a lot to read but there are very many "rules" instated that I see broken every single day. Putting a full ban on these dogs I don't personally will solve the issue whatsoever.
PieBiter t1_j44ju9b wrote
With a ban, there's nothing to "monitor". Breed is reported, police & animal control show up, take the mutt and send it to eternity. Owner is fined + costs. The end.
cdcemm t1_j46ff29 wrote
The houses across from the school do not have fenced yards.
Always_0421 t1_j43nkp9 wrote
That and keeping them as pets.
OmniFella t1_j43pu9z wrote
If you're gonna have dogs like that, they need to be trained. You don't keep animals with raw instincts like that without training them to self-regulate. 20 bucks says they were completely untrained and considered their "territory" to be wherever the hell they were at any given moment unless calmed by their owner. Without the owner, anyone in view of those dogs were incorrectly considered "trespassers" by them. She's not a dumb bitch for having them. She's a dumb bitch for not training them. They're about half a step away from being ferral dogs at that point.
Funky_Farkleface t1_j44mn8j wrote
“Raw instincts” to do what? There are humans with raw instincts to harm others and we keep them locked up or we execute them. Do you believe serial killers with raw instincts are salvageable with training? Can a murderer coexist with us if we castrate, vaccinate, license, and train them? I believe some could be, a small percentage might be allowed into society with rigorous, highly-focused mental treatment. But there are, without debate, a percentage of those with “raw instincts” who will never qualify to share our space. That is the reality for humans with “raw instincts”.
Why is a dog, a single particular breed with the same raw instincts—murder—given more concession?
OmniFella t1_j460763 wrote
I'm talking about dogs. Not people. False equivalence. Your comparisons are bogus.
Realistic-Sun3480 OP t1_j43bvye wrote
Article text:
The dog owner said she hated giving up the dogs but was "more concerned about the kids that were injured and how traumatic this was for them."
Two dogs attacked students and teachers Dec. 20 on the Willard intermediate South playground. Summoned to a Willard school in late December after reports of a dog attacking children, a Springfield animal control officer was approached in the parking lot by a frantic neighbor looking for her missing pit bull mixes.
The officer jotted down the name and phone number of the woman before rushing into Willard Intermediate South on the afternoon of Dec. 20, according to reports obtained by the News-Leader.
Inside, the officer and a school resource officer met several people who tried to explain the chaotic incident that had just unfolded during recess.
They found the nurse's office, where they saw a young girl with a severe leg injury. A second bite victim was found near the door to the playground.
The officers called for additional help and to see if ambulances were getting close. The school officer started looking for the dogs and the animal control officer worked with school employees to locate, and document, all the injured teachers and students.
The reports obtained late Wednesday through a Sunshine Law request provide a detailed look at what unfolded on the playground and the investigation that followed.
More:Willard students, teachers injured in dog attack during school recess
In all, 18 students and three teachers reported injuries, although most were minor scrapes and bruises suffered in the rush to get to safety. Six required medical attention and were transported to local hospitals.
Teachers jumped in to defend, rescue children
The officers viewed video recorded by the school that showed students were playing on the east side of the school during recess shortly after 1 p.m. when two dogs appeared from the neighborhood.
The dogs, one white and one dark, ran back and forth and then approached children playing on the slide. At that point, children began running.
The video showed dogs going after the children and biting, snapping and knocking them over. Teachers, including one that was pregnant, jumped in to defend the children.
The white dog got a hold of a young girl and dragged her to the ground. The darker dog went after teachers who were trying to intervene.
One teacher was bitten on the leg, a second was bitten on both legs and a third was bitten on the right hand. The children were bitten on the legs and thighs.
A school spokeswoman said the day of the incident that nurses, counselors and administrators from other schools responded to help. The intermediate school, located in the Springfield city limits, serves children in grades 5 and 6.
According to the reports, additional animal control officers responded along with school resource officers and the Springfield police.
The report shows officers located the dogs at a home less than a mile from the school, where they found two dogs contained inside the vehicle of Jenna Sue Evans, 36, of Springfield. She was the same woman who had earlier approached the officer outside the school.
Evans stood outside the vehicle and was visibly distraught, according to the report. She told officers her dogs had "never done anything like this. I have kids and grandkids at home and I don't understand what happened."
The dogs were male with no collar or microchip and they had not been neutered. Evans said one was vaccinated but the other was not. Their age and size was not reported.
The white dog, Merel, was a Straffordshire bull terrier mixed with a pit bull. The dark brindle dog, Dozer, was a Boxer mixed with pit bull, according to the report.
Evans's brother told the officers, and then signed a statement, saying he was the one at home when the dogs ran away.
According to the report, before officers could talk about next steps, Evans said: "I know the dogs have to go. I hate it but I am more concerned about the kids that were injured and how traumatic this was for them."
Photos taken of the dogs were compared to video from the school to confirm they were involved.
After Evans voluntarily signed over the dogs, they were transported to the city, where they were euthanized and tested for rabies. The results were negative.
A report from animal control said due to the scale of the incident, Evans was issued municipal citations for having a dog at large, failure to vaccinate for rabies, failure to register a pit bull inside the city limits and for having vicious dogs. The citations carry a range of fines.
Reached by phone Thursday, Evans said she was unaware of the citations. Evans said she was not home when her brother let the dogs out. "I've never left them outside by themselves."
"They were very well-behaved dogs. They had never shown aggression," Evans said.
Evans said she feels awful for the families who were scared and hurt in the incident.
"I pray for those kids and the teachers and all the kids that were traumatized by that," she said. "They'll remember that for the rest of their lives and they'll have nightmares and it breaks my heart."
Will school district add playground fence?
In Springfield, owners are required to register pit bulls along with proof of rabies vaccination, spaying or neutering, and a microchip. There is a $50 fee.
Individuals who violate the pit bull regulations face a minimum fine of $500 or one year probation and 100 hours of community service. Jail time is possible.
The News-Leader reached out to the school district to see if anyone connected to the incident wanted to talk but was told it was too soon.
Asked if a fence will be erected around the playground, the district issued a statement through Heather Harman-Michael, director of communications and public relations.
"When any situation occurs, we come together to discuss what happened, what we could have done differently, and what we can do in the future to prevent similar occurrences from happening," she said.
"Those are the conversations we are currently having. We are encouraging our neighbors to be cognizant of keeping their animals contained near all of our campuses as we continue to encourage outdoor play."
GundleFly t1_j442mlp wrote
“My PiBbLe WoUlD nEvEr!”
…As they are actively mauling children.
matramepapi t1_j4467ev wrote
No microchip; no collars; not neutered. Probably came from a backyard breeder lol. Ban pits
ProgressMom68 t1_j44nmil wrote
You’re talking about thousands of dogs, the majority of which are people’s pets. Are you really suggesting that all pits and pit mixes be taken from their owners, rounded up and…what? What exactly are you suggesting be done with them?
I agree it’s a problem, but a ban doesn’t seem like an effective solution.
matramepapi t1_j44om4j wrote
Outlawing/cracking down on backyard breeding operations would be a good start. I’m not suggesting anybody’s pet be taken from them. I’m sure there’s plenty of responsible owners with well-behaved pits; that isn’t the majority though. But the sheer amount of pit bulls in animal shelters, pit mauling articles, and people lying about having said breed on paperwork signifies that we need to stop making so many of these violent, uncontrollable dogs.
oh2ridemore t1_j44qvbr wrote
It is a bad dog owner pure and simple. Breed bans never work. Ban owners that dont follow laws like neuter spay and vaccinate.
bobone77 t1_j45a8g5 wrote
Here it is in some easy steps:
-
All “pit bull breeds” must be registered.
-
All pits must be spayed or neutered.
-
Any pit puppies born after these regs take effect must be surrendered and euthanized.
-
All pit owners must carry liability insurance. ($100k per dog.)
This should be national policy. In 10 years, there won’t be any more stories like this. The breed is a menace, and there’s no other way to look at it.
Wrinklestiltskin t1_j469pwo wrote
Ban puppy mills.
Edit: I wanted to make a reply of mine as an original comment for visibility, but the tread is now locked.. I'm going to put it here instead.
I would like to point out that I've never owned a pitbull (don't ever plan to), and I am not invested in this topic. But I'd like to play devils advocate here in order to promote scientically literate discussion on the matter.
There are many confounding variables that impact studies on dog aggression and reporting of dog attacks.
For instance, this study (PDF warning) found a strong association between deviant criminal behavior and and ownership of high risk 'vicious' dogs. It's important to note the relatively small and localized sample in that study.
To the claim of putbulls being the most vicious breed, this study found that smaller breeds were in fact the most aggressive. A finding which has been replicated by other studies. There are many factors thought to influence this, including the growth factor gene.
Smaller dog attacks are also severely under-reported since they are not as concerning, which further skews the statistics on dog attacks to a very significant degree. Source. Also illustrated in that article is the prevalence of pitbull ownership in specific locations/demographics, which directly impacts the rate of attacks simply due the higher proportion of pitbulls in the given population.
I think it's important to weigh all of the facts, consider the conflicting studies, and address all of the confounding variables that are not controlled for in most of the studies assessing breed-specific violence.
To claim that pitbulls are the most aggressive breed is not a claim you can make with certainty from the scientific literature we have on the subject.
For people more unfamiliar confounding/third variable problems, here is a famous example:
Statistics show that as ice-cream sales rise, so does the rate of violent crime. You should not draw inferences of causation from correlations, but one might arrive at the false conclusion that ice-cream promotes violent behavior.
However, in actually, the third variable influencing both of those statistics is hot weather.
I'm not going to tell anyone what they should believe, but I encourage everyone to remain vigilant in scrutinizing all available scholarly information, avoid engaging in confirmation bias, and do not simply believe other redditors' comments at face value.
Silhouettesmiled t1_j44c8jm wrote
Exactly. This shit has got to stop. Pitbulls are a tash breed that needs harsher regulations or banned all together.
sprocter77 t1_j46hz2l wrote
Yep baby eaters.
snorlaxatives_69 t1_j46i5m4 wrote
Man, Springfield Reddit hates pits so much.
LifeRocks114 t1_j46iewy wrote
thread locked: smdh, how hard is it to play nice people?
External_Staff_300 t1_j445qj1 wrote
Pit Bulls aren't the problem. Dobermans were not the problem. Rottweiler's were not the problem. No matter what breed they want to blame next, that's not the problem.
Small breeds attack far more often (look up the statistics) but we don't hear about that nearly as much.
The problem is idiot owners. People who don't properly train or socialize their dogs. People who don't pay attention to their dog's behavior and mood. People who have no right ever owning anything more dangerous or complicated than a goldfish.
Yes, occasionally a dog lashes out. But in almost every case there were warning signs that the handler (owner, dog walker, petsitter, etc) ignored. Whether the dog was sick, injured, stressed...
Know the animal in your care or don't have an animal in your care. The owner, or her brother in this case, should be prosecuted for negligence. Pure and simple.
Blame the person, not the breed.
matramepapi t1_j446o74 wrote
Oh my god. Small breeds don’t maul and kill people. Pit bulls absolutely are the problem. Literally bred for game/dogfighting with such a high prey drive that blunt force and mace can’t detach its jaw. The problem is the idiot owners AND the idiot breed. These dogs are ticking time bombs.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j449fv9 wrote
Idiot owners is correct. Idiot breed is not. They are a very intelligent and loyal dogs. Little dogs don't have the physical ability to maul/kill people. That doesn't mean they don't attack/bite people frequently. And this generally comes down to the fact that people see them as "cute little babies that require no training". All dogs were wild at one point, and people have to remember that. No matter how long they've been kept as companions and domesticated things can happen. People need to do their own due diligence with training, as well as researching the type of dog they are getting before they get them. Yes we have regulations in place inside of Greene county because bully breeds as they were bred for many many years will not let go if they latch on. I don't disagree with the regulations, but if owners would actually abide by them we wouldn't have ever had this problem. Or if people would be good and intelligent dog owners we wouldn't have this problem.
External_Staff_300 t1_j44axyl wrote
Exactly this. Except there are instances where small breeds have attacked and killed kids, babies, and people unable to fight them off.
[deleted] t1_j44ac5s wrote
[removed]
matramepapi t1_j44gz50 wrote
Okay. Sure, two small dogs cited killing people. Only two. Versus 60% + of dog bite fatalities coming from pit bulls and pit Bull mixes . And this is just one site. But sure, it’s totally the owners. Not the breed. I clearly know nothing about dogs. /s
External_Staff_300 t1_j44ikak wrote
And have you ever heard of a biased study? Maybe you should find a more reliable study than an injury lawyer trying to sell you a lawsuit. 😂
matramepapi t1_j44jfra wrote
here’s another, scroll down. another. and one more! These are all sources not from an injury lawyer. Your point?
External_Staff_300 t1_j44la6x wrote
Ah, the dog hater Colleen Lynn and her fake studies to get donations. You should do better research.
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
"The conclusion of this science based study (not a conclusion based on the former’s wishful thinking) demonstrates that breed is not a contributing factor in dog bite fatalities, and breed specific legislation is not the solution for eliminating dog bite fatalities."
Maybe you should talk to people that actually know dogs, rather than seeking out sensationalized headlines and studies from lawyers?
Just a thought.
matramepapi t1_j44lmw4 wrote
Sorry, dog expert. I’m done arguing with you. Statistics prove that you are wrong, pitbulls are an inherently violent breed with a strong tendency to seriously injure people. Bye bye nutter!
External_Staff_300 t1_j44lsg3 wrote
I'm not an expert. I just have a lot of experience with dogs of all kinds of breeds. And I have never seen a vicious dog that didn't have a stupid owner.
matramepapi t1_j44lzzz wrote
Ah yes, because one person’s experience and anecdotal evidence is totally more reliable than statistics
External_Staff_300 t1_j44md28 wrote
I am one person and I am relating my personal experience. But you have also shown that you have zero issue with citing biased sources but balk when given actual studies from experts on dog behavior.
I already know I won't change your mind and I'm not trying to. All I am hoping is that someone who isn't as close minded will look at the actual information I've shared and get a little wiser about this issue.
You have a wonderful evening.
Wrinklestiltskin t1_j46h569 wrote
I would like to point out that I've never owned a pitbull (don't ever plan to), and I am not invested in this topic. But I'd like to play devils advocate here in order to promote scientically literate discussion on the matter.
There are many confounding variables that impact studies on dog aggression and reporting of dog attacks.
For instance, this study (PDF warning) found a strong association between deviant criminal behavior and and ownership of high risk 'vicious' dogs. It's important to note the relatively small and localized sample in that study.
To the claim of putbulls being the most vicious breed, this study found that smaller breeds were in fact the most aggressive. A finding which has been replicated by other studies. There are many factors thought to influence this, including the growth factor gene.
Smaller dog attacks are also severely under-reported since they are not as concerning, which further skews the statistics on dog attacks to a very significant degree. Source. Also illustrated in that article is the prevalence of pitbull ownership in specific locations/demographics, which directly impacts the rate of attacks simply due the higher proportion of pitbulls in the given population.
I think it's important to weigh all of the facts, consider the conflicting studies, and address all of the confounding variables that are not controlled for in most of the studies assessing breed-specific violence.
To claim that pitbulls are the most aggressive breed is not a claim you can make with certainty from the scientific literature we have on the subject.
For people more unfamiliar confounding/third variable problems, here is a famous example:
Statistics show that as ice-cream sales rise, so does the rate of violent crime. You should not draw inferences of causation from correlations, but one might arrive at the false conclusion that ice-cream promotes violent behavior.
However, in actually, the third variable influencing both of those statistics is hot weather.
I'm not going to tell anyone what they should believe, but I encourage everyone to remain vigilant in scrutinizing all available scholarly information, avoid engaging in confirmation bias, and do not simply believe other redditors' comments at face value.
[deleted] t1_j44iqea wrote
[deleted]
External_Staff_300 t1_j44i66p wrote
4.5 million dog bites reported annually 800,000 need medical attention 30-50 deaths annually Only 10% can be attributed to a specific breed. And only 1 in 5 of that 10% is attributed to a pit bull. But go on, blame the breed.
The only reason pitbulls take up the news is because they're popular right now. Previously it was doberman, then rottweiler, then German Shepherds, and so on.
I guess pitbulls just wanted to wait their turn to be vicious?
moonstone98524 t1_j44w6ml wrote
This “nanny dog” claim is absolute bullshit. There are no contemporary sources to back it up. NO dog is a “nanny” and it’s stupid and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Dogs are animals, not child-minders. I owned a Newfoundland for 10+ years. That’s the dog breed “Nana” from Peter Pan is based on. And I never claimed he was a “nanny dog” and I never left him unsupervised with my kids despite his unbelievably sweet and gentle nature because HE WAS A DOG. Stop spewing this nanny lie. It is DANGEROUS to pretend a dog, ANY DOG, is a suitable babysitter. Jesus.
Realistic-Sun3480 OP t1_j455cwt wrote
This article is one that explains where that nanny dog myth came from (if anyone's curious):
https://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2010/08/nanny-dog-myth-revealed.html?m=1
Speuter_Your_BBM t1_j44lcy6 wrote
Oh dear… this is embarrassing for you. You’re slamming someone else for not knowing anything about dogs, yet you claim that pit bulls were nanny dogs. Big yikes.
THIS IS A MYTH, started by Staffie breeder Lillian Rant in 1971 to distance the dogs from their fighting heritage. She called them “nursemaid” dogs. Check for any historical mention of “nanny dog” prior to 1971. You won’t find it. (Note: random Google blogs don’t count)
Please stop spreading this myth. It’s getting children killed. Every time you share this myth, you have the blood of dead children on your hands.
I’m going to share the pit bull EXPERTS that have publicly stated that pit bulls were NEVER nanny dogs. If pro-pit experts are saying this, please listen.
-
The Pit Bull Advocates of America- It’s NOT All How They Are Raised/Nanny Dog Myth
-
The Pit Bull Federation of South Africa
-
Gudwulf’s Pit Bull Rescue
As far as the PBFSA and Gudwulf’s; just visit their page and search the word “nanny” and you’ll find the info you need.
I’m begging you… please don’t ever spread this myth again.
Even if they ever were nanny dogs; the amount of horrid back yard breeding and number of dogs used for fighting would certainly not make that UNtrue today (they weren’t)… they kill and catastrophically injure more children every year than all other breeds combined.
Just THIS LAST WEEKEND PIT BULLS SCALPED TWO CHILDREN that were playing in their own neighborhoods.
11 year old Justin, GA, pulled off his bike and scalped by 3 bully breeds
7 Year old girl scalped and killed as she played in her own yard
This past October, American Bullies killed BOTH of a family’s children, age 2 and 5 months old. The family had owned the dogs for 8 years with zero incidents.
Please, please stop the myth.
[deleted] t1_j44luk3 wrote
[removed]
ProgressMom68 t1_j44nvrl wrote
Ok, let’s be fair here. A miniature schnauzer isn’t going to rip someone’s throat out. People want to make this a binary problem (bad breed vs. bad owners) but honestly, it’s both. Plus irresponsible breeders, lax laws, breed ignorance, and more.
Wrinklestiltskin t1_j46adz9 wrote
I've seen a child's face after a small dog attack. You are just plain factually wrong that a small dog cannot do real damage, especially to children.
Am I going to feel as intimidated by a smaller dog as large dog? Hell no.. But that doesn't change the fact a small dog can tear up a child's face in an instant.
External_Staff_300 t1_j44piby wrote
A mini-schnauzer isn't as likely. But it does happen, rare as it is. I agree about breed ignorance though. People don't know how to care for a breed's specific needs and tragedy happens. But that still leaves it with the owner being responsible.
There isn't a single breed out there that is universally vicious. There isn't one specific breed that is more likely to bite you. It all comes down to the individual temperament of the animal, it's training, it's treatment.. way too many factors than just "bad dog breed"
Silhouettesmiled t1_j44cv4p wrote
IT'S THE BREED TOO!!! PITBULLS ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM! Open your eyes. This shit breed has already killed many people this year and the year has hardly started. Small breeds do NOT do nearly the amount of damage like this shit breed does. Why do you think pitbulls are used in dog fights??! That's what they are bred to do! Fuck it's even in their name! PITBULL
External_Staff_300 t1_j44d7ed wrote
For every pitbull attack you read about there are hundreds, thousands, that are just being the sweet and gentle dogs they normally are.
It's not the breed.
Silhouettesmiled t1_j44eihu wrote
I'm not arguing what the facts and statistics are. Do a simple Google search. Many have lost their lives because of this prey-driven breed.
Realistic-Sun3480 OP t1_j44r256 wrote
I want to point out that there's also a sub here on reddit that is mainly about supporting victims of these attacks, spreading awareness of the importance of breed specific legislation, and other important info and topics related to and/or similar to this subject, etc.
External_Staff_300 t1_j44er74 wrote
Of course not. Because the facts don't fit your narrative. Large breed attacks are reported more often, but actually happen less than small breed attacks.
People who are wrong never want to argue facts that prove it.
ProgressMom68 t1_j44o14j wrote
You’re the one making the claim. You present the evidence. What is the human death rate per 1,000 pit bulls? Surely the evidence is out there somewhere. “Many” isn’t a useful statistic.
Funky_Farkleface t1_j44oo2x wrote
Dahmer isn’t the problem! There are more small-scale murderers than serial killers, check the statistics. Dahmer had parents who should’ve taught him right from wrong. He wasn’t properly trained, that’s the real problem. If his parents had just spent more time with him, or took him to the mall for socialization, he would’ve never murdered all those people. Sure, there were probably warning signs but it’s not his fault, he wasn’t trained.
Alright, look. Are you prepared to go over to FedMed, take home a convicted murderer, and properly train them because they’re good boys who deserve a chance? It’s okay, we can castrate/vaccinate/license them. That’s enough for you to let them around your family, right?
What if I fostered a murderer? Can I bring him to the park, socialization is very important to his rehabilitation. You trust that I trained him, right? Because I’m an expert. The warden I got him from trusts me to train this murderer, so we’re good, right?
External_Staff_300 t1_j44p35l wrote
That is the most idiotic analogy I have ever heard. You are adding nothing but ignorance to the conversation.
Agoodnamenotyettaken t1_j45zjin wrote
So, what I'm getting from this is that you think we should ban all humans because some of them are capable of some very heinous shit. Or maybe just white males, since most serial killer come from that "breed."
springfieldmo_17 t1_j44d82y wrote
Yes, use this platform to push your agenda while the children and teachers remain injured and traumatized…but make sure to let all of them know that pits aren’t the problem! Seriously, stfu.
PieBiter t1_j44keki wrote
Pit Bulls maul, hospitalize and kill at 10 times the rate of all other breeds combined. Your "no matter what breed" dissembly is boilerplate nanny dog bullshit.
[deleted] t1_j46f13z wrote
[deleted]
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j446pfw wrote
To add to this, many of the kids likely ran the other direction screaming bloody murder. This would have quickly triggered the dogs prey drive. It should have never been a problem if the owner/brother had them properly confined within the regulations I put in a previous comment. Or if they would have been on a leash and also had a muzzle on like is required by the regulations but nobody ever follows.
Silhouettesmiled t1_j44d82i wrote
Pitbulls are also prey-driven monsters. It's so stupid that jackasses keep defending this dangerous breed.
External_Staff_300 t1_j44eiur wrote
You don't know animals and certainly don't know pitbulls.
Did the dogs let themselves out? Did the dogs neglect to train themselves? Did the dogs neglect to socialize themselves? Did the dogs forget to make a vet appointment for proper vaccination?
No. All of that was the responsibility of the owner. Blame the owner.
I work maintenance in apartments. I'm around dogs, pits too, all day every day. Have been for years. Never seen a vicious one that didn't have an absolute idiot for an owner. And that goes for any breed of dog, cat, gerbal, ferret, or any other pet.
lightsrage85 t1_j45xqwh wrote
right? I mean shoot take them to the vet get there shots. keep them trained and put up. its not hard. My friends dont go outside with there dogs for nothing. its to make sure they don't go out of the yard.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44fem4 wrote
There are so many other breeds that are very prey driven as well. A prey driven dog only becomes a problem without proper training and education on the owners end. Why do you think they are monsters? They are some of the most loving, loyal, and affectionate dogs. I do not own a pit bull/mix or anything close to them. I'm just trying to help people see from another side. Too many people just jump on the "monster" wagon in my opinion.
External_Staff_300 t1_j44ljai wrote
I work around them every day. Never had an issue. Even when I volunteered at a kennel, never had an issue. My grandpa had one for 18 years, and she was a giant sweetheart.
hypo_____ t1_j452sdh wrote
Anecdotes are not evidence
External_Staff_300 t1_j453v65 wrote
Well, I provided actual studies and the lady deleted her comments. Y'all don't want facts. You want confirmation of your bias.
HarryTheHangryHippo t1_j44lriw wrote
Can't upvote this enough
Born2fayl t1_j451vic wrote
Apparently…
springfieldmo_17 t1_j44cp3h wrote
The girl with the “severe leg injury” was innocently playing 4-square when the white dog bit her leg. She then ran, and the dog attacked her again biting her and bringing her to the ground and dragging her on the ground before a teacher bravely came and started beating the dog with a hydroflask. The girl ended up with 48 stitches and bite marks that were so deep you could see her bone from her inner thigh.
[deleted] t1_j43m4iv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j442hzy wrote
[removed]
GeneralTonic t1_j4442j4 wrote
Most Redditors believe in the rule of law and a little something we call civilization. Others, given their childish worldview, would have us stabbing each other with sharpened sticks for food inside of six months. The latter group is making gains.
Television_Wise t1_j44aqny wrote
It seemed pretty obviously a joke/vent post. There aren't dogs large enough to recreate what those children went through when you consider size ratio and how it impacts damage and terror.
I think it's pretty common (and harmless) for people to wish someone who does harm could get an equal measure of that harm back. What's bizarre to me is taking someone seriously on this and getting angry at them.
Children in our community were permanently scarred, damaged, and traumatized. It's natural to be angry and need to vent or wish for justice/just desserts.
Once again: wishing out of anger is not the same as supporting the fall of rule of law, or whatever.
Skanky_Cat t1_j43dt4x wrote
Dumb bitch should catch assault charges for each attack. That’s how you put a stop to these kinds of things.