MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

31 January 2006

TROUBLEMAKERS What pit bulls can teach us about profiling (by MALCOLM GLADWELL)
I for one think pitbulls are vicious dogs who require some sort of breed specific ban. Otherwise you get stomach-turning scenes like the one pictured here.
posted by omiewise 31 January | 07:26
I always enjoy reading Malcolm Gladwell, thanks for the link. I know, some people find him facile, but I just find myself agreeing with him.
posted by rainbaby 31 January | 08:44
Gladwell is excellent at illustrating complex ideas in an accessible, interesting way. He makes you feel as though you deeply understand phenomena, and he has a knack for digging the Surprising out of the ordinary.
posted by Miko 31 January | 08:51
Look, enough about Gladwell, what about the cute picture of a pitbull licking my face?

(I like him too.)
posted by omiewise 31 January | 09:06
Most assault weapons sold in America never fire a bullet into a human being, either. It's the handguns that are most dangerous.

Maybe we should ban all dogs.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 09:17
I for one think pitbulls are vicious dogs who require some sort of breed specific ban


Do you also believe german shepards, rottwilliers, and saint bernards should be banned as well. These are all breeds that have been the aggressive dog du jour for aggressive assholes wanting a status dog in the last thirty years. Heck when I was a kid everyone was amazed a family with four kids would have border collies because of their reputation for attacking children at the time. A border collie biting a person isn't news anymore though. It's too bad getting a dog isn't as hard as getting drivers licence.

Doing in home service work the dogs I've always worried about (in fact the only dogs I've ever been bitten by) are poodles, poodle-xs and chiuauas. Poodles especially are often vicious, high strung, aggressive dogs that probably aren't getting enough exercise in many homes.
posted by Mitheral 31 January | 09:20
My comment was sarcasm that lead into a picture of me getting some serious love from a pit! See my second comment in the thread as well. I actually think breed bans are bad ideas. Doesn't anyone click on links anymore?

Hell, I just read an article in the NYT about a golden retriever killing a six year old by pulling on her scarf until she hung.
posted by omiewise 31 January | 09:26
Very cyute picture, omiewise!
posted by rainbaby 31 January | 09:41
I'm generally wary of clicking links described as "stomach turning," but I did click your link after seeing your followup post, omiewise.

As a matter of fact, I would never have known it was sarcasm had you not followed up with a description of the stomach-turning photo in question.

My comment was meant tongue-in-cheek too, but I don't know where my sympathies lie here. I guess dogs should be better licensed and folks should have to take responsibility for the actions of their dogs. Legal responsibility.

I reckon if a dog attacks someone and the owner is criminally charged in the attack as the principal attacker, and the dog regarded as the weapon used in the attack, then dog owner might be more responsible. Even for dog-on-dog attacks. No more community service when Fido kills Fluffy; you're going to jail.

Also proof that a dog is/can be/will be trained for the society it keeps should be prerequisite to licensing, as well as periodic monitoring of mental and physical health, to stem abuse and anticipate problems.

That way the only folks with bad dogs will be bad people.

I'm not sure I buy what I just wrote at all.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 09:56
I FUCKERING LOVE PITS! I LOVE BONKING THEM RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES AND THUMPING THEIR BRISKETS! I LOVE THEIR DINOSAUR PAWS AND CRAZY ASS NECKS!

I LOVE IT WHEN THEY GO "FRUMPH" RIGHT BEFORE THEY GO TO SLEEP.

I THINK PEOPLE WHO TORTURE DOGS INTO KILLERS SHOULD BE SUSPENDED BY THEIR EYELIDS FROM A CRANE.

PIT BULL CHARIOT! EAT THAT FUCKING SNOW SHEBA!
GO BABY GO!


That article is pretty good in a no fucking shit Malcolm kinda way, but I don't blame him for the obviousness, people hate thinking.


Hugh,
There are some dogs and people you just cannot reach (say 3 or 4% maybe, shit just goes wrong in the brain forming process), but the vast majority of violent pits are made that way, dogs are no more capable of resisting that provocation into violence than humans, but I do know they like it even less (as you know as well, I think).
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 10:03
Yeah, you know, you see some dude kick his pitbull, so you roll up and fucking knife the jerk, and then the dog doesn't realize the goddamn favor you just did him and sinks his teeth into your hip and you go down screaming but you still have your knife so you slash at the dog's eyes and it hurts you more because you started all this shit for the dog's sake, and now it's blind but it won't let go of your fucking hip, it's chewing and I think it tore into some guts too because there's suddenly shit all over, and you stab again at him but your stabs are getting weak and the owner is getting up and a cop arrives on the scene to sort out how there came to be one man staggering around with a deep knife wound in his belly and another man holding a bloody knife with a blinded pit bull ripping his guts out, and then he just stands there waiting for backup and wondering whether he should call animal control.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 10:25
I actually think breed bans are bad ideas. Doesn't anyone click on links anymore?


Sorry about that, I'm home sick today and my arthritic internet connection encourages surfing with images off. Ironically I was thinking you hadn't read the article.
posted by Mitheral 31 January | 10:27
Most of my revenge killings for dog torture involve a couple of shots from my "agitated coral snake" pistol. Which is a cruel irony. I don't really care if snakes suffer because I'm inconsistent and mammalist in the extreme.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 10:36
Yes, my fault. I take it as so axiomatic that breed bans are a bad idea, and I like the pits I've met so well, that I just assumed that my meaning would be clear.

I think this NYT article about a golden retriever killing a six year old girl is horrific, but also a great illustration of the problems inherent in pre-condemning specific people or breeds. Even the headline describes the dog as "playful," and while it's clear that the dog was trying to play, I can't imagine that word being applied to even a playful pitbull.

Pits were indeed bred to be animal agressive, but not human aggressive. They used to be called Nanny Dogs because of thier winning and gentle ways with children. Badrap.org is a good site about the problems with pit condemnation.
posted by omiewise 31 January | 10:48
I love nice dogs of all sorts, but while pit bulls bite folks less frequently than do chihuahuas, I recognize that they can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

I'd much rather be near a chihuahua who found the wrong end of a wasp's nest than a sting-enraged pit bull.

People should be discouraged from owning these dogs, perhaps not by law, perhaps by the breeders themselves. Because then pit bull owners would have all gone through hell to get their pets, and that hell would hopefully include owner training and courses on lessening the dog's inbred aggression.

I don't think there should be a ban, and by discouraging I don't mean telling folks never to buy pit bulls. I mean people should be serious about positive training to avoid incidents which turn real ugly real quick when there's a pit bull inviolved.

I think when it comes to pit bulls, being too fervent of a defender or too broad an attacker makes for bad meat.

It's too chewy and it doesn't sit well at all. I'm still not sure if I agree with my own opinions, above.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 11:31
I'll put it this way. I have a 10 year old step-daughter, I usually put myself between her and big dogs in the street, pits and rottweilers more often then not. Pits held on chain leashes by young swaggering men 100% of the time. This is the same reason I don't keep any of my guns in my home, it doesn't matter that I know I can keep them from her, I'm not going to leave it up to that confidence. Pits are almost always good, loving, gentle dogs. Pits owned by over-machoed shithead 18-35 year old men are loaded, cocked pistols. Pollyanna can kiss my fucking ass.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 11:42
But she's so spunky!
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 12:00
Omiewise: that's one vicious dog all right. : )

Barney and I have met quite a few pit bulls/AmStaffs. There are some that have come to the dog park, we've seen some at Petsmart, and there's a shelter down the block from me that gets a lot of pits and pit mixes (Not every shelter takes them...this one does) and I see them being walked through my neighborhood frequently. (Once they had a pit mix mom and litter of 5 puppies...I'd see the guy from the shelter out with 3 of the puppies and a little later on he'd be back with the mom and the other puppies. All have since been adopted) In all cases these dogs have been well-socialized and very friendly. I realize this is not always the case...I think it depends how the dog is raised. I don't support breed bans. I would support some people being banned from owning dogs, though!

By the way, the meanest dogs I ever met were Pomeranians.
posted by sisterhavana 31 January | 12:46
I would like to see dogs criminalized. If your dog attacks someone it's aggravated assault the same as attacking someone with a knife. If your dog kills someone it is manslaughter or murder as the case warrants. I was a dog owner (RIP Harry) but I have no patience for irresponsible dog owners.
posted by arse_hat 31 January | 13:21
Oh and I don't think much about studies that show breeds like pits are no more aggressive than other dogs. It is an apple and orange comparison. A pom or a lab has nothing like the jaw strength of a pit bull or rottweiler. They may be no more aggressive but the are more dangerous.
posted by arse_hat 31 January | 13:26
If there were just pit bulls and pomeranians that would be a valid point.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 14:10
Sorry, because that is the kind of terse jerky answer that I don't really like (on my own part).

Pits (Am Staffs and American Pit Bull Terriers) do not "lock jaws" or have "increased bite pressure", their are rated at 83%+ pass range by the American Temperament Test Society's Breed Statistics.

The problem with these dogs is they are very fast, strong and have a high tolerance for pain, so if they do attack it is hard to get them off.

They are also one of the few breeds that was bred to NOT BE AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS HUMANS. Which means that at a baseline they are a safer animal to own (which can be very misleading, animals are animals. Revolvers are safer than semi-automatics, but both are guns).*

If you read the article that matteo posted the whole point is that Pits are not more dangerous than other dogs of similar size, but they are perceived as such and therefore singled out for banning and negative attention (Which by the way just encourages assholes to buy them and abuse them until they become dangerous). This does nothing to improve the safety of children or anyone else, I think an arguement can be made that it increases the danger to children because of the tough guy angle and because people will say "Ok that dog isn't a pit so I can not be vigilant around it with my child."

All large dogs are dangerous. I aggree with you that an owner is 100% responsible for the actions of their dog. I love pitbulls.


*there is an askmefi here from dobbs that most of this comes from, site wise.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 14:37
Even a poodle has enough jaw strength to bite right thru a leather hiking boot with both upper and lower teeth.
posted by Mitheral 31 January | 14:44
"If you read the article that matteo posted the whole point is that Pits are not more dangerous than other dogs of similar size"
I DID in fact read the article. I disagree with the opinion on pitbulls and find the article in general a facial oversimplification of all the topics touched on.
posted by arse_hat 31 January | 14:46
Facial oversimplication
Isn't that what that Lab recently did to the zonked-out Frenchwoman?
posted by tangerine 31 January | 14:52
Pit bulls aren't more dangerous, but being bitten by one is, I think is the point.

I'd rather get bitten by two thousand mosquitos than one pit bull.

It's all about owners anyway, though. Ever see a scary mastiff? Oh god, I just shit my pants thinking about it. How about a friendly one? Sweetest, cutest, good-naturedest beast ever.

Ever meet the kinda guy who trains his pitbull to kill? Fucking degenerate; I'd like to crease his skull with a hot iron, I would.

I'm not sure how I feel about this whole thing, because I've never had my dick bitten off by a dog. Or my face.

So does what I just wrote technically mean I've never had my dick bitten off by my face, either? Because if it does, that's one paragraph I'm not editing for clarity.

Excuse me while I change my pants.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 15:05
Why do you disagree with the opinion?

I'm not sure it is an "opinion" as such anyway. It's more of a theory (blurring some values of 'theory' and 'opinion'). Racial profiling is not effective (for almost all values of 'effective'). Pit Bulls are not more "inherently" dangerous than other dogs of similiar size, thus:

“I’ve seen virtually every breed involved in fatalities, including Pomeranians and everything else, except a beagle or a basset hound,” Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the A.S.P.C.A. and one of the country’s leading dogbite experts, told me. “And there’s always one or two deaths attributable to malamutes or huskies, although you never hear people clamoring for a ban on those breeds. When I first started looking at fatal dog attacks, they largely involved dogs like German shepherds and shepherd mixes and St. Bernards—which is probably why Stephen King chose to make Cujo a St. Bernard, not a pit bull. I haven’t seen a fatality involving a Doberman for decades, whereas in the nineteen-seventies they were quite common. If you wanted a mean dog, back then, you got a Doberman. I don’t think I even saw my first pit-bull case until the middle to late nineteen-eighties, and I didn’t start seeing Rottweilers until I’d already looked at a few hundred fatal dog attacks. Now those dogs make up the preponderance of fatalities. The point is that it changes over time. It’s a reflection of what the dog of choice is among people who want to own an aggressive dog.”


While that is an opinion in the sense that it contains statements that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, it is actually much heavier on what is generally accepted as facts.

You do seem to aggree with Gladwell that it is more important to treat and address the issue of human/dog interaction than the breed itself, thus:

It was a textbook dog-biting case: unneutered, ill-trained, charged-up dogs, with a history of aggression and an irresponsible owner, somehow get loose, and set upon a small child. The dogs had already passed through the animal bureaucracy of Ottawa, and the city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed.


My reading of the article is that it is foolish and overly common to make generalized assumptions based on appearance and biased historical information (terrorists are Arab, Pits are violent) rather than on sets of behavior and sets of likely seed points of that behavior. I find that hard to disagree with (albeit as I said above somewhat facile in the sense of obviousness, yet many people do disagree).
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 15:07
And arse_hat, I'm sorry I should have said "did you read the article?" or something similar, what I said was rude, although unintentionally so.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 15:11
Hey no problem DW. My feelings about pitbulls come only after being around Staffordshires. I had a neighbour who happened to be a caring and responsible breeder of Staffs. I got to know a number of the dogs and I can say I really don't want one anywhere near me. I find them (Staffs and similar) far more unprdictable than most breeds. I would no longer visit a home with one.
posted by arse_hat 31 January | 15:22
It's strange, having lived with or around pits for many, many years (I don't have one now, but have had them in the past) I am wary of them (in the sense that I am wary of anything that can hurt me), but I never get that instability vibe. When I see a tough guy with one I just assume they are unstable without trying to actually find out. Once I am comfortable with how a pit has been treated and I've had a chance to horse around with them a little I feel much more comfortable around them than I would a Husky or a Retiever (both breeds have bitten me in the past), although I love them all. It really is all about your experience.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 15:28
Sorry to hijack (especially after an unfortunate typo left me unable to resist an unforgivably callous pun), but...OmieWise, Zora's gorgeous.

I remember you were involved somehow with Schroedinger's Dog, who was also a pit. Is Zora yours? If so, congratulations!
posted by tangerine 31 January | 15:33
DW in a round about way I think we are both saying the same thing. My problem is I don't think most people with pitbull breeds are responsible and so I just avoid them all.
posted by arse_hat 31 January | 15:34
≡ Click to see image ≡
posted by gaspode 31 January | 15:35
yeah I understand that. As a lover of the breed I get my back up because you are not wrong to feel that way. I fucking love pitbulls. They are so thumpable. Thump. Thump.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 15:43
You see that girl up there? ^^
That is a very good fucking girl. She is also hungry for food.
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 15:54
Not mine, a friend's. Zora is not Schroedinger's dog, which I was going to adopt. It was actually the two of them fighting that made it impossible for me to adopt Scout, since Zora is around me a lot. It wasn't a serious fight, but they clearly did not like each other, which is something I think you have to take very seriously with pitbulls.
posted by omiewise 31 January | 15:56
I hate you all
posted by matteo 31 January | 16:09
Troublemaker.
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 16:12
*thumps matteo*
posted by Divine_Wino 31 January | 16:16
Was this supposed to be about something other than doggies?

≡ Click to see image ≡
posted by Hugh Janus 31 January | 16:19
I'm concerned.... || Worst toothpaste ad evah!

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN