isadore;1204341 wrote:if the goal is killing the young or the old pit bulls are more successful

Raw Dawgin' it;1204342 wrote:He's the only person I have on my ignore list - i think everyone should follow suit.

isadore;1204345 wrote:gosh a ruddies this guy has already shown depraved indifference by bringing his killer dog among other peoples children while he plays basketball.

LJ;1204347 wrote:Good idea, I just added him. This thread is already 100% more enjoyable

justincredible;1204352 wrote:I wish I could set up the software to automatically thread ban isadore from any thread mentioning pitbulls.

isadore;1204332 wrote:No, pit bulls are most likely to kill very young and very old people. Humans are least likely to kill the very young and the very old.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0311.pdf

Con_Alma;1204333 wrote:Likely wasn't the operative word. Successful was.

Rotinaj;1204337 wrote:Actually pit bulls are most likely NOT to kill at all.

isadore;1204339 wrote:much more likely than any other type of dog.

BR1986FB;1204348 wrote:No he hasn't. Just your assumption/profiling that the dog is dangerous. You racist too? Seem to profile everything else.

Steel Valley Football wrote:A guy playing hoops at our local park had his pit loose with kids running around.

LJ;1204353 wrote:Gib ya $20

justincredible;1204352 wrote:I wish I could set up the software to automatically thread ban isadore from any thread mentioning pitbulls.

isadore;1204341 wrote:if the goal is killing the young or the old pit bulls are more successful

Con_Alma;1204346 wrote:I repeat, who isn't more successful killing the vulnerable as opposed to the less vulnerable?

isadore;1204356 wrote:depraved indifference.

isadore;1204359 wrote:why do you want to have killer dogs running loose in our communities?

O-Trap;1204355 wrote:You said "successfully." A grown man would have a higher success rate trying to kill an infant or the elderly, as they are weaker than the ages in between.



Reps for reading comprehension.



Reps for factual statements.



Only if "much" means approximately one dozen a year, using a sample of pit bull breeds in excess of 4 million registered.

isadore;1204367 wrote:but Pit Bulls seeking out the young and the weak to kill. I realize a dozen dead people, half of them children is "small potatoes" to you but when there are so many types of dogs who have killed no people, why keep these killers among us.

O-Trap;1204366 wrote:Same with humans.



Common sense, I thought I told you to leave!!!



I agree, and it applies to all dogs. Dog not on a leash? Shoot on site.



No, and I don't want pink dragons in my neighborhood, but since neither exist, I think we're good.

isadore;1204367 wrote:but Pit Bulls seeking out the young and the weak to kill. I realize a dozen dead people, half of them children is "small potatoes" to you but when there are so many types of dogs who have killed no people, why keep these killers among us.

O-Trap;1204370 wrote:1. What dogs have killed no people?

2. Proof that any dog "seeks out" people? Did they tell you, Caesar Milan?

isadore;1204372 wrote:but humans do not have a preference for killing the young and the old, pit bulls do as the statistics show.

O-Trap;1204370 wrote:2. Proof that any dog "seeks out" people? Did they tell you, Caesar Milan?

justincredible;1204381 wrote:I should probably get rid of my vicious poodle.

http://wtkr.com/2012/05/29/poodle-attacks-pit-bull/

Raw Dawgin' it;1204385 wrote:lol does your poodle have a faggy hair cut? My parents had a poodle but just let his hair grow out all shaggy so he looked cool...well as cool as you can for being a poodle

O-Trap;1204377 wrote:Wrong. The statistics show that the young and old die much more easily from the same kind of attack (see the Pomeranian example from the last thread).

And humans kill with intent at a much higher rate across the board. They intend to kill. Humans are bloodthirsty killers.

No pink dragons, but if your neighbor had a komodo dragon which do kill people, you may want them gone.