Dog attacks on kids, why's it always a Staffy?

[0742Sheff]

But I did prove it. You declared that:

 

"So you [upinwath] haven't found any link to a proper Stafford killing"

 

In other words that the 3 examples of Stafford killings upinwath don't count. Immediately after seeking to exclude a case of a "Stafford killing" because another dog was involved.

 

If you weren't saying the examples upinwath found "don't count" then what did you mean when you said "you [upinwath] haven't found any link to a proper Stafford killing"?

 

 

This is a blatantly false straw man attack that you've clearly launched as you have no response to what I've actually posted.

 

All along I've been perfectly clear that I regard the inherent characteristics of the Staffordshire Bull Terriers breed as making them disproportionately likely to attack people and for such attacks to be rather more damaging than the average dog attack. That is a world away from "every Staffy... [is] a devil dog just waiting to rip the throat out of every child it sees."

 

Those examples didn't count due to none of them being confirmed as a pedigree Stafford which, is what i asked for. I am not going to repeat what i think about the cross breed and attacks as you are simply not interested. I said it twice already.

 

Also. If you think a Stafford is more likely to attack than something like a Yorkshire Terrier or Jack Russel then you are clearly deluded.

 

'If' a Stafford attacks it will do a LOT of damage but it is no more likely to attack than many other types of dog.

[0742Sheff]

This is a huge generalization and renders any semi-intelligent point that you may have made a fluke.

 

Blimey. I think i am agreeing with you

[0742Sheff]

They were bred to be aggressive.

 

They are taken into homes by idiots who have children but should have required a licence to breed kids on the grounds they're really too stupid for words.

 

Of course most don't kill children but enough do to make it bloody daft to have one in your house. I've been attacked by a "Nanny" evil killing machine in Ecclesfield and it was a game for me to hold the beast back.

If I hadn't managed to grab it's heavy collar, I would have been badly bitten.

A kid hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell.

 

Yes it's a generalisation but the stupidity displayed by all owners is a fact.

 

You like to talk crap don't you

 

My bold and still waiting on a confirmed Staffy kill instead of a mongrel. In fact. How many cross breed death has there been in the UK over the last 10 years?

[plekhanov]

Those examples didn't count due to none of them being confirmed as a pedigree Stafford which, is what i asked for. I am not going to repeat what i think about the cross breed and attacks as you are simply not interested. I said it twice already.

As I noted before this is nothing but a classic 'no true scotsman' attempt to wriggle out of an uncomfortable truth.

 

You initially asked for evidence it was provided and you were then reduced to pretending that it didn't count because they Staffordshire Bull Terriers involved aren't "true Staffordshire Bull Terriers".

 

Also. If you think a Stafford is more likely to attack than something like a Yorkshire Terrier or Jack Russel then you are clearly deluded.

 

'If' a Stafford attacks it will do a LOT of damage but it is no more likely to attack than many other types of dog.

Yet another blatant strawman. I have never stated that I regard Staffordshire Bull Terriers to be the most likely breed to attack, just the opposite in fact I explicitly stated that:

 

"In my (by definition narrow) personal experience small yappie type dogs are the most likely to bite"

 

What I have done is right from my very 1st post consistently state that Staffordshire Bull Terriers & like breeds "tend to be unusually prone to attack people and because they're powerful dogs distressingly good at attacking them."

 

My objection to fighting dogs is clearly a combination of their likelihood to attack & their proficiency in doing so.

 

Will you please try honesty for once and respond to what I actually post as opposed to what you wish I'd posted.

[0742Sheff]

Okay. I will quote it being as you do not want to.

 

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

 

Now... Tell me where i have said a Stafford hasn't attacked someone. For the very last time i will try and get it through to you.

 

I AM NOT DISPUTING STAFFY CROSS BREEDS ARE ATTACKING PEOPLE. WHAT I AM DISPUTING IS PEOPLE SAYING A MONGREL IS A STAFFY

 

Was that clear enough for you?

 

. I have never stated that I regard Staffordshire Bull Terriers to be the most likely breed to attack, just the opposite in fact I explicitly stated that:

 

"In my (by definition narrow) personal experience small yappie type dogs are the most likely to bite"

 

What I have done is right from my very 1st post consistently state that Staffordshire Bull Terriers & like breeds "tend to be unusually prone to attack people and because they're powerful dogs distressingly good at attacking them."

 

Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?. One sentence you say they are not the most likely to attack and the next say they are 'usually prone to attack'.

 

Make your mind up man

 

Will you please try honesty for once and respond to what I actually post as opposed to what you wish I'd posted.

 

I think i just have (as i think i have all along). If you think otherwise then we are clearly on different wavelengths.

[CHEZZFAYE]

i have a staff and a gsd both are 6 at the end of this year my children are 2 and 1.

 

the gsd i would trust to the end of the earth hes so gentle and dosile around the boys to the point where he even listens to commands from my 2 year old.

 

the staff is trusted but not as much not because he is agressive but because he is hyper he knocks them over stands on them.

 

however if either one showed the slightest sign of agression ie baring teeth, growling or even a small nip they would be in the vets and pts so am i an ideot for having dogs and children.

 

and the other dog in the link with the jrt was a pit bull type the owner actually got done for having it i think

[0742Sheff]

however if either one showed the slightest sign of agression ie baring teeth, growling or even a small nip they would be in the vets and pts so am i an ideot for having dogs and children.

 

We have always been of the same opinion of our dogs. Even though we had our Stafford for 15 years we always knew no dog could be trusted 100%. I always said that i would deal with any of my dogs instantly if they were to attack anyone.

[CHEZZFAYE]

We have always been of the same opinion of our dogs. Even though we had our Stafford for 15 years we always knew no dog could be trusted 100%. I always said that i would deal with any of my dogs instantly if they were to attack anyone.

all it would take to stop most of these attacks would be to use common sense, if half of these dogs were trained properly it wouldnt happen

[CHEZZFAYE]

as for its allways a staff are thes staffys

 

edinburghnews.scotsman.com/.../Jack-Russell-attack-left-me.3806007.jp

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/.../3816542.Toddler_scarred_for_life_after_dog_attack/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12072694

[CHEZZFAYE]

heres an interesting one

 

May 15 Labrador Retriever-mix,

 

Dachshund

Julia Beck 87 years Killed by her in-law's two dogs

 

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States