Vicious dog attacks everyone!
(And yet, we laugh...)

While you might not be able to watch it while keeping a straight face, take a look at this video:

Clearly, the dog -- named "Happy" -- is out of control, and the owner is irresponsible (if not insane).

I suspect most people would laugh at the above video (hence the 250,000 YouTube hits). I admit, I have a dark sense of humor and I was in near hysterics.

But suddenly I realized something. What makes this whole thing comical is that the dog (misleadingly named "Happy") is a tiny yappy dog. Happy couldn't kill anyone if he or she tried. (Well, maybe Happy could successfully maul a tiny infant, but that's unlikely.)

Once my laughter died down, I once again my I found myself wondering about the prevention-based campaigns to outlaw dogs by breed., typified by this statement from an anti-pit bull activist:

"The real concept behind a fighting breed ban it to stop an attack before it happens."
Various statistics are cited (which of course are contradicted by other statistics), and there are a lot of arguments presented that it isn't fair to discriminate against an entire breed because a small minority of them are involved in attacks on humans -- which I hasten again to point out is aberrational pit bull behavior. But is the real goal even to prevent attacks? Or is the goal to prevent dangerous attacks?

If the goal really is prevention of all danger, instead of looking at attacks by breed, why don't these activists look at what I suspect is the real 100% correlation -- attacks by size? Common sense would suggest that tiny little yappers cannot kill human beings, no matter how frenzied or demented they might be in their efforts.

While a brief look at fatal dog attack statistics like these shows that literally dozens (if not hundreds) of Americans have been killed by dogs over the decades, the numbers do not reveal what I suspect is a 100% correlation:

Year Human Population Dog Population # Fatal Dog Attacks
1950 - 151 million people - 20-22 million dogs - 10 fatal attacks
1970 - 203 million people - 31 million dogs - 12 fatal attacks
1980 - 226 million people - 40 million dogs - 15 fatal attacks
2000 - 281 million people - 60+ million dogs - 19 fatal attacks
I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of those fatal attacks was perpetrated by a dog the size of Happy.

So if the goal is truly "prevention," why not ban all dogs except tiny little yappers?

posted by Eric on 06.01.08 at 10:00 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6765






Comments

2000 - 281 million people - 60+ million dogs - 19 fatal attacks

Is this worth even a footnote? Of all things to protect people from, 19/281 million seems miniscule - 114 avg die each day in car crashes (I wonder how many involved trucks, to make a comparison).

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/SPC0003.pdf

Anonymous   ·  June 1, 2008 03:02 PM

The owner of the dog in the video should have been prosecuted for allowing the dog out without a muzzle. By her own admission she knew it was liable to bite, having done so before. A small dog can cause severe disfiguring injuries to a small child. And any dog attack on a child can ruin that youngsters view of man's best friend.

Monty   ·  June 1, 2008 07:15 PM

Thank you everybody you've help prove my point.

John   ·  June 1, 2008 08:08 PM

The second amendment covers dog attacks too, because a man does not have true liberty unless he is free from crotch-biting little dogs.

Moral of the story: Don't ever bring a little crotch-biting dog to a knife fight.

Ronald   ·  June 1, 2008 09:54 PM

That woman is completely insane.

I have no idea whether that dog's problem is innate, or could be solved by proper handling, but that woman is completely insane.


[quote]So if the goal is truly "prevention," why not ban all dogs except tiny little yappers?[/quote]

Hey, now! Out of those dozens of deaths, I'd bet you not one of them was caused by a giant breed dog. Sure, in principle, a vicious 200 pound Newfie could be a terror -- but have you ever met a vicious Newfie? There's a reason for that.

((Okay... couldn't help myself. Looked up the statistics. The CDC did a 20-year study (1979-1998) and found 238 fatalities -- 1 involving a Newfie, and 7 involving a St. Bernard. Astonishingly enough, there was a single fatality reported involving a West Highland Terrier, and another involving a Cocker Spaniel.

The report is here: cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf))

Clint   ·  June 2, 2008 02:04 AM

I admit I'm not entirely rational on this issue, but I'd have a hard time NOT being behind a ban on tiny little yappers.

I love all the photos of Coco; she's one gorgeous dog.

Donna B.   ·  June 2, 2008 02:57 AM

Wouldn't banning a breed put that breed on the environmental endangered list? Their numbers would drop dramatically.

rudytbone   ·  June 2, 2008 12:57 PM

The man's injuries, while comparatively small, are still large enough to cause scarring and permanent damage. I think this breed should either be banned or any dog with such violent drives should be destroyed. That owner is an idiot.

Drew   ·  June 2, 2008 01:15 PM

Any dog can be dangerous, look at a chihuahuas teeth, their still bigger and nastier then ours.

Daniel   ·  June 2, 2008 05:33 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



June 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits