assuming weapon condition is going to be in the game at all

Don't be so negative. What if it is greater than the predecessors?

in case you havent actually read what i wrote, half of my predictions already apply to fallout 3

you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized, you will criticise them for being too simple. and in the future you will look at newer games the same way i look at them now, constantly being casualized and too simple to be enjoyable. it almost pains me knowing this will happen, almost

>>#21, >>#38, >>#33, >>#28,

so, tell me friends. how accurate were my predictions?

Solid 4/9. Very enjoyable game

which ones did I get right?

1 is spot on, but there are quite a lot of them
part of 2 but you can interact with nearly every object. simple styling, but more involved than it's predecessors. And of course it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.
3, idk about the robot types. There are a lot of assistance quests.
4- you were off on this one. Certain quests are rail roaded, but they tie together eventually and make quite a difference on what level of NPC assistance you want. I'm a fan of kill them all, personally.
5- dungeons and indoors seem about the same if not more complex. Not much problem solving, but then again enemies are substantially more difficult to predict. more FPS than rpg in this game IMO
6 is spot on,
7 the only things you can't kill (including trees) are NPCs available as companions
8 no idea, I don't have any. I think there is a lot of potential here for mods so we will see.
9 dunno, Haven't played much main quest. too busy killing and modding guns/ armor. There are features I liked more in FO 3 and NV, but it's not as bad as you were thinking. Still the best game I've bought in the last few years.

>"it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.

I beg to differ, since fallout 1/2/tactics barely had any 50's aesthetics to begin with besides some posters and the opening movie of fallout 1, MAYBE the casinos in fallout 2. The 50s aesthetics were never that prominent before fallout 3, just mostly background stuff that most players probably didn't notice anyway. it being more prominant was a product of Bethesda's shitty attempt to give their grey, gritty, boring interpretation of fallout some much needed personality, when the previous games didn't need to.

because 3 is mostly true, 4 and 5 seems like they're true, but you don't wanna admit it, and 8 is going to be true, we all know 8 is true for every Bethesda game, its pretty much no-contest

So its more like 7/9

But Ten years hasn't passed yet.

jokexplain

"you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized,"
>Sideism

these were my predictions for fallout 4, were they accurate?

Fuck if I know. I haven't played it.

lizardlord saying he hasn't played fallout 4, is like the pope saying he hasn't read the latest sequel to the bible

My computer is too old.
This is Fallout Shelter all over again.

my name is sideism tho

Well this is embarrassing. I mistook you since you spoke so highly of me.

Relax, man. When Fallout 4 comes out and kicks ass, we can both have a hearty laugh at this fool's doomsaying. We just have to pray that it's developed by Obsidian and not Zenimax Online. Please god let it not be developed by Zenimax Online.

i like how you say none of these will come true, but im sure when they do you will still like the game anyway and you will say it doesn't matter. And Bethesda kinda has a reputation for progressively simplifying their games

Well, we're both assuming a lot here. I just hope that my assumptions are right and yours are wrong.

even if mine are right, i doubt it will stop you from enjoying the game anyway

I just hope they stick to standard DLC packs and don't go the way of microtransactions. Could you imagine a "for $0.99 upgrade fat man to full condition and recieve 2 bonus mini nukes". I am trying to decide if I would rather wait until all DLC is released to buy all as one or buy them as they come as well.

assuming weapon condition is going to be in the game at all

Don't be so negative. What if it is greater than the predecessors?

in case you havent actually read what i wrote, half of my predictions already apply to fallout 3

you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized, you will criticise them for being too simple. and in the future you will look at newer games the same way i look at them now, constantly being casualized and too simple to be enjoyable. it almost pains me knowing this will happen, almost

>>#21, >>#38, >>#33, >>#28,

so, tell me friends. how accurate were my predictions?

Solid 4/9. Very enjoyable game

which ones did I get right?

1 is spot on, but there are quite a lot of them
part of 2 but you can interact with nearly every object. simple styling, but more involved than it's predecessors. And of course it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.
3, idk about the robot types. There are a lot of assistance quests.
4- you were off on this one. Certain quests are rail roaded, but they tie together eventually and make quite a difference on what level of NPC assistance you want. I'm a fan of kill them all, personally.
5- dungeons and indoors seem about the same if not more complex. Not much problem solving, but then again enemies are substantially more difficult to predict. more FPS than rpg in this game IMO
6 is spot on,
7 the only things you can't kill (including trees) are NPCs available as companions
8 no idea, I don't have any. I think there is a lot of potential here for mods so we will see.
9 dunno, Haven't played much main quest. too busy killing and modding guns/ armor. There are features I liked more in FO 3 and NV, but it's not as bad as you were thinking. Still the best game I've bought in the last few years.

>"it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.

I beg to differ, since fallout 1/2/tactics barely had any 50's aesthetics to begin with besides some posters and the opening movie of fallout 1, MAYBE the casinos in fallout 2. The 50s aesthetics were never that prominent before fallout 3, just mostly background stuff that most players probably didn't notice anyway. it being more prominant was a product of Bethesda's shitty attempt to give their grey, gritty, boring interpretation of fallout some much needed personality, when the previous games didn't need to.

because 3 is mostly true, 4 and 5 seems like they're true, but you don't wanna admit it, and 8 is going to be true, we all know 8 is true for every Bethesda game, its pretty much no-contest

So its more like 7/9

But Ten years hasn't passed yet.

jokexplain

"you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized,"
>Sideism

these were my predictions for fallout 4, were they accurate?

Fuck if I know. I haven't played it.

lizardlord saying he hasn't played fallout 4, is like the pope saying he hasn't read the latest sequel to the bible

My computer is too old.
This is Fallout Shelter all over again.

I know im not the all mighty lord of lizards, but here are my predictions anyway

1-it will have even simpler stats than fallout 3. Some skills will be merged together, attributes will be removed completely. skyrim style skill branches and perks. No tag skills. Skills don't increase, you can choose a perk in a tree when you level up, as long as you have that perk's prerequisite perks

2-colorless scenery. Gritty, but at the same time over-exaggerated 50s sci-fi aesthetic, like fallout 3 but 10x more

3-lots of new robot types, espionage missions, android assassinations/assistance quests, etc

4-many quests will be railroaded and will have VERY few open-ended quests

5-very linear dungeons. skyrim style pointless piss-easy puzzles

6-NPCs will just give you things and let you do things they wouldn't normally let people do and will automatically trust you for no reason.

7-skyrim level handholding. Half the npcs are unkillable. There will always be an arrow on top of the exact thing you need to get, etc

8-skimpy mods, skimpy mods everywhere

9-ending result is always the same regardless of your choices or actions. They will give you a final evil choice near the end that makes evil noises when you choose it, but has no actual in game effect but an implied long term hazard that you will never see during regular gameplay.

my name is sideism tho

Well this is embarrassing. I mistook you since you spoke so highly of me.

Relax, man. When Fallout 4 comes out and kicks ass, we can both have a hearty laugh at this fool's doomsaying. We just have to pray that it's developed by Obsidian and not Zenimax Online. Please god let it not be developed by Zenimax Online.

i like how you say none of these will come true, but im sure when they do you will still like the game anyway and you will say it doesn't matter. And Bethesda kinda has a reputation for progressively simplifying their games

Well, we're both assuming a lot here. I just hope that my assumptions are right and yours are wrong.

even if mine are right, i doubt it will stop you from enjoying the game anyway

I just hope they stick to standard DLC packs and don't go the way of microtransactions. Could you imagine a "for $0.99 upgrade fat man to full condition and recieve 2 bonus mini nukes". I am trying to decide if I would rather wait until all DLC is released to buy all as one or buy them as they come as well.

assuming weapon condition is going to be in the game at all

Don't be so negative. What if it is greater than the predecessors?

in case you havent actually read what i wrote, half of my predictions already apply to fallout 3

you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized, you will criticise them for being too simple. and in the future you will look at newer games the same way i look at them now, constantly being casualized and too simple to be enjoyable. it almost pains me knowing this will happen, almost

>>#21, >>#38, >>#33, >>#28,

so, tell me friends. how accurate were my predictions?

Solid 4/9. Very enjoyable game

which ones did I get right?

1 is spot on, but there are quite a lot of them
part of 2 but you can interact with nearly every object. simple styling, but more involved than it's predecessors. And of course it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.
3, idk about the robot types. There are a lot of assistance quests.
4- you were off on this one. Certain quests are rail roaded, but they tie together eventually and make quite a difference on what level of NPC assistance you want. I'm a fan of kill them all, personally.
5- dungeons and indoors seem about the same if not more complex. Not much problem solving, but then again enemies are substantially more difficult to predict. more FPS than rpg in this game IMO
6 is spot on,
7 the only things you can't kill (including trees) are NPCs available as companions
8 no idea, I don't have any. I think there is a lot of potential here for mods so we will see.
9 dunno, Haven't played much main quest. too busy killing and modding guns/ armor. There are features I liked more in FO 3 and NV, but it's not as bad as you were thinking. Still the best game I've bought in the last few years.

>"it can't be fallout without the 50's aesthetics.

I beg to differ, since fallout 1/2/tactics barely had any 50's aesthetics to begin with besides some posters and the opening movie of fallout 1, MAYBE the casinos in fallout 2. The 50s aesthetics were never that prominent before fallout 3, just mostly background stuff that most players probably didn't notice anyway. it being more prominant was a product of Bethesda's shitty attempt to give their grey, gritty, boring interpretation of fallout some much needed personality, when the previous games didn't need to.

because 3 is mostly true, 4 and 5 seems like they're true, but you don't wanna admit it, and 8 is going to be true, we all know 8 is true for every Bethesda game, its pretty much no-contest

So its more like 7/9

But Ten years hasn't passed yet.

jokexplain

"you will see, in 10 years all the games will be so casualized,"
>Sideism

these were my predictions for fallout 4, were they accurate?

Fuck if I know. I haven't played it.

lizardlord saying he hasn't played fallout 4, is like the pope saying he hasn't read the latest sequel to the bible

My computer is too old.
This is Fallout Shelter all over again.

"responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

That is from their page on the statistics of fatal/ maiming. FYI this website is biased against pit bull/ "fighting" dogs of all types. I used it as a citation deliberately because it has a ton of good information. Pits have a "grab and shake" style of bite that causes more trauma than the "nippers" like labs/ retrievers. The fact remains that more people are killed by vending machines than pitbulls every year.

You say that like it makes it any better.
They're dangerous animals. Who gives a shit if they're not the most common bites, they're not a super common dog like labs or retrievers.
www.akc.org/news/the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-america/
They're not even on the list. Granted, there's probably a bunch that aren't registered. But it still wouldn't be enough to warrant the numbers.

Man, that article is a dry read, but I did get to the part labelled "The deadliest dogs".

"The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

You may be the only mother fucker with google who chooses not to use it, and places blind faith in that the results will support him. Pitbulls get the bad rap because they attack people often and viciously compared to other breeds. It's both common knowledge and scientifically supported knowledge.

www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php
Man, look at all these studies, and basic observation of events.
I quote that 3 particular dog breeds are responsible for 74% of attacks, how does that translate to: "Going by your logic, just don't get a dog because they all might bite."?
Take a look at what I have, and present how you've seen it "always" shown to be the opposite, show me your source. What a stupid rebuttal, and you know it too, going anonymous. The emotionally invested crowd is on your side anyways, feel free to log in and be wrong.

What you are doing is called cherrypicking- that 74% figure involves fatal bites. I said exactly that in comment #8. Pit bulls were bred for fighting, AKA killing other dogs. That being said, pitbulls that were aggressive or violent towards people were killed by fight dog breeders. Look up pitbull bloodlines like Gottiline. You can actually get the history of the breed and characteristics looked for in an ideal pitbull.

How are you people this fucking stupid?
Personal anecdotes and case studies are not valid evidence to assert a generalization, ever. And they sure as hell don't disprove an actual statistical analysis.
Not to mention the source pixmantle cited was in the source lean cited
But, somehow fj still just picks the side they want to agree with and ignores everything else.

I'm not particularly against pit bulls that don't rap, but you are some dense motherfuckers

You say that like it makes it any better.
They're dangerous animals. Who gives a shit if they're not the most common bites, they're not a super common dog like labs or retrievers.
www.akc.org/news/the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-america/
They're not even on the list. Granted, there's probably a bunch that aren't registered. But it still wouldn't be enough to warrant the numbers.

I'm amazed the red thumbs haven't come in here for disagreeing with these pit bull people. I swear, with every fucking post with anything remotely related to or mentioning pit bulls you have these idiots defending a group of fucking pit fighting dog breeds as safe, gentle family dogs. They were bred to fight and kill, and they do it instinctively just like a herd dog herds and a retriever retrieves or a bird dog chases birds. It's what they fucking do, and no amount of anecdotal bullshit will change them being bred for violence and instinctively pursuing violence (oftentimes on the very family that they are supposedly so gentle with and protective of all the time).

>>#88,

How into this would you like to get? Pits aggressive towards people were immediately killed before they could breed by the dog fighters. That wasn't a trait they wanted in the dogs, they were bred to be docile and passive in the presence of humans, and vicious towards other dogs. People train them to be aggressive and violent towards strangers, because they are muscular and loyal to a fault

"responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

That is from their page on the statistics of fatal/ maiming. FYI this website is biased against pit bull/ "fighting" dogs of all types. I used it as a citation deliberately because it has a ton of good information. Pits have a "grab and shake" style of bite that causes more trauma than the "nippers" like labs/ retrievers. The fact remains that more people are killed by vending machines than pitbulls every year.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01921.x/abstract;jsessionid=27E20E071ACF9C163CA4908515F3B441.f01t01
Another study if you are so inclined

"I have had a personal experience of a very small scope which neither you nor myself can prove." Compelling argument, really, quite a show stopper.

Also, fuck, man, the source is literally in HIS post, which I replied to, yeebus.

Do you not know when you're suppose to stop baiting.

Barking and chasing =/= attacking people. I'll get more into this if you get me citations for those stats.

Man, that article is a dry read, but I did get to the part labelled "The deadliest dogs".

"The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

You may be the only mother fucker with google who chooses not to use it, and places blind faith in that the results will support him. Pitbulls get the bad rap because they attack people often and viciously compared to other breeds. It's both common knowledge and scientifically supported knowledge.

www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php
Man, look at all these studies, and basic observation of events.
I quote that 3 particular dog breeds are responsible for 74% of attacks, how does that translate to: "Going by your logic, just don't get a dog because they all might bite."?
Take a look at what I have, and present how you've seen it "always" shown to be the opposite, show me your source. What a stupid rebuttal, and you know it too, going anonymous. The emotionally invested crowd is on your side anyways, feel free to log in and be wrong.

What you are doing is called cherrypicking- that 74% figure involves fatal bites. I said exactly that in comment #8. Pit bulls were bred for fighting, AKA killing other dogs. That being said, pitbulls that were aggressive or violent towards people were killed by fight dog breeders. Look up pitbull bloodlines like Gottiline. You can actually get the history of the breed and characteristics looked for in an ideal pitbull.

How are you people this fucking stupid?
Personal anecdotes and case studies are not valid evidence to assert a generalization, ever. And they sure as hell don't disprove an actual statistical analysis.
Not to mention the source pixmantle cited was in the source lean cited
But, somehow fj still just picks the side they want to agree with and ignores everything else.

I'm not particularly against pit bulls that don't rap, but you are some dense motherfuckers

You say that like it makes it any better.
They're dangerous animals. Who gives a shit if they're not the most common bites, they're not a super common dog like labs or retrievers.
www.akc.org/news/the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-america/
They're not even on the list. Granted, there's probably a bunch that aren't registered. But it still wouldn't be enough to warrant the numbers.

I'm amazed the red thumbs haven't come in here for disagreeing with these pit bull people. I swear, with every fucking post with anything remotely related to or mentioning pit bulls you have these idiots defending a group of fucking pit fighting dog breeds as safe, gentle family dogs. They were bred to fight and kill, and they do it instinctively just like a herd dog herds and a retriever retrieves or a bird dog chases birds. It's what they fucking do, and no amount of anecdotal bullshit will change them being bred for violence and instinctively pursuing violence (oftentimes on the very family that they are supposedly so gentle with and protective of all the time).

>>#88,

How into this would you like to get? Pits aggressive towards people were immediately killed before they could breed by the dog fighters. That wasn't a trait they wanted in the dogs, they were bred to be docile and passive in the presence of humans, and vicious towards other dogs. People train them to be aggressive and violent towards strangers, because they are muscular and loyal to a fault

"responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

That is from their page on the statistics of fatal/ maiming. FYI this website is biased against pit bull/ "fighting" dogs of all types. I used it as a citation deliberately because it has a ton of good information. Pits have a "grab and shake" style of bite that causes more trauma than the "nippers" like labs/ retrievers. The fact remains that more people are killed by vending machines than pitbulls every year.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01921.x/abstract;jsessionid=27E20E071ACF9C163CA4908515F3B441.f01t01
Another study if you are so inclined

"I have had a personal experience of a very small scope which neither you nor myself can prove." Compelling argument, really, quite a show stopper.

Also, fuck, man, the source is literally in HIS post, which I replied to, yeebus.

Do you not know when you're suppose to stop baiting.

sure

probably their elected offices

You lack a fundamental understanding of how the US constitution works.

sure

and its closely related cousin, the bos bison

"For those that say I endanger my child: it's more likely that you will fall while walking on the sidewalk than I will while skating with my daughter." The exact quote.

nah he's probably letting her ride on her own too, that or she wanted to wear one herself

Yeah, no.

No dog has a predisposition to act in a certain manner. Pitbulls were bred to fight, but the desire to fight is taught. Pitbulls get a bad rep because they fight well, and as a result people who want to breed dogs who fight, breed Pitbulls. The fact that they fight well means that idiots buy them as a means for self-defence or to look tough, but idiots will be idiots who don't understand how dogs think/act and as a result end up with a dog that attacks people/other animals.
Dangerous dogs are just an product of their shitty upbringing, just as any dangerous humans are. A dog will lash out if its fearful, upset, hurt, or taught to on command.

A poodle would be just as vicious as a pitbull if trained or brought up in a similar way. People who don't understand dog psychology breed dangerous dogs, and that breed can be anything. If you hit a dog, all the dog knows is that its being hit. It can't put reason behind why, it just knows that humans hit dogs.

"A dog's chief flaw is too understand too little about humans but love us too much" ~ Louis Theroux

You just said it yourself:
Without proper training they are naturally aggressive towards people they feel are not part of their "pack".

You just confirmed why they have a bad rep. They attack people because they aren't constantly trained not to, other dogs aren't naturally aggressive like pits are.

Except for all of the ones that attacked their owners or their children without any provocation at all (unless you count being a tender infant as provocative). They were bred for fighting and killing, so why do people think that they are these sweet wonderful animals? Herd dogs herd and retrievers revieve even without training because they were bred to do exactly that, so why wouldn't a fighting PIT fighting dog not attack and kill due to their breeding? I swear, idiots abound and all you're doing is leading to another kid getting their fucking lips ripped off by tricking people into thinking pit bulls are safe animals in spite of all of the statistics that say otherwise.

Had pits my whole life, as have members of my family before I was born and they have never attacked anyone. I spent my toddler years in the back yard with two of them, one of which was a rescued dog. The first dog to bite me was a collie/ sheepdog thing that tore half my ear off when I was 8 years old. My pitbull Runt ripped its throat out, the neighbors sued and we had to put him down. I guess you are right, I am biased.

It isn't as much bad owners anymore as much as it is an unshakable stereotype. Golden Retrievers are one of the worst for biting other people and yet no one ever mentions it. Although I would concede that their bad rep also leads more bad owners to buy them without any intention of raising them well.

Can you give me some advice on how to train them correctly then? I'm getting a pitbull puppy soon and am very afraid I might train it incorrectly, even with the research.

Get it trained on commands immediately. Sit stay stop are key, and repetition. If you want them to be friendly socialize them everyday with new people, new dogs etc. When they don't listen be firm but not abusive. Reward with praise and treats, don't punish them. There are experts who would have specific advice for you far beyond what I know, but new people and other dogs all them time for petting and interaction will guarantee a nonaggressive friendly dog.

just be alpha dog

Common myth, actually. Pitties can't lock their jaws, they just have very strong bites and can be very tenacious.

Yeah, that way they can really shake that toddler in their jaws like a ragdoll. Can't have one of those weaker breed dogs for our baby killin' dogs, can we? The shaking is half the reason you buy them.

My step brother has the old female pitt rescue named Chomper. Sweetest little thing, lets me nephew climb all over her, and sleeps by his crib.

I know this all too well. My sister has a female pit bull, and this behemoth is way too playful for her weight. She's lovable, though.

Any cross between bull and terrier is commonly called a pit bull. All these breeds are various mixes of bulldog, black and tan terrier, white english terriers etc. All were bred with the same purpose, and the different names are due to AKC and KC nomenclature and size. It takes a professional to tell the difference between a staffordshire and pit bull terrier. I can tell you that these statistics do not pick between one breed and the other, they generalize.

thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.ca/2010/08/nanny-dog-myth-revealed.html
Yeah, I read something about it, that is was some other breed or variation that were used as nannies, and there are no citable sources to suggest pitbulls. Google is a wonderful thing.

No dog is a dog for some lazy fuck to just have around and never socialize and educate.

That's about the long and short of it. My whole argument is that most people don't train a pitbull beyond how they'd train any other dog, and that's why they're more often dangerous, along with the other fighting dog breeds. Saying that it's possible for a pitbull to be properly handled doesn't mean they are.

"Only reason pitbulls are regarded as dangerous is because they kill people when they get aggressive."
www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php
Yeah, agree with you there, mate.

My brother in law trained his Pit bull (Lou) well. It has had a tough life of going through 2 other families that abused him. After training him for a few monthes with some tough love. He is the most docile gentle dog within the family.

My parents have a shih-tzu that is a lovable little lap dog that nips and bites at Lou's ears. He just sits there and takes it and keeps on doing what hes doing. You can straight up drop kick him and he would just turn around and go "Meh". and keep on walking.

The only time he ever bit was when an exterminator came and he smelled the poison and nipped at his hand. It was a good thing the exterminator was a bro and was just really surprised.

Or you could just not get a dog that needs to be trained to not be aggressive towards people. The problem is the trash who get them because they are aggressive, and the plebs who have no clue/make no effort to train them, the best solution would probably be to give proper education before people get a pitbull. The most practical solution would be to ban them outright.

"Look at the story of this one pitbull which was heroic to its own family, surely this means all pitbulls are naturally heroic, calm, and overall the best dog for a family to own!" I sense a lot of hard thinking going on here.

So basically don't get a dog? #1 dog bites are a labrador retriever in the US. #2 is a golden retriever, even though a German Shepard is a more common pet. How many dogs do you know that don't bark at cars or chase squirrels? They are animals with instincts that all need training to be responsibly called a pet.

Barking and chasing =/= attacking people. I'll get more into this if you get me citations for those stats.

Man, that article is a dry read, but I did get to the part labelled "The deadliest dogs".

"The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

You may be the only mother fucker with google who chooses not to use it, and places blind faith in that the results will support him. Pitbulls get the bad rap because they attack people often and viciously compared to other breeds. It's both common knowledge and scientifically supported knowledge.

www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php
Man, look at all these studies, and basic observation of events.
I quote that 3 particular dog breeds are responsible for 74% of attacks, how does that translate to: "Going by your logic, just don't get a dog because they all might bite."?
Take a look at what I have, and present how you've seen it "always" shown to be the opposite, show me your source. What a stupid rebuttal, and you know it too, going anonymous. The emotionally invested crowd is on your side anyways, feel free to log in and be wrong.

What you are doing is called cherrypicking- that 74% figure involves fatal bites. I said exactly that in comment #8. Pit bulls were bred for fighting, AKA killing other dogs. That being said, pitbulls that were aggressive or violent towards people were killed by fight dog breeders. Look up pitbull bloodlines like Gottiline. You can actually get the history of the breed and characteristics looked for in an ideal pitbull.

How are you people this fucking stupid?
Personal anecdotes and case studies are not valid evidence to assert a generalization, ever. And they sure as hell don't disprove an actual statistical analysis.
Not to mention the source pixmantle cited was in the source lean cited
But, somehow fj still just picks the side they want to agree with and ignores everything else.

I'm not particularly against pit bulls that don't rap, but you are some dense motherfuckers

You say that like it makes it any better.
They're dangerous animals. Who gives a shit if they're not the most common bites, they're not a super common dog like labs or retrievers.
www.akc.org/news/the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-america/
They're not even on the list. Granted, there's probably a bunch that aren't registered. But it still wouldn't be enough to warrant the numbers.

I'm amazed the red thumbs haven't come in here for disagreeing with these pit bull people. I swear, with every fucking post with anything remotely related to or mentioning pit bulls you have these idiots defending a group of fucking pit fighting dog breeds as safe, gentle family dogs. They were bred to fight and kill, and they do it instinctively just like a herd dog herds and a retriever retrieves or a bird dog chases birds. It's what they fucking do, and no amount of anecdotal bullshit will change them being bred for violence and instinctively pursuing violence (oftentimes on the very family that they are supposedly so gentle with and protective of all the time).

>>#88,

How into this would you like to get? Pits aggressive towards people were immediately killed before they could breed by the dog fighters. That wasn't a trait they wanted in the dogs, they were bred to be docile and passive in the presence of humans, and vicious towards other dogs. People train them to be aggressive and violent towards strangers, because they are muscular and loyal to a fault

"responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings."

That is from their page on the statistics of fatal/ maiming. FYI this website is biased against pit bull/ "fighting" dogs of all types. I used it as a citation deliberately because it has a ton of good information. Pits have a "grab and shake" style of bite that causes more trauma than the "nippers" like labs/ retrievers. The fact remains that more people are killed by vending machines than pitbulls every year.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01921.x/abstract;jsessionid=27E20E071ACF9C163CA4908515F3B441.f01t01
Another study if you are so inclined

"I have had a personal experience of a very small scope which neither you nor myself can prove." Compelling argument, really, quite a show stopper.

Also, fuck, man, the source is literally in HIS post, which I replied to, yeebus.

Do you not know when you're suppose to stop baiting.

So.... like modern times, but not in denial about it?

I stick to my statement. I don't think you should lump yourself in as a liberal. Centrist maybe. Some liberal views, undoubtedly. Not full blown liberal. How do you feel about raising taxes after two successive years of record IRS tax collection? That is what the liberal agenda is pushing this year.