Oh, and here's a lame video that appears to have aired on National Geographic that also supports the bite force thing. They're using the same three breeds, which leads me to believe the website was citing this video...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jhrxy0HKs

You mean these ...
http://www.mytrialphotos.com/NewPitBull2.jpg

Regarding the 38 cal shot shell rounds. Those are often called snake shot shells. Pretty effective out to about five feet.

We used the .22 shot shell rounds for rats in the corn crib when I was a kid.

Of course the pitbull is going to have more bite force per square inch than other breeds. He's got a shorter muzzle. It's basic physics. What was the test trying to prove?

The test probably wasn't rying to prove anything; just increase confusion, breed discrimination, and propaganda.

 Quote: john haudenshield

Like Heather mentioned, I believe that it is a matter of drive and selection.

APBTs were bred with the primary, and often singular, purpose of fighting other dogs. This selection was at times taken to the extent that a dog, even when loosing a fight...never stopped fighting, became revered for breeding purposes. Same for males that would attempt to fight a bitch in heat. This means that people were selecting these dogs for their willingness to fight above all else, even reproduction and self-preservation. Think about this when you start wondering why these dog won't stop biting in the face of hits and punches from a human being, and may actually become more intense in this type of atmosphere.

There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that has concluded that any one breed of domestic dogs has a more powerful bite than another.

I'm not justifying the poor ownership practices of many people, I'm just looking at the dog's historical selection criteria in an attempt to explain their often mezmerizing intesity.

Well John said it better than I did...the pitbull is just different (and not, it would appear, in a good way). I understand all the "media sucks" comments but where there's smoke there's fire. No? The media wouldn't be so interested in the pitbull stories if there wasn't something there to begin with. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Anna Nicole Smith but I'm constantly hearing about that pathetic soul on the news because there is a whole bunch of crap to talk about.

I don't think it's a chicken and egg thing. I think the pitbulls were/are a problem and that's why the media runs like mad to share the stories. The incidences are not just - "Oops, dog bite, you'll be OK. A couple of band-aids, maybe a couple of stitches and let's go grab a bite to eat." No, it's "Let's get to the hospital and get my hand amputated. Oh that's right, the pitbull did it for me!!!!

 Quote: Jennifer Ruzsa

Of course the pitbull is going to have more bite force per square inch than other breeds. He's got a shorter muzzle. It's basic physics. What was the test trying to prove?

Did I typo? The pitbull had the lowest score for the bite force.

The point of the test was to see if pitbulls really did have greater bite force than other breeds, and it turned out that of the three (pitbull, GSD and rottie) that the rottie had the greatest bite force, GSD second, and pitbull third.

Now, those are just three dogs out of millions, but it was interesting anyway.

There are shot shells for handguns and there is frangible ammo. Shot shells are as they imply, frangible ammo disentigrates when it hits anything hard (i.e. a wall, sternum, or window).

It's OK to register guns because you don't have them. Will you eagerly agree when the police decide they're the only ones who need dogs that big, it's for your own safety you know?

I tried to let it go but I'm still struck by the way it's OK to say American's have "astonishing arrogance," "and lack diplomacy in domestic and international matters." Why is it somehow civilized to accuse us of being dumb gun owners or that the number of deaths attributed to cooked statistics makes us less civilized.

It's easy to compliment each other on being Canadians who of course are the center of the universe when it comes to "mintaining such class and decorum in your comments." and "It's the intelligent, mature and diplomatic people like you who make me proud to be Canadian."

I'm not picking ok Yuko, or any of the Cannuks, like I said I suspect you're nice folks, but I am tired of America bashing being acceptable, especially when one considers the amount of evil, I'm talking about Old Testament evil, the likes of which most Americans and Canadians can't fathom, the United States has stopped compared to harm we've done. Sometimes force is the answer. How well did diplomacy work with Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Darfur. How many Canadian sorties were flown over the UN no-fly-zone to prevent Saddam from slaughtering innocent Kurds and southern Iraqis?

It's easy to look down one's nose from the sideline of world events.

 Quote: heather williams

 Quote: jennifer ruzsa

Of course the pitbull is going to have more bite force per square inch than other breeds. He's got a shorter muzzle. It's basic physics. What was the test trying to prove?

Did I typo? The pitbull had the lowest score for the bite force.

My apology, I misread... In general I still believe that the vast majority of pitbulls should have stronger bites than the vast majority of longer muzzled breeds. Which makes sense, right? The same amount of force being applied to a smaller area is MORE powerful than the same amount of force being applied to a larger area. With no exception that I can think of. That's mathematical, and has nothing to do with dog breeds.

If the pit in the test had the lowest bite force, IMO, I'd have to say it must have been an individual thing. I suppose there would be better and worse pits and rotties (and shepherds, for that matter) and a strong rottie/shepherd might have a stronger bite than a weak/mouthy pit.

But the mathematic rules of force applied to a small vs. large area (ESPECIALLY the type of force employed in a bite, which is essentially "lopsided" since all the force comes from the skull) are universal.

Whoa, that's a lot of replies since I checked this morning!

Ok, ok, fair enough; I apologize if my comments were offensive. I have to say though, I was so struck by the anti-American (policies) feelings every time I went to Europe and how they've escalated over the past few years. The arrogance comments were directed at that. Any time you manage to alienate an entire continent (in this case even when you're right), it seems like a little diplomacy might help


Um, I'm not sure how many of you are actually bothering to READ my posts before assuming things and replying to me, but I am actually FOR gun ownership and FOR ownership of "dangerous" dogs by responsible people.

The gun registry here is NOT TELLING ANYONE THAT THEY CAN'T OWN GUNS. I'm not sure how to make that anymore clear.

In fact, I was AGAINST the gun registry when it first came out (even though I don't own guns). The only reason I reconsidered was because POLICE OFFICERS, not me, were heatedly arguing against scrapping the program.

My initial reaction was, like you guys said, that the police should assume that every house they're going to is dangerous, and armed. However, I decided that it wasn't my place to be telling law enforcement officers what is useful and effective for them and what isn't!!
That would be considered arrogant.

Yeesh, I re-read my posts and they were very clear... I'm not sure why so many of you are misunderstanding my words so much.

By the way, the perception that Americans are arrogant (even though they have good intentions and do a great deal of good in the world) was stated by Ed Frawley himself on his site. Again, I'm saying "perception", not who's right and who's making the right decisions.

I actually support most of the wars and security policies that the US have gotten into. In fact, I wish that European countries would stop being so wishy-washy and be more active and effective, like the US is. I'd even like for Canada to become more like that (without scrapping our diplomacy efforts though).

Red, don't insult us by saying that we're only on the sidelines. We do what we can with the military that we have, and Canadian troops are actively involved in Afghanistan, fighting the taliban. I doubt that the soldiers we've lost there would appreciate your comment.
I would definitely support more funding for our troops; they certainly need it at the moment.

However, there is always a place for diplomacy. Just because you know you're doing the right thing and you are frustrated that other countries aren't keeping up, doesn't mean it's smart to act arrogant and have them mad at you. Instead of saying things like "you're either with us or you're against us and wrong", why not do what you believe is right (as you're doing now) and try to keep your allies on your side?
You don't have to sacrifice anything to accomplish that

Most countries don't have the opportunity to interact with Americans a lot and to realize that they're doing a lot of good. What they hear is only what's on the news.

In conclusion, I AGREE with US policies and war efforts. I think that the entire world owes A LOT to the US for whatever peace and stability that we have nowadays. European countries often get on my nerves because they're so ineffective and anti-American.
If American police officers don't want a gun registry, then fine. I never said they should have one. Heck, I'm not even saying that we should have one here, in Canada.
I ONLY support the Canadian gun registry program because Canadian police officers have spoken for it. Until then I thought it was useless and a waste of money.

If you're going to argue back, that's fine with me (probably best by PM since it's off topic ), but please read what I've said before making false assumptions and going after me. Don't put words in my mouth!!!!