This is scary stuff. After reading this, I wouldn’t even own me! But wait, what is this little section buried down here in the middle?
A 2006 study from the Journal of Interpersonal Violence revealed that owners of vicious dogs were significantly more likely to have criminal convictions for aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children and firearms.
These findings were confirmed in a 2009 report published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. The authors of that report wrote, "Vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners," and they were ranked "higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy."
And a 2011 study, also in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, found that "vicious dog owners reported significantly higher criminal thinking, entitlement, sentimentality and super-optimism tendencies. Vicious dog owners were arrested, engaged in physical fights, and used marijuana significantly more than other dog owners."
Using my critical thinking skills, and I know I’m just a dog, but doesn’t this seem to imply that it is the dog owners who are dangerous? And since dogs like to please their owners, wouldn’t any dog owned by one of these owners likely be dangerous? And, I’m stretching here, but since the media keeps unfairly labeling Pit Bulls (and Rotty’s and German Shepherds) as “Vicious”, wouldn’t those high risk people really prefer to own one of those breeds? Doesn’t our Coolness Factor increase every time one of these stories is published like it is real news??? I mean, I don’t get out much, but even on TV you don’t see the bad guys out walking their guard Poodles very often. Heck, I’m a perfect example. I was owned (and beaten) by a drug dealer with a criminal record who ended up getting shot in a drive by shooting. Why do you suppose he chose me instead of a Yorkshire Terrier?
So yeah, if you are out walking in a bad part of town and a Pit Bull (or a Chihuahua) comes rushing at you…well, you might want to get out of the way. That is just common sense, right? But the labeling of an entire breed is what I truly find scary. What if statistics were used this way on people? And published as news? Who would be labeled as dangerous? What Race? Which Gender? Would neighborhood homeowner associations be allowed to use these statistics to ban certain “types” of people from purchasing a home? What about living in Army housing, as reported in this article, would certain soldiers be banished? Would homeowners insurance cost more for my non-white neighbor than it does for my mommy? How about my single neighbor? My male neighbor?
People have laws to protect the individual person from discrimination based on stereotypes and even statistics. It is recognized by intelligent people that an individual person is, well, individual, rather than part of a whole based on race, religion, gender, etc. And for those ignorant individuals who do not recognize this, the law is there to enforce equal protections and rights. Who is standing up for the individual dog?
