It's time we ban pitbulls

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Fish

What I find interesting in this debate, is the fact that 99.9999999999999999999999% of all dog owners in the history of dog ownership would never ever admit to having a dangerous dog. At least until the dog does something dangerous. It's just astonishing the lengths some people will go to defend their asshole dog. .

They do the same things with their children. Talk to a mom about how super-intelligent her child is. She will have you believing her 6 year old is bound for MIT
next fall due to his ability to understand the Constitution, Electrical Sciences, and String Theory. The next moment she will tell you there is no way her child is bright enough to deliberately push another kid into a locker at school.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KC_Lee

You can say the same thing about people and thier children.

"My little boy or girl would never do [X]!"

Fill in [X] with whatever you like.

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

They do the same things with their children. Talk to a mom about how super-intelligent her child is. She will have you believing her 6 year old is bound for MIT
next fall due to his ability to understand the Constitution, Electrical Sciences, and String Theory. The next moment she will tell you there is no way her child is bright enough to deliberately push another kid into a locker at school.

Well yes... but lying about your kid is a little different. The resulting dangers aren't very comparable. A lying child is still moderately controllable for the most part. The result of those kinds of lies might be a kid pushed in a locker, or a suspension from school. Lying and underestimating what your dog is capable of can and does result in serious harm or death. I've seen it firsthand.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Fish

Well yes... but lying about your kid is a little different. The resulting dangers aren't very comparable. A lying child is still moderately controllable for the most part. The result of those kinds of lies might be a kid pushed in a locker, or a suspension from school. Lying and underestimating what your dog is capable of can and does result in serious harm or death. I've seen it firsthand.

I bet John Wayne Gacy's mom would disagree with you

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

I bet John Wayne Gacy's mom would disagree with you

Yes, I'm sure there are a couple exceptions.

[KC_Lee]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

I bet John Wayne Gacy's mom would disagree with you

Or Jeffery Dahmer's father.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Fish

What I find interesting in this debate, is the fact that 99.9999999999999999999999% of all dog owners in the history of dog ownership would never ever admit to having a dangerous dog. At least until the dog does something dangerous. It's just astonishing the lengths some people will go to defend their asshole dog. Of course, not all dogs are assholes. But even owners of evil hellhounds straight from Satan's fenced in backyard will defend their dog to the ends of time.

"My dog is the sweetest most lovable cuddly animal in the world. See, it even plays with baby chicks and doesn't instantly devour them!"

It tells me that many people out there are either oblivious or in complete and total denial of what their dog is capable of.

You corner, kick or try to hurt my aussies they will bite at you in attempt to get away from you.

If you are mean to them they will not like you... IF you are sweet to them they will be your best buddy... And one of them has an allergy problem. she will sneeze on you.

[Just Passin' By]

There are simple, basic rules that people should follow with all dogs, such as never leaving an infant or toddler alone with any dog, and never keeping a dog as a pet if it's not one you could take down if you needed to. If people can't follow these types of rules, the dog breed is going to be irrelevant except for the final amount of damage, because you're just playing the odds at that point.

[Exoter175]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

There are simple, basic rules that people should follow with all dogs, such as never leaving an infant or toddler alone with any dog, and never keeping a dog as a pet if it's not one you could take down if you needed to. If people can't follow these types of rules, the dog breed is going to be irrelevant except for the final amount of damage, because you're just playing the odds at that point.

People follow icons, not logic.

If they knew that German Shepherds were more aggressive, more lethal, they wouldn't be talking about Pits.

There's a reason the police use GS's, there's a reason Nazi Germany used them too, and just about every police state that comes to mind.

There are places in this world where parents eat their old children to survive through hunger, and people want to bitch about a dog attack?

Here's a though, be responsible with your child, or don't leave its site. Simple ****ing rule, live by it or don't have kids.

[Iowanian]

I'm all for canine equal rights.

The last canine I told a neighbor I would terminate with extreme prejudice if it ever were to return to my yard with my children at play was a mean little dirty yellow moppy bastard.

[DJ's left nut]

Eh, I'll want to see the dog before I care about the article.

My chocolate lab got out of the house once and the people down the block called animal control because there was a pit bull in their yard.

He's a !@#$ing chocolate lab.

People see dark fur and a 70+ lb dog and if they don't know much about dogs, it becomes a pit bull. Nevermind the fact that most pits are light in color...by God that dog is bigger than a 3 yr old - IT'S A PIT!

Because people are, y'know, really stupid.

I honestly couldn't care less about breed-specific legislation, to tell you the truth. There are tens of thousands of dogs put down annually because there aren't as many homes as there are great pets. Taking Pits out of the equation leaves plenty of outstanding pets around. And while they aren't necessarily more aggressive as a breed, certain lines certainly are and those lines are diluting the gene pool for the breed in general. And while they're not all aggressive, even the most ardent pit bull supporters will concede that they are universally very mouthy dogs. Every Pit I've known has been a mouther. And with the power in those jaws, sometimes that causes damage even on accident. The room for a simple mistake sure goes away in a hurry with a dog like that.

But I certainly understand the opposition; even the mouthy pits are still sweet dogs.

[ModSocks]

We should ban RT's.

[Beef Supreme]

Ban dog owners who don't have a ****ing clue how to raise or train a dog.

[tman]

Most dogs are breed for a purpose. Why ban dog breeds because certain individuals can not understand the purpose of their dog? Pit bulls are a very physicaly strong breed intended for fighting, baiting, catching, herding and protecting, they are not meant to be appartment pets.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by tman

Most dogs are breed for a purpose. Why ban dog breeds because certain individuals can not understand the purpose of their dog? Pit bulls are a very physicaly strong breed intended for fighting, baiting, catching, herding and protecting, they are not meant to be appartment pets.

So why not ban people from having pit bulls as apartment pets?

[tman]

Good point. I don't believe there is any total proactive solution to solve dog attacks. My use of apartment pets does not relay what I'm trying to say. I do believe that a small dog breed would be less likely to kill someone if it attacked. Pit bulls where breed to be strong attackers ( see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull ). Their attended prey would generally be larger than that of a smaller breed. I do not mean the pit bull is more likely to attack. I simply think that the result of a pit bull attack would be more damaging than most dog breeds. If you are going to own a dog of any kind there is always a chance that it could attack someone or something.