Darla Napora was a member of Bay Area Dog Lovers Responsible About Pit Bulls, a group that does its best to convince people that pit bulls aren't really that dangerous. When her husband Greg left their Pacifica, California home the other day, his pregnant wife was sleeping...
Despite mauling his pregnant wife to death, Greg Napora still plans to have the pit bull's ashes buried with Darla
In bed with her were the couple's two pit bulls, Gunner and Tazi. But when he returned home, he was given cause to believe that their whole pit-bulls-aren't-that-dangerous thing might be something of a misnomer.
He found his wife covered in blood with Gunner bloody and hovering over her. Greg called an ambulance and got Gunner into the back yard. But it was too late to save Darla. She died at the scene.
While medics worked to save her, Gunner escaped from the back yard. Police decided to shoot him multiple times after the dog approached them.
But Greg is still holding onto his pit bulls aren't dangerous thing. He's forgiven the dog, even though it killed his wife and his baby-to-be. He plans to bury Darla with Gunner's ashes.
While I believe that some Dogs are misrepresented for their Aggression a lot (Dobermans, German Shepard) I think the Pit bulls reputation is pretty justified, and I know I will never let my future kids around one, nor own one my self.
Oh, the irony!
@Sasori. i truely do believe it's the owners, not the animal. i've been around alot of dogs doing my job and you can really tell
the difference in a good owner/bad owner's dogs.
I owned two Pits and never had any problems with either of them.
Not to say both wouldn't become very aggressive if " turned loose " , but in general, very docile and well behaved dogs.
WARORK93 wrote:In my experience there are no good or bad dogs, only good or bad owners...if you know what I mean...
Holy crap! I didn't know Cesar Milan played 40k and had a Dakka account!?!?
I do like to watch that show sometimes...and I'm glad you brought that up as his work is proof that if you retrain the dog owner then the dog will follow suit.
WARORK93 wrote:In my experience there are no good or bad dogs, only good or bad owners...if you know what I mean...
Holy crap! I didn't know Cesar Milan played 40k and had a Dakka account!?!?
I do like to watch that show sometimes...and I'm glad you brought that up as his work is proof that if you retrain the dog owner then the dog will follow suit.
Hmm I go to a few animal boards, I heard theres some "controversy" over his teaching methods
Of course I own a really lazy dog so I have zero problems with aggressiveness
While I generally agree on the front that a dogs temperament comes mostly from how an owner trains and treats their dogs, the issue of Pit bulls going out of control seems to be a lot more common, and I think indicative of an issue with the breed as well.
I've personally known two different pitbulls, from separate owners that have owned nothing but pitbulls that had to be put down because of aggression. They were great owners, and the dogs were well trained, but as I said earlier, I just feel it's partly an issue with the breed.
Agree a lot of the time it is the owners fault, but:
Pit Bull Terriers were bred for fighting.
Of itself that is probably not a determining factor. However, if the animals are intensively bred/interbred, it can lead to unstable animals.
Given the first point that you have an unstable but tenacious, powerful dog, possibly in the hands of an owner that is not in control of the dog, it sounds like a recipe for a tragic event.
Sounds like this owner wants to prove a point at all costs and may have been blinded by ideology, rather than guided by good practice.
Domesticated animals to me are a clean slate and their temperament are made by their owners. I've seen idiots turn their pits into killing machines so that they can look so damned cool, and I have seen owners with their pits whom their babies sleep with them.
Part of this story (which was not covered by the URL) is that the male pit was not neutered. That meant the owner was probably breeding the dog. This also means that they become more intense as the need to procreate increases during certain parts of the year. I've always neutered/spayed my pets. They live longer to me and have an even temperament overall.
The second pit, who was the female was cowering in the corner, was terrified of the situation. The female pit did not attack the woman and was cleared from animal control and given back to the owner.
It is sad this situation happen but it did happen and there is nothing to change that fact.
My view is that if you are going to breed animal then you are going to have to take precautions. They are not pets in my belief as this is normally done to sell the animals for profit.
If you really want a family pet make sure you know what you are getting into and make sure that your pet is spayed/neutered.
The problem with pit bulls is a combination of things. Yes, they can be well trained, obedient, and just plain lovely dogs. In fact the friendliest dog I've ever met was a pit bull.
Too many untrained owners raise pit bulls in order to appear more masculine, more in line with the ghetto culture, or more threatening. Those dogs are used essentially as attack dogs.
Any dog that is not trained to exceptional levels can be unpredictable and dangerous should you surprise/shock/anger it. Pit bulls and certain other breeds are somewhat more prone to bouts of 'rage'.
Pit Bulls are extremely powerful and quick dogs. It's often said that a man with a blade is the most dangerous creature on the planet, but unless you're a powerfully built and quick witted male, you're going to be extremely hard pressed to fight one off. Should a pit bull attack a child or average woman said victim will be at the mercy of the dog. To make matters worse attacks frequently occur with multiple animals, making death certain in many cases.
TLDR; the easiest solution would be to ban them. The smart solution would be to greatly regulate them. Neither is going to happen and every year several will die to maulings.
iirc Several incidents including Pit Bulls led to a Dangerous Dogs Act being rushed through Parliament.
As a result it has not been totally successful and somewhat controversial.
Pit Bulls were banned, but they are still being bred because of the macho image and again iirc they are also being used for dog fighting. :(
Dare say the press is heavily edited to concentrate on the dog angle. But there seems to be a lack of reported remorse.
The loss of wife and child must be devastating.
Who would not blame themselves with "if only I had done/not done X,Y,Z" yet this seems conspicuous by its absence.
Sasori wrote:While I generally agree on the front that a dogs temperament comes mostly from how an owner trains and treats their dogs, the issue of Pit bulls going out of control seems to be a lot more common, and I think indicative of an issue with the breed as well.
It's also possible that it simply is more widely reported, since "child mauled by a dachshund" isn't as sensationalistic and won't drive traffic as well.
Sasori wrote:While I generally agree on the front that a dogs temperament comes mostly from how an owner trains and treats their dogs, the issue of Pit bulls going out of control seems to be a lot more common, and I think indicative of an issue with the breed as well.
It's also possible that it simply is more widely reported, since "child mauled by a dachshund" isn't as sensationalistic and won't drive traffic as well.
It also isn't the same level of violence inflicted by an animal. And, just for the record, children that get mauled by small animals make for great headlines too.
Its more widely reported in this particular case (if you can call a single fringe website "widely" reported since I didn't see any mention of it today on cnn or msnbc) because of the horrific nature of the act (a dog mauling a pregnant woman to death as opposed to a dachshund causing someone to need a few stitches) in addition to the sheer irony of the owners' beliefs and activities (promoting the cuddliness of the breed).
What's most troubling is that this thread is hours old and Frazzled hasn't swung by and posted some wiener dog picture. I'm considering pressing the alert button and asking the mods to swing by his house for a wellness check.
Pit bulls, like several other breeds, are predisposed to aggression. This of course varies from dog to dog (and breed to breed as there are several pit bull breeds), but on average pit bulls will be more aggressive than, say, Labradors. They're what breeders and other dog types call an "advanced breed" in that they require a practiced and disciplined owner to safely keep.
They are, however, somewhat unique in that they are one of the few relatively small dogs fitting in that category for reasons of aggression. As such, while difficult to control, they are not as difficult to control as this fluffy death machine.
Sasori wrote:While I generally agree on the front that a dogs temperament comes mostly from how an owner trains and treats their dogs, the issue of Pit bulls going out of control seems to be a lot more common, and I think indicative of an issue with the breed as well.
It's also possible that it simply is more widely reported, since "child mauled by a dachshund" isn't as sensationalistic and won't drive traffic as well.
It's well documented that a lot of smaller breed dogs are much more aggressive and more likely to bite than some of the other larger dogs that have a bad reputation (Dobermans, German Shepards etc) but the fact is a Pekingese despite being aggressive and prone to biting, can't bite with 235 pounds of force like a Pitt bull can.
Sure, they can be kind, and great with the kids, but so can just about any other dog.
Like any dog, there's a chance, very small but always there no matter what, that something will set it off and it'll snap. With a lot of breeds, particularly toys, this might give a kid a fright, but it won't hurt anyone, in some breeds it won't even draw blood. In most cases you'll get a bite, and if you're unlucky some scarring. It sucks, but at least you're still here. With a pitbull, if it freaks out it can kill.
You can have any dog in the world, why pick the one that might just kill somebody?
Blah Blah Blah Pits are insane ...Its the owners i have been owner up to 4 Pitbulls at one time and they are all cuddlebugs they have never turned on me or another human being or me or another animal ever because they were looked after loved and trained not to be crazy they have at worse tried to fight each other over a chip or piece of food that fell on the floor. Pitbulls are loyal and friendly animals but they at the end of the day are a animal and animals can act out
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Blah Blah Blah Pits are insane ...Its the owners i have been owner up to 4 Pitbulls at one time and they are all cuddlebugs they have never turned on me or another human being or me or another animal ever because they were looked after loved and trained not to be crazy they have at worse tried to fight each other over a chip or piece of food that fell on the floor. Pitbulls are loyal and friendly animals but they at the end of the day are a animal and animals can act out
Yes, they can act out, like any dog can act out... so why have a dog that is much more capable of killing you if it ever does act out?
I mean, the Ford Pinto got you from A to B like any other car, and was no more likely get in an accident. It's just that when it did get in an accident, it had a habit of exploding. Now, you'd be a goddamn idiot to say 'sure, but only if it got in an accident, and all the people I know who own Pintos never got in accidents'. Why is dog ownership any different?
Because Jerks make jerk dogs i lived with a guy who was into weight training and trying to make guard dogs...But i kicked him out for not paying rent and guess what the scumbag left his two dogs and after less than 4 month of rehab at not being aggressive they became calm dogs and Once again never turned on me or any one of my friends or children or cats or anything. Why do i want to have a pit because i love big dogs and i love pits
Field Marshal wrote:they are all cuddlebugs they have never turned on me or another human being or me or another animal ever because they were looked after loved and trained not to be crazy they have at worse tried to fight each other over a chip or piece of food that fell on the floor. Pitbulls are loyal and friendly animals
You realize of course this is the same the thing this couple would have said right up to the point that they stopped being a couple and he became a widower. No one says "Well even though we spent a lot of time training them and they are always friendly soon they will kill one of us".
dogma wrote:Pit bulls, like several other breeds, are predisposed to aggression. This of course varies from dog to dog (and breed to breed as there are several pit bull breeds), but on average pit bulls will be more aggressive than, say, Labradors. They're what breeders and other dog types call an "advanced breed" in that they require a practiced and disciplined owner to safely keep.
They are, however, somewhat unique in that they are one of the few relatively small dogs fitting in that category for reasons of aggression. As such, while difficult to control, they are not as difficult to control as this fluffy death machine.
I don't think that the owners in this case raised the dogs to be malevolent, and I doubt that if they were in a group that advocated pit bulls that they would even condone any behavior that would cause the dogs to act out.
This is just one of those times when some people were raising pit bulls right but still got the short end of the straw when it came to owning a homicidal animal. Its a shame that she died and that their unborn child died, but I think that the husband is a complete and utter nutbag who probably values the life of some animal over a human being's. Of course that's just an assumption so I can't be too sure if that's true.
My dog Hazel not crazy not insane not a drop of violence in her she is not eatin my Hounddogs face off. My other 3 ..1 died from old age the other 2 given to good homes. Get a pit raise it right quit the pit hating hype
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree that it is terrible what happened to the women and her child sometimes yeah a animal cannot be converted but if it was a rescue you never know what that animal went through before they got a hold of em.
When I was five years old my Uncles neighbors German Shepard went after me, bit my leg and bit the back of my neck .
Since then I've owned German Shepard's, just because a type of dog goes bat gak doesn't make the whole breed a pack of murderous creatures.
FITZZ wrote: When I was five years old my Uncles neighbors German Shepard went after me, bit my leg and bit the back of my neck .
Since then I've owned German Shepard's, just because a type of dog goes bat gak doesn't make the whole breed a pack of murderous creatures.
Its not just that though unfortunately. Pit Bulls were bred for their temperament and ability to kill other animals just like German Shepherds were trained to do certain things, and why miniature dachshunds have curved tails. Interesting story those dachshunds, bred to go after badgers and rabbits so the long curved tail was so that the owners could pull them out of a hole or find them in tall grass.
But Pit Bulls were trained to kill other animals, its their genetics. It can be bypassed and maybe diluted away over time, but until then I don't trust most of them. I've had a German shepherd bite me on the inner thigh once but not because it was a mean dog, but because he was damn set on catching a water balloon my brother thought would be hilarious if he tossed it at my groin.
Even Poodles were made to kills rats N hunt ducks . The point is do not raise them to kill. Dalmatians were used to clear roads IE attack people and keep horses in time when rich people ran into town. I own a Dalmatian as well and he has given me more problems than any pit i had
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Blah Blah Blah Pits are insane ...Its the owners i have been owner up to 4 Pitbulls at one time and they are all cuddlebugs they have never turned on me or another human being or me or another animal ever because they were looked after loved and trained not to be crazy they have at worse tried to fight each other over a chip or piece of food that fell on the floor. Pitbulls are loyal and friendly animals but they at the end of the day are a animal and animals can act out
The thing is though that, if you really want to advocate the merits of an animal, you must accept it weaknesses as well. Pit bulls can be good dogs, but they require experienced owners to be so, and still present a higher risk profile than, say, a Corgi. They aren't Labs, Beagles, or Cairns.
FITZZ wrote: When I was five years old my Uncles neighbors German Shepard went after me, bit my leg and bit the back of my neck .
Since then I've owned German Shepard's, just because a type of dog goes bat gak doesn't make the whole breed a pack of murderous creatures.
Its not just that though unfortunately. Pit Bulls were bred for their temperament and ability to kill other animals just like German Shepherds were trained to do certain things, and why miniature dachshunds have curved tails. Interesting story those dachshunds, bred to go after badgers and rabbits so the long curved tail was so that the owners could pull them out of a hole or find them in tall grass.
But Pit Bulls were trained to kill other animals, its their genetics. It can be bypassed and maybe diluted away over time, but until then I don't trust most of them. I've had a German shepherd bite me on the inner thigh once but not because it was a mean dog, but because he was damn set on catching a water balloon my brother thought would be hilarious if he tossed it at my groin.
Genetics aside, I loved my Pits and found them to be two of the best dogs I ever owned, I'd get another but due to all the " Pit Bulls are Murder machines" hype My Missus is scared of them and won't have one...
Of course she'll fawn over some useless spin in circles and yap Poodle...who's more likely to bite you.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Even Poodles were made to kills rats N hunt ducks . The point is do not raise them to kill. Dalmatians were used to clear roads IE attack people and keep horses in time when rich people ran into town. I own a Dalmatian as well and he has given me more problems than any pit i had
Again, with the attention necessary to counter genetics, and some luck, any dog can be made to do just about anything, but you have to recognize that there is a difference between being a good Lab owner, and a good Pit Bull owner.
Just because someone advocates something- doesnt mean they have the vaguest idea of what they are doing. Dogs are like guns, cars, and children. If you dont know how to properly take care of them- you shouldnt have them. The story of the woman, baby and dog is tragic, but likely could have been avoided.
A few months ago two puppies turned up at my back door. They were starved and dehydrated. Theyre also boxer/pit bull mixes. Despite being abnadoned by some jerk off in hte desert, theyre sweet little dogs. The only thing they terrorize is the occasional lizard in the back yard and my water hose. I couldnt find their owners, so I kept them. Im thier pack leader, and even with thier puppy enthusiasm theyve never even broken my skin with thier rough housing play time. I respect what they are capable of, theyve chewed through a 2x4 in less than 10 minutes. But Im never afraid of them because I trust them and what I have trained & taught them to do.
Pound for pound, the little terrier breeds are somewhere around 2 or 3 times more likely to bite people. But everyone thinks its cute. Then they try to raise a bigger animal the same way and at surprise when it does what it was bred to do. Terrier breeds were literally bred to kill other fierce little critters like rats, weasels and badgers. You have to make them act like a dog foremost, and thier breed a distant second. Only 3 dogs have ever tried to bite me. A weiner dog- which is common. And a golden retriever and an Akita- neither of which are breeds noted for aggression in the media. Its also worth noting, the CDC study on dog bites lists them as 'pit bull type' which covers a large number of dogs most people would consider mutts. This means 'pit bull type' is very much a catch all category for dogs that happen to have pit bull physical traits but are predominantly another breed in genetic terms. People like easy labels to lay the blame on when something scares them.
I dont judge dogs by breed anymore than I judge people by race or religion. They have individual merits and flaws that define them.
And to properly quote Cesar Milan "I rehabilitate dogs. I train people." Generally people do not know what to do with a dog, and that instills bad behavioral patterns. The most frequent is giving too much affection and not enough discipline.
FITZZ wrote: When I was five years old my Uncles neighbors German Shepard went after me, bit my leg and bit the back of my neck .
Since then I've owned German Shepard's, just because a type of dog goes bat gak doesn't make the whole breed a pack of murderous creatures.
Its not just that though unfortunately. Pit Bulls were bred for their temperament and ability to kill other animals just like German Shepherds were trained to do certain things, and why miniature dachshunds have curved tails. Interesting story those dachshunds, bred to go after badgers and rabbits so the long curved tail was so that the owners could pull them out of a hole or find them in tall grass.
But Pit Bulls were trained to kill other animals, its their genetics. It can be bypassed and maybe diluted away over time, but until then I don't trust most of them. I've had a German shepherd bite me on the inner thigh once but not because it was a mean dog, but because he was damn set on catching a water balloon my brother thought would be hilarious if he tossed it at my groin.
Genetics aside, I loved my Pits and found them to be two of the best dogs I ever owned, I'd get another but due to all the " Pit Bulls are Murder machines" hype My Missus is scared of them and won't have one...
Of course she'll fawn over some useless spin in circles and yap Poodle...who's more likely to bite you.
Personally I prefer something that can only bite me as opposed to something that could tear me a new one. I think that its just something that needs to be carefully weened out of the breed over time, mix them with some really tame dog like a basset hound or what have you. But its not like this the only time some body has advocated the genocide of a species of canines. During WW1 people stoned Dachshunds because they were a German breed, but after awhile germans began to immigrate to America again and they brought back dachshunds(which were owned mostly by sausage vendors in some areas).
FITZZ wrote:
Of course she'll fawn over some useless spin in circles and yap Poodle...who's more likely to bite you.
Meh, its more about who is more likely to bite you seriously. Minis bite, just like all dogs, but its just annoying; at worst. Pits bite and mean it.
Its the difference between Mike Tyson and a 10 year-old girl.
...That's true...and I'd be lying if I said part of my love for my Pits wasn't due to the fact that they could " bite and mean it" if it came to that...
But they were both so gentle it surprised me some times when people came over and got nervous about being around them.
I suspect the dog in the original linked story was quite photogenic and gentle and the owners probably posted online about how awesome their dog specifically and the breed in general is since they were so active in their local pit bull association and since it apparently slept on their bed. They might have been correct right up until the night it snapped and killed its owner (and her unborn child).
A pitbull came within inches of mauling my arm when it lunged through a half open window as I unknowingly walked by its car parked in front of a store two months ago. It too was described by the owner as gentle and he was shocked that the dog would do something like that unprovoked (and insinuated I did something to provoke it). As it was pinned at the chest half way out of the car by the partly rolled up window snapping at me viciously, I didn't get that impression. The ONLY thing that saved me was that the car was parked in a handicapped spot so my mom and I had room to walk 2 feet away from the car towards the store's front door. If it had been the normal mall parking lot distance between cars, I would have been severely injured by that "gentle" creature as I did nothing but unknowingly walk by its car. In the end, it's a domesticated animal breed which has more recently been specifically (in)bred for aggression. Even the "perfect" owner can't be with the dog 100% of the time and all it takes for a strong, powerful dog is to suddenly attack once for a tragedy like the above to occur.
So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
Mistress of minis wrote:Its also worth noting, the CDC study on dog bites lists them as 'pit bull type' which covers a large number of dogs most people would consider mutts. This means 'pit bull type' is very much a catch all category for dogs that happen to have pit bull physical traits but are predominantly another breed in genetic terms.
Pit Bull type basically just means "fighting dog" in all classifications.
As a side note on the whole traits thing, German Shepherds are used by the US military for the reason that they are usually moderately aggressive but are also usually loyal, intelligent, easy to train, and more importantly are predictable. A pit bull and a german shepherd could easily kill someone, its just that a german shepherd has less of a chance of actually trying to in most cases.
So maybe breed a pit bull with a german shepherd and over time the traits will transfer over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
Yes, surround yourself in that wall of ignorance, pay no attention to anything you don't feel yourself; despite being on a website based on doing the opposite.
Mistress of Minis here's a fun fact for you. Golden Retrievers are susceptible to having "Addison's Disease", which causes them to have hypersensitivity and become agitated far easier than normal. I've owned two Goldens, and the first one(Rusty, male who lived to be 18) was very lazy and easygoing.
The second one, Annie, has Addison's. Annie is a radically different situation. Whereas Rusty was perfectly safe to have around children, I don't let Annie spend too much time around strangers simply because it agitates her and gets her all strung out and increases the chance she might snap at someone simply for petting her. According to the vet, that's not uncommon in Goldens with Addison's so it's taken a lot of getting used to.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
And until you get attacked by one I don't want to hear yours.
I'm glad that you weren't attacked by your own dogs but that doesn't mean that others have had the stellar experiences with the breed you have had. Just ask the woman in the story... oh, wait.. we can't... because her gentle pitbull killed her in her sleep. Why would I want to own a dog from a breed that personally attacked me unprovoked and that constantly gets bad press? Just to prove you wrong at the expense of my own well being? Pass.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:I am surrounded by a bunch of wimps who are afraid of a animal
You use the 'thumbs up' icon a lot... anyways, German Shepherds are better because they can bite the hell out of you and then proceed to beat you up with blunt force from their tail.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
And until you get attacked by one I don't want to hear yours.
I'm glad that you weren't attacked by your own dogs but that doesn't mean that others have had the stellar experiences with the breed you have had. Just ask the woman in the story... oh, wait.. we can't... because her gentle pitbull killed her in her sleep. Why would I want to own a dog from a breed that personally attacked me unprovoked and that constantly gets bad press? Just to prove you wrong at the expense of my own well being? Pass.
But..would you suggest an entire breed be wiped out ( as some do advocate), simply because some have proven to be dangerous??...
Have i been attacked by a pit yeah not my own and plenty of other dogs who were just running free .. yepper i like the thumbs up icon. Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you. Yall are just hating on a isolated attack i am sure if we looked hard enough any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found I would not let any armed men in my house and my dogs make sure i do not.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Have i been attacked by a pit yeah not my own and plenty of other dogs who were just running free .. yepper i like the thumbs up icon. Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you. Yall are just hating on a isolated attack i am sure if we looked hard enough any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found I would not let any armed men in my house and my dogs make sure i do not.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Have i been attacked by a pit yeah not my own and plenty of other dogs who were just running free .. yepper i like the thumbs up icon. Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you. Yall are just hating on a isolated attack i am sure if we looked hard enough any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found
Translation Software Active wrote: Have I been attacked by a pit bull? Yeah, not my own--and plenty of other dogs who were just running free! Yep, I like the thumbs up icon. Will I wipe out an entire species of animals? Hell no, what's wrong with you? You all are just disrespecting because of an isolated attack. I am sure if we looked hard enough, any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found.
Here's the problem, Wiley. It's not an "isolated attack". While "pit bull" is a broad category, as demonstrated by the CDC dog bite information--they are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks. You likely have more of a chance to be attacked and killed by a pit bull than a shark.
Yes is is isolated there are several dogs above pits for number one attacks . It is only a danger if it is wild or if you don't know how to own a big dog i have been only attacked by mutt breeds and one wild pit who was running the street by herself...Period
... ...So, what's the solution then?...( that will be a freaking novelty to see down here in the OT), legaslation passed against ownership of Pits?...Breeding them out of existance?...putting them in a zoo and charging people to look at the vicious doggy ...what " Bubble wrap" gets used to make this a "safer world to live in"?
Field Marshal Wiley wrote: Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you.
I certainly didn't suggest anything like that. Did I miss someone in this thread advocating that? If so, can you quote the person for me?
FITZZ wrote: But..would you suggest an entire breed be wiped out ( as some do advocate), simply because some have proven to be dangerous??...
Again, no, I don't suggest anything of the sort, just like I don't suggest wiping out any (wild) breed or species that has a propensity or reputation of attacking humans like raccoons, sharks, or manbearpigs. What I suggest is that they don't make the greatest choice for an average owner as a household pet due to matters that are outside of that individual owner's control (like breeding for aggression for the past century by ignorant people who are just as inbred as their pets). Don't treat it like you would a small lap dog that is capable of far less harm. If that dog had slept away from its masters instead of being left alone with a vulnerable person (whether a child or sleeping adult), the woman in the story would be alive. If the idiot owner of the dog in my story had left the dog at home instead of leaving a large, powerful breed unattended in a car with half open windows capable of admitting most of its body out, I wouldn't have been attacked.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote: Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you.
I certainly didn't suggest anything like that. Did I miss someone in this thread advocating that? If so, can you quote the person for me?
FITZZ wrote: But..would you suggest an entire breed be wiped out ( as some do advocate), simply because some have proven to be dangerous??...
Again, no, I don't suggest anything of the sort, just like I don't suggest wiping out any (wild) breed or species that has a propensity or reputation of attacking humans like raccoons, sharks, or manbearpigs. What I suggest is that they don't make the greatest choice for an average owner as a household pet due to matters that are outside of that individual owner's control (like breeding for aggression for the past century by ignorant people who are just as inbred as their pets). Don't treat it like you would a small lap dog that is capable of far less harm. If that dog had slept away from its masters instead of being left alone with a vulnerable person (whether a child or sleeping adult), the woman in the story would be alive. If the idiot owner of the dog in my story had left the dog at home instead of leaving a large, powerful breed unattended in a car with half open windows capable of admitting most of its body out, I wouldn't have been attacked.
ANd that makes perfect sense, they are a potentialy dangerous breed, and knowing this and taking resposibility and properly training them goes hand in hand with ownership.
FITZZ wrote:... ...So, what's the solution then?...( that will be a freaking novelty to see down here in the OT), legaslation passed against ownership of Pits?...Breeding them out of existance?...putting them in a zoo and charging people to look at the vicious doggy ...what " Bubble wrap" gets used to make this a "safer world to live in"?
How about a special license needed to own one? One that requires you register the dog and its breeding (to prove its not an inbred fighting dog from a disreputable breeder) as well as take courses on how to properly raise and train the dog from a breed that is (however incorrectly you may think) categorized as high risk. Don't want to take the course? Then don't own an animal capable of killing an adult human. Can't verify your dog hasn't been inbred for multiple generations leading to erratic behavior? Should have asked for proof before buying it. There are reasonable solutions between "do nothing" and "kill them all". You may be surprised to hear that some people think doing the former is just as idiotic as the latter.
The bubble wrap idea sounds really cool but frankly would do nothing to protect against a full grown pitbull. Dogs in general don't seem to have the same fascination with the squishiness and popping sound of bubblewrap as humans. My terrier was downright skittish at the noise.
FITZZ wrote:... ...So, what's the solution then?...( that will be a freaking novelty to see down here in the OT), legaslation passed against ownership of Pits?...Breeding them out of existance?...putting them in a zoo and charging people to look at the vicious doggy ...what " Bubble wrap" gets used to make this a "safer world to live in"?
How about a special license needed to own one? One that requires you register the dog and its breeding (to prove its not an inbred fighting dog from a disreputable breeder) as well as take courses on how to properly raise and train the dog from a breed that is (however incorrectly you may think) categorized as high risk. Don't want to take the course? Then don't own an animal capable of killing an adult human. Can't verify your dog hasn't been inbred for multiple generations leading to erratic behavior? Should have asked for proof before buying it. There are reasonable solutions between "do nothing" and "kill them all". You may be surprised to hear that some people think doing the former is just as idiotic as the latter.
The bubble wrap idea sounds really cool but frankly would do nothing to protect against a full grown pitbull. Dogs in general don't seem to have the same fascination with the squishiness and popping sound of bubblewrap as humans. My terrier was downright skittish at the noise.
Again, sensible ...perhaps a bit intrusive...but sensible, I'd not balk at the idea of insuring a pup I got wasn't an inbred " fighting dog", nor have a problem with courses ( might learn a few things)...
...The " Bubble wrap" comment was a bit of a rant, I tend to get a bit testy with " safety nazi's" at times, and " Bubble wrapping the world...for your own good" is a bit of a...thing with me and some friends.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Yes is is isolated there are several dogs above pits for number one attacks . It is only a danger if it is wild or if you don't know how to own a big dog i have been only attacked by mutt breeds and one wild pit who was running the street by herself...Period
No, its a danger because it can become wild, and has demonstrated a propensity to do so, making it a particular danger.
If you cannot accept the shortcomings of a thing which you advocate the, quite honestly, you're not doing that thing any justice; you're just lying.
Quite honestly, you're part of the problem. People that say X is not dangerous because they have not experienced the threat of X are part of the reason X gets restricted; and gets people killed.
You want people to accept Pits, then admit they're dangerous. It isn't hard.
Pits use to be used to hunt Bears and Boars and yes they can kill can mine sure ..But Have they not BECAUSE IAM A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER WHO TRAINS DOGS PROPERLY will they ever i dont think so.
Dogs are not naturally insane, but inbreeding by humans has turned them into something that needs to be stopped, by not breeding any more of the fanged little gits that are likely to bite you.
Carrots used to be purple.
Poodles used to be really HUGE, working dogs, not tiny little things the size of a cat.
We, as humans have produced bastardized versions of what exists in nature.
I've seen idiots turn their pits into killing machines so that they can look so damned cool, and I have seen owners with their pits whom their babies sleep with them.
The owner who lets their pitbull sleep with their baby is just as much of an idiot as the owner who turned theirs into a killing machine. Perhaps not as much of a nasty person, but definitely just as stupid.
Even sensible owners of well-trained dogs absolutely DO NOT leave them alone with young children or babies. That's just downright mentally slowed by any measure of the words.
I am of the opinion that the place for a dog, is outside, in a kennel, not indoors and treated like a human.
Owners do this far too much these days, they treat their animals as if they were humans, let them in their house and beds, feed them the same food they eat etc. and this absolutely should not be done, dogs are pack animals and if you start allowing them every luxury that they want they will begin to think that they are the alpha of the pack and that's when you start getting problems.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Pits use to be used to hunt Bears and Boars and yes they can kill can mine sure ..But Have they not BECAUSE IAM A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER WHO TRAINS DOGS PROPERLY will they ever i dont think so.
No, you know how to train Pits properly. People that can train, say, Labs, cannot necessarily train Pits.
They are different dogs, and part of the difference is the increased aggression, which makes Pits more dangerous.
Forget that the problem Dogma is people dont know how to handle animals that can lean towards a aggressive nature and then decide to wipe them out. or continue to raise them to be aggessive monsters !
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Because Jerks make jerk dogs i lived with a guy who was into weight training and trying to make guard dogs...But i kicked him out for not paying rent and guess what the scumbag left his two dogs and after less than 4 month of rehab at not being aggressive they became calm dogs and Once again never turned on me or any one of my friends or children or cats or anything. Why do i want to have a pit because i love big dogs and i love pits
But you can't train a dog to absolutely never freak out and panic. You can't do it. Nope, don't pretend otherwise, because you're not magic. Just like it doesn't matter how careful and skillful a driver you are, you can't guarantee that you'll never have a crash.
At which point, everyone realises that given there's hundreds of models of cars out there that don't have a chance of exploding when they crash but are just as capable of driving you around, so they ignore the Pinto and go and buy one of the non-explodey cars.
And yet, despite there being hundreds of breeds of dog that are just loving and affectionate as pitbulls but can't gore people to death, people keep talking about how their pit would never ever freak out, and every pit that did freak out must have been mistreated. It's fething ridiculous.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Forget that the problem Dogma is people dont know how to handle animals that can lean towards a aggressive nature and then decide to wipe them out. or continue to raise them to be aggessive monsters !
This, again, is an example of why you're part of the problem. Instead of reading what I'm saying you're assuming that I want Pits banned/eradicated because I think they are particularly dangerous dogs. I don't. I just want Pit advocates to actually be honest about their animal of choice.
Of course dogs get scared and freakout my pit is scarred of all loud noises or raise voices fire works, a party next door etc. No i am not a dog wizard but GOD they are not all that killing machine they are made out to be. Dammit thats all i am trying to say !
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Ahtman ever owned a pit then i dont wanna hear it i have had little dogs tear me up more than a random street dog
As I pointed out in my post earlier that you vaguely kind of responded to, every dog can freak out and bite. It's less likely in some, more likely in others, but every dog no matter how well raised has a chance of doing so.
But when that does happen, the severity of the freak varies a hell of a lot from breed to breed. A Cavalier King Charles won't break the skin, and will likely just leave a massive blob saliva, which is gross but not lethal. A pitbull is likely to kill a person.
Running that risk, when a person is free to pick any breed of dog and they can all be described as lovable and great with kids is absolutely fething bonkers, just as it is absolutely fething bonkers to drive around in a Ford Pinto when there's so many other cars out there that will get you from A to B without ever exploding.
sebster wrote:And yet, despite there being hundreds of breeds of dog that are just loving and affectionate as pitbulls but can't gore people to death, people keep talking about how their pit would never ever freak out, and every pit that did freak out must have been mistreated. It's fething ridiculous.
This. I have had a pet dog, but would I have let it sleep in my bed, or sit at my table or have anything other than ZERO tolerance for any aggressive behaviour it displayed whatsoever?
No, I wouldn't.
Yet, all these namby-pamby liberal "pitbulls are so lovely, let them sleep with you!" morons would probably tell me that I was being cruel for raising my voice to my dog and sending it outside, in the rain on one of the few occasions when it snapped at someone. Or that I was being a "cruel dog hater" for not letting an animal with:
- Sharp jaws and teeth.
- All sorts of natural parasites.
- Potential for soiling itself.
.. roam around in my house and sleep in my bed all the time. Just because a dog is unlikely to cause you harm, you cannot guarantee it under any circumstances... history is full of examples of people that have been killed or mauled by their beloved pets, or had their loved ones killed/mauled.
To all you liberal cotton-wool pitbull owners:
- By keeping my dog in a kennel, outside, was I somehow acting "cruel" in your eyes?
- By not letting it sleep with little toddlers or laze around on the couch, was I also being "cruel"?
I really just don't get it, some of you posting on here are far, far too emotionally attached and it's completely blinding you to the fact that dogs actually have teeth and are mostly fully capable of killing any human at any point in time should they desire to.
How much you train the animal, or how much you love it and it loves you, *doesn't change that fact* and you're a sentimental fool if you think otherwise.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Of course dogs get scared and freakout my pit is scarred of all loud noises or raise voices fire works, a party next door etc. No i am not a dog wizard but GOD they are not all that killing machine they are made out to be. Dammit thats all i am trying to say !
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:I am surrounded by a bunch of wimps who are afraid of a animal
I'm not afraid. If a friend had a pit, I would treat that dog like any other, because the chances of it freaking out and attacking anyone are extremely low.
If that dog passed on and my friend said they intended to get another pit, I would ask them why, and suggest they consider a breed that doesn't have a record of freaking out and killing people, because there is no fething reason beyond macho posturing and sheer bloody minded stupidity to pick a breed with a noted record of freaking out and killing people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: But..would you suggest an entire breed be wiped out ( as some do advocate), simply because some have proven to be dangerous??...
Depends what you mean by 'wiped out'. I don't believe people owning pits should have them destroyed, they bought their dogs in good faith and their loved family pets. But I don't think we need to keep breeding them, they serve no purpose that isn't met by other breeds that don't freak out and kill people.
sebster wrote:At which point, everyone realises that given there's hundreds of models of cars out there that don't have a chance of exploding when they crash but are just as capable of driving you around, so they ignore the Pinto and go and buy one of the non-explodey cars.
But...but... I've owned 2 pintos and I've never had one explode on me over 15 years and 100,000 miles! The people whose pintos exploded must have not kept up on their regularly scheduled maintenance and driven the car in conditions it wasn't intended, like over boulders! Or perhaps bought them used from people who did! My limited personal experience means that there is no chance of a fundamental problem with the object in question overall compared to similar objects (despite other people's just as "valid" anecdotal evidence that points to the contrary as well as objective data)! [/sarcasm]
Seriously, where is Fraz? Someone turned on the weiner-symbol twice already (three times if you count this post) and he still hasn't shown up. I thought he had some tweet/text message alert system set up on dakka in case they were mentioned.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you.
Pits aren't a species. Learn what words mean.
It really matters in this case, because while we could make an argument for protecting a unique species on grounds of genetic diversity, the pit is just a breed, which can breed with other types of dogs and is no more genetically unique than the family who lives at No 43 Newcastle Street.
Yall are just hating on a isolated attack i am sure if we looked hard enough any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found
It isn't isolated. Again, you need to learn what words mean.
In this case 'isolated' matters because one instance of a dog breed freaking out and killing someone wouldn't be grounds to argue for banning a breed of dog. Instead, with pitbulls there is a pattern of behaviour, which is the exact opposite of 'isolated'.
FITZZ wrote: But..would you suggest an entire breed be wiped out ( as some do advocate), simply because some have proven to be dangerous??...
Depends what you mean by 'wiped out'. I don't believe people owning pits should have them destroyed, they bought their dogs in good faith and their loved family pets. But I don't think we need to keep breeding them, they serve no purpose that isn't met by other breeds that don't freak out and kill people.
Exactly, the only reason for having that specific breed around (a breed which was created by humans in the first place and does not exist naturally) is for the sake of a fetish that humans have for dogs that look a certain way.
There are tons of dogs that look similar to, and are related to pitbulls that have none of the legacy problems that we have built into the pitbull breed through centuries of inbreeding to specifically enhance the more aggressive qualities of the dog.
A little cuddling and letting an animal sleep in you bed is not going to change the fact that these dogs were bio-engineered by humans for centuries to become killing machines.
However nice the pitbull is, it is *always* going to have that potential within it. It's not something you can change, it is hard-wired straight into the DNA of the animal.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
I have.. two months ago in a completely unprovoked incident involving a "gentle" and "calm" dog with supposedly no history of aggression as per the owner. Only sheer luck prevented serious injury.
sebster wrote:...because there is no fething reason beyond macho posturing and sheer bloody minded stupidity to pick a breed with a noted record of freaking out and killing people.
FITZZ wrote: ANd that makes perfect sense, they are a potentialy dangerous breed, and knowing this and taking resposibility and properly training them goes hand in hand with ownership.
Do you think there should be a special license to own a Ford Pinto, or should we just not have Ford Pintos on the streets?
No-one has yet explained why they need to own a pitbull, compared to any other dog, or like.... a bear.
sebster wrote:
It really matters in this case, because while we could make an argument for protecting a unique species on grounds of genetic diversity, the pit is just a breed, which can breed with other types of dogs and is no more genetically unique than the family who lives at No 43 Newcastle Street.
Pit is a classification, not a breed. There are several Pit breeds (between 3 and 5 depending on system), some more dangerous than others. Its basically a classification for "refined pit fighting dog."
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:That's not the whole story i have been bit by a yorkie with out acting a fool around it just walking in the door ...So what happened ?
Sigh/...And by not owning that Pit Bull that may eat you, or driving that car that might explode...or not playing with lawn darts or not smoking and always buckling up or not buying that pistol because statistics say you'll probably have an acident and shoot yourself in the face so you just hide in the closet with a blanket over your head...and watch those fatty foods...and so on and so on and so on...what sort of life are you prolonging?...
...Hell call it " Macho posturing"..but I don't ant to be that scared to just enjoy life as I choose to.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Of course dogs get scared and freakout my pit is scarred of all loud noises or raise voices fire works, a party next door etc. No i am not a dog wizard but GOD they are not all that killing machine they are made out to be. Dammit thats all i am trying to say !
Which is great. No-one is claiming pitbulls are destined to kill anyone, the instances are not that common. But they are far more common among pitbulls than other breeds of dog.
To accept that level of risk there needs to be some overwhelming benefit to the breed to offset that increased risk.
They are loving, affectionate dogs, but so is every other breed. So why accept the increased risk of the pitbull?
Has anyone considered the fact that it could have been the husband, and not the dog? Humanity is much more violent, sinister, and unpredictable then any dog.....
The article dosn't really mention any proof that it was the dog, other the the husbands account of things... Which last time I checked, people are quick to pin the blame on something else....
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:That's not the whole story i have been bit by a yorkie with out acting a fool around it just walking in the door ...So what happened ?
Read the entire thread instead of jumping in midway and posting aggressively and reflexively (much like the breed in question) in order to answer your own question.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:That's not the whole story i have been bit by a yorkie with out acting a fool around it just walking in the door ...So what happened ?
It got upset and bit you, but how often, statistically, do Yorkies bite? How bad is a Yorky bite?
Thaanos wrote:Has anyone considered the fact that it could have been the husband, and not the dog? Humanity is much more violent, sinister, and unpredictable then any dog.....
Obviously, it was the husband with the knife in the bedroom (jk). I'm pretty sure forensics can tell the difference between dog bites and whatever wounds a human could inflict.
FITZZ wrote: ANd that makes perfect sense, they are a potentialy dangerous breed, and knowing this and taking resposibility and properly training them goes hand in hand with ownership.
Do you think there should be a special license to own a Ford Pinto, or should we just not have Ford Pintos on the streets?
No-one has yet explained why they need to own a pitbull, compared to any other dog, or like.... a bear.
I owned my pits because I loved them and they were great dogs...but also because I knew they'd protect my house when I was gone...
I stated a few pages back that I admit part of my love for them was based on the fact that they " Bit and meant it."
scarletsquig wrote:Yet, all these namby-pamby liberal "pitbulls are so lovely, let them sleep with you!" morons
Umm, the stereotypical liberal is kind of the opposite of the stereotypical pitbull owner, and that is kind of causing your rant to be a little odd.
I really just don't get it, some of you posting on here are far, far too emotionally attached and it's completely blinding you to the fact that dogs actually have teeth and are mostly fully capable of killing any human at any point in time should they desire to.
No, lots of dogs are entirely incapable of killing a human. See the dog in my avatar, it's jaw can't tear paper.
warboss wrote:But...but... I've owned 2 pintos and I've never had one explode on me over 15 years and 100,000 miles! The people whose pintos exploded must have not kept up on their regularly scheduled maintenance and driven the car in conditions it wasn't intended, like over boulders! Or perhaps bought them used from people who did! My limited personal experience means that there is no chance of a fundamental problem with the object in question overall compared to similar objects (despite other people's just as "valid" anecdotal evidence that points to the contrary as well as objective data)! [/sarcasm]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
That line of argument is nonsense.
Have you ever been killed in an exploding Ford Pinto? If you haven't, then how do you know they're bad?
You don't personally have to experience a thing to rationally deduce that it is bad. That's kind of the whole point of reason and learning as part of the decision making process.
At what point do you accept that statistical evidence that certain breeds of dog are more likely to freak out and kill somone actually means something?
FITZZ wrote: ...Hell call it " Macho posturing"..but I don't ant to be that scared to just enjoy life as I choose to.
Feel free to enjoy it as much as you want.. right up until the point where your enjoyment threatens someone else's life. Its at that point where your enjoyment isn't just your own business and just your own decision. Large aggressive breeds aren't just a potential threat to their owners. Ownership of them should come with responsibilities and conditions like I mentioned earlier to mirror the potential problems.
FITZZ wrote: ...Hell call it " Macho posturing"..but I don't ant to be that scared to just enjoy life as I choose to.
Feel free to enjoy it as much as you want.. right up until the point where your enjoyment threatens someone else's life. Its at that point where your enjoyment isn't just your own business and just your own decision. Large aggressive breeds aren't just a potential threat to their owners.
And neither are firearms, but I own several of them...of course I've never had to worry about my pistol running outside and shooting someone.
As I said, I fully understand the need for resposable ownership concerning Pits.
Sympathy for what? No-one here is talking about destroying dogs that are out there, but people are defending the choice of continuing the breed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:That's not the whole story i have been bit by a yorkie with out acting a fool around it just walking in the door ...So what happened ?
Was the Yorkie capable of mauling you while multiple people struck and kicked it to get it off you? Because pitbulls are.
Again, someone might rear end your Toyota Camry at moderate speed, this sucks but it won't kill you. Someone might do the same to your Ford Pinto, and when it does it might explode and trap you in the car.
So everyone knew it was common sense to get rid of the car that was just like all the other cars, only with a slight chance of something really horrific happening.
Yet people keep getting pitbulls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: Sigh/...And by not owning that Pit Bull that may eat you, or driving that car that might explode...or not playing with lawn darts or not smoking and always buckling up or not buying that pistol because statistics say you'll probably have an acident and shoot yourself in the face so you just hide in the closet with a blanket over your head...and watch those fatty foods...and so on and so on and so on...what sort of life are you prolonging?... ...Hell call it " Macho posturing"..but I don't ant to be that scared to just enjoy life as I choose to.
There is a big difference between looking to remove all risk from life, and looking to remove pointless risks that achieve nothing.
Life would be more exciting if we hired people to stand on the tops of skyscrapers and throw cinderblocks on the people below at random intervals. But it would be a stupid, pointless risk.
No-one is arguing to get rid of all dogs, which would be the logical end to your 'remove all risk' belief you think people have. People are arguing to remove a stupid, pointless risk, like a dog breed that is more prone to freaking out and killing people.
sebster wrote:
Sympathy for what? No-one here is talking about destroying dogs that are out there, but people are defending the choice of continuing the breed.
For the breed, or rather breeds, or enough specific animals to constitute a continuable stock.
FITZZ wrote:I owned my pits because I loved them and they were great dogs...but also because I knew they'd protect my house when I was gone...
I stated a few pages back that I admit part of my love for them was based on the fact that they " Bit and meant it."
So why not take a breed that was specifically bred as a guard dog?
The best features for home protection would be alertness, intelligence and really loud bark. So get a German Shepherd. Lock jaw and high jaw pressure are not needed.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So you admit Pitbulls are " Bad" and i disagree and all this ford pinto gak is just stupid
It's just taking your "it didn't happen to me so it can't be right" talk and replacing "pitbull" and "bite" with "pinto" and "explode" to show you how flawed your own reasoning is.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So you admit Pitbulls are " Bad" and i disagree and all this ford pinto gak is just stupid
The Ford Pinto stuff was a pretty straight forward analogy. If the existance of analogy itself is troublesome, just address the main point it makes - there is no reason to accept the slight risk of a catastrophic disaster when an equivalent thing has the same capabilities and no risk of catastrophe.
You can address this by arguing that the principle is false, that there is some reason to accept the added risk despite no gain (Fitzz kind of tried this). Or you can dispute the claim that there is no increased risk, that pits are no more likely to kill people than other breeds). Or you can argue that there is some benefit to the breed that justifies the risk (Fitzz tried this one as well, by arguing they make better guard dogs).
FITZZ wrote:I owned my pits because I loved them and they were great dogs...but also because I knew they'd protect my house when I was gone...
I stated a few pages back that I admit part of my love for them was based on the fact that they " Bit and meant it."
So why not take a breed that was specifically bred as a guard dog?
The best features for home protection would be alertness, intelligence and really loud bark. So get a German Shepherd. Lock jaw and high jaw pressure are not needed.
Owned a German Shepard at one time, as well as a Siberian Husky , a Rotwielier and a Bull Mastiff , with the exception of the Husky the two Pits where the best of the lot in terms of loyalty and inteligence .
Chalk me up for another person who has been attacked by a pitbull, by the way. When I was five one shot at me and bit me on the stomach. My dad kicked it off in a panic, and the owner had a go at him for kicking his dog. The dog that was biting his five year old's stomach. Yeah. This is why I'm of the belief that the dogs aren't inherently violent, but if raised badly are genuinely dangerous. Same as children really, but with better teeth.
Personally, if I ever got a dog, I'd get a Husky. But that's by the by.
sebster wrote:....there is no reason to accept the slight risk of a catastrophic disaster when an equivalent thing has the same capabilities and no risk of catastrophe.
Sure there is, the slight risk of catastrophe might be more fun.
sebster wrote:....there is no reason to accept the slight risk of a catastrophic disaster when an equivalent thing has the same capabilities and no risk of catastrophe.
Sure there is, the slight risk of catastrophe might be more fun.
I mean, roller coasters are a thing.
What about ridding a roller coaster with a pit bull...while someone chucks cinder blocks at your head?...sounds like a thrill seekers dream to me.
FITZZ wrote:Owned a German Shepard at one time, as well as a Siberian Husky , a Rotwielier and a Bull Mastiff , with the exception of the Husky the two Pits where the best of the lot in terms of loyalty and inteligence .
Do you think that, statistically, if you were to get a pit tomorrow it would be the most likely to be the best guard dog? Or would it be more likely that another dog specifically bred for the activity would be the most likely?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sure there is, the slight risk of catastrophe might be more fun.
Everyone seems to agree that pit bulls are breed to be aggressive, but no-one who says that defines what aggressive means. pits bulls have been (as all terriers have been) breed to have higher dog on dog aggression than most other dogs (much like a German shepherd mind you) however high dog on dog aggression says nothing about dog on human aggression. we all know that pit bulls are primarily used nowadays as fighting dogs, in a role such as that dog on human aggression is highly frowned upon, What do you think happens to the dog that goes around biting spectators or it owner? it gets culled pretty quickly. so dog on human aggression has actually been breed out of the species over time, the average pit bulls genetic temperament is pretty much the same as other terriers.
coolyo294 wrote:This is why everyone should own a Dachshund.
WIENER DOGS UBER ALLES! Mutant freak dogs rule the world baby.
I had an American Bull Terrier, given to me by a hottie who thought he was a labrador puppy.
"What gave it away Frazzled? Was it when he ate the side of the door mayhaps?"
He was raised like a normal dog with the exception that at the time we lived in a two story apartment, and he spent his time running up and down the stairs A LOT. He was easily the most muscular dog I've ever seen, and could literally crush anything with his jaws. He was playful but fierce and successfully bowled over a Rottweiler that tried to attack me, and turned the tables on some coyotes when we were on the side of Mount Baldy. So I've seen what they can do.
Most people train them poorly and show them off like they are some sort of badass. They've been inbred at this point (thats gotten better). But I would never trust one, or a rottweiler or any dog bred to fight or be an attack dog. Its also one of the few classes of dogs that I will shoot on sight if it comes near me when walking Team Wienie or even Risty the tank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Sasori wrote:While I generally agree on the front that a dogs temperament comes mostly from how an owner trains and treats their dogs, the issue of Pit bulls going out of control seems to be a lot more common, and I think indicative of an issue with the breed as well.
It's also possible that it simply is more widely reported, since "child mauled by a dachshund" isn't as sensationalistic and won't drive traffic as well.
Thats the problem. If Rodney (the shanker, hence the moniker) bites you - and dear lord if you're a boy he'll try (former stray with scars-he FREAKS around boys on bikes or boards), you might get a nick. If George (of the Jungle) attacked you, you would be dead.
Of course if TBone attacks you he has, like three teeth and you literally wouldn't notice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:
dogma wrote:Pit bulls, like several other breeds, are predisposed to aggression. This of course varies from dog to dog (and breed to breed as there are several pit bull breeds), but on average pit bulls will be more aggressive than, say, Labradors. They're what breeders and other dog types call an "advanced breed" in that they require a practiced and disciplined owner to safely keep.
They are, however, somewhat unique in that they are one of the few relatively small dogs fitting in that category for reasons of aggression. As such, while difficult to control, they are not as difficult to control as this fluffy death machine.
That is not a dog, that is a Z-Critter!
Yes thats scary. Does the dog see the monster behind him?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:So i am just a lucky one who has never been ripped apart by the 4 pits i have lived with seems like a hundred percent chance i should be dead by now but whatever AMERICAN TERRIERS /PITS will just kill you. Until you own one i don't wanna hear your opinion
You might want to calm the down. People have opinions here, some based on experience. They are valid, whether or not you disagree with them. Shouting them down does nothing but make you look like the kind of pit bull owner people are afraid of.
Kragura wrote:Everyone seems to agree that pit bulls are breed to be aggressive, but no-one who says that defines what aggressive means. pits bulls have been (as all terriers have been) breed to have higher dog on dog aggression than most other dogs (much like a German shepherd mind you) however high dog on dog aggression says nothing about dog on human aggression. we all know that pit bulls are primarily used nowadays as fighting dogs, in a role such as that dog on human aggression is highly frowned upon, What do you think happens to the dog that goes around biting spectators or it owner? it gets culled pretty quickly. so dog on human aggression has actually been breed out of the species over time, the average pit bulls genetic temperament is pretty much the same as other terriers.
Proof?
In fact, I would say the evidence currently out there is completely contrary to your baseless statement.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:I am surrounded by a bunch of wimps who are afraid of a animal
What are you...twelve?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote:... ...So, what's the solution then?...( that will be a freaking novelty to see down here in the OT), legaslation passed against ownership of Pits?...Breeding them out of existance?...putting them in a zoo and charging people to look at the vicious doggy ...what " Bubble wrap" gets used to make this a "safer world to live in"?
We should ban all guns too, since both are dangerous when left alone with children or in the hands of irresponsible owners.
We should ban all ATV's too, I know far more people here in PA that have been killed or seriously hurt riding ATV's than have been attacked by Pitt Bulls.
Motorcycle accidents are getting pretty high and usually aren't too pretty to see either...
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Of course dogs get scared and freakout my pit is scarred of all loud noises or raise voices fire works, a party next door etc. No i am not a dog wizard but GOD they are not all that killing machine they are made out to be. Dammit thats all i am trying to say !
George would run across the yard on his hind legs, challenging the thunder. That was always cool.
Unfortunately when watering the lawn he would also challenge the hose and demand you play tug of war, thus insuring everyone became thoroughly soaked.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
I've been challenged by two pits when walking the wieners, who came in started circling and the owner thought it was funny. A Kimber solved the situation.
Rusty the Tank (caucasian mountain dog-yes in Houston-he won't stop panting unless its 30 and windy) was attacked as we stepped out our door to go for a walk. Hence why I have the above Kimber.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
I've been challenged by two pits when walking the wieners, who came in started circling and the owner thought it was funny. A Kimber solved the situation.
Rusty the Tank (caucasian mountain dog-yes in Houston-he won't stop panting unless its 30 and windy) was attacked as we stepped out our door to go for a walk. Hence why I have the above Kimber.
Sweet, did you slot his dogs?
If he is the type of douche that has pitbulls and thinks its funny when they menace people, id have laughed my fething tits off if i was walking past and I saw you blat his dogs. Id have pointed and done a Nelson laugh.
The only real difference between a pit bull terrier and a jack russel terrier is that the average peson can punt a jack russel if it goes crazy and attacks a human. Most breeds of house cats would kill small children for fun if they were genetically altered to grow up to 400 pounds. Any and all large animals can be dangerous.
sebster wrote:....there is no reason to accept the slight risk of a catastrophic disaster when an equivalent thing has the same capabilities and no risk of catastrophe.
Sure there is, the slight risk of catastrophe might be more fun.
I mean, roller coasters are a thing.
What about ridding a roller coaster with a pit bull...while someone chucks cinder blocks at your head?...sounds like a thrill seekers dream to me.
Sounds like a bad day to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ban their breeding.
We should ban all guns too, since both are dangerous when left alone with children or in the hands of irresponsible owners.
We should ban all ATV's too, I know far more people here in PA that have been killed or seriously hurt riding ATV's than have been attacked by Pitt Bulls.
Motorcycle accidents are getting pretty high and usually aren't too pretty to see either...
The Second Amendment says nanny nanny poopiehead to you! There is no Pit Bull Amendment to the US Constitution.
ATVs don't normally attack bystanders though. Plus if you're on an ATV and you attack a bystander you go to jail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
I've been challenged by two pits when walking the wieners, who came in started circling and the owner thought it was funny. A Kimber solved the situation.
Rusty the Tank (caucasian mountain dog-yes in Houston-he won't stop panting unless its 30 and windy) was attacked as we stepped out our door to go for a walk. Hence why I have the above Kimber.
Sweet, did you slot his dogs?
If he is the type of douche that has pitbulls and thinks its funny when they menace people, id have laughed my fething tits off if i was walking past and I saw you blat his dogs. Id have pointed and done a Nelson laugh.
No. I "informed him" that I was in fear of my life from his dogs and that any attack by the dogs on me or the wieners would be considered an attack directed by him. Ok not in those words...
We should ban all guns too, since both are dangerous when left alone with children or in the hands of irresponsible owners.
Lets talk when guns develop minds of their own, and the ability to go off on their own volition and attack people at random.
Both are guns and Pitt Bulls dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people, both to themselves and to innocent bystanders. The fact that one has a brain is a poor excuse for an excuse.
BTW the US has FAR more shootings than Pitt Bull maulings and probably always will.
Frazzled wrote:[
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ban their breeding.
We should ban all guns too, since both are dangerous when left alone with children or in the hands of irresponsible owners.
We should ban all ATV's too, I know far more people here in PA that have been killed or seriously hurt riding ATV's than have been attacked by Pitt Bulls.
Motorcycle accidents are getting pretty high and usually aren't too pretty to see either...
The Second Amendment says nanny nanny poopiehead to you! There is no Pit Bull Amendment to the US Constitution.
ATVs don't normally attack bystanders though. Plus if you're on an ATV and you attack a bystander you go to jail.
Your arguing to make a law banning something that is known to cause harm to its owners as well as innocent bystanders, yet you do not see the irony that this is the same exact logic that anti-gun lobbyists use?
The last thing this country needs is more laws to protect us from our own stupidity. If you choose to raise a 100+ lbs killing machine in your home and it kills you, that should be your choice.
I have a Pitt Bull myself. He sleeps with my cats and gets bullied around by my chihuahua, but if he ever shows any signs of becoming aggressive and cannot be retrained he would get a one way trip to the vets. I would be heartbroken and mortified by the idea, and probably bawl like a little girl afterwards, but I cannot in good conscience allow someone else to be killed/maimed by my poor choices. I am what I would consider a good pet owner.
If a ban was put into place on the breeding of Pitts, much like a ban on guns, it would only stop responsible, law abiding citizens from owning a Pitt. If someone is running a dog fighting ring out of their basement do you really think a ban on Pitts would stop them from owning and breeding them?
I personally see far more parallels between gun laws and Pitt bull laws than I do distinctions.
Thats fine. Then make it the law if your pit bull gets out or attacks someone else they can shoot YOU in self defense.
Guns can't act on their own. Pit Bulls can.
We have to remember here that we already have legislation in many jurisdictions about "dangerous animals" (tigers, wolves, bears kept by people). The same regulations might be applicable in this instance.
The last thing this country needs is more laws to protect us from our own stupidity. If you choose to raise a 100+ lbs killing machine in your home and it kills you, that should be your choice.
I'll try to say this politely, but want to be clear so you understand the extent of my statement. This is not meant as an attack.
I don't care about you. I don't care about your family. I don't care about your friends. I don't care about your town, your country, or your species.
If you want to run around in your house letting a pit bull eat you I could care less. If you want to dance around in clown makeup cutting yourself I truly don't care.
But when impacts me, I care. Your pit bull getting out and threatening the well being of my family (including team Wienie and even that bastard budgie Connie has) then we have a problem. I don't want to protect your from your own stupidity. I want to protect ME from your stupidity.
Am I advocating wacking pit bulls? No.
I am however, at least advocating strict liability and strict enforcement of leash laws and fencing.
BTW the US has FAR more shootings than Pitt Bull maulings and probably always will.
These arguments always get on my nerves. Your dumbing down information to fit your argument. To compare youd have to first look at statistics that show how many LEGAL gun owners, cause shootings. Why LEGAL? Because they are the responsible ones, obviously some dumb gak felon with an illegal firearm will cause more shootings then non felons. Then you have to compare how many legal gun owners there are to "responsible" pitbull owners there are. The numbers are going to be hugely different because Americans love firearms. Thats like the argument that flying is safer then driving. It may be, but there are a couple hundred million cars in the US, how many planes are there?
Then compare those numbers, legal firearm shootings VS responsible pitbull owners attacks. Now that would be a figure worth using guns as an argument. It might still be higher with guns, but that would just show that MOST of the legal, responsible firearms owners, protected their home/family from previously mentioned dumb gak felon.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
Neither myself, nor anyone I personally know, have been been attacked by a Grizzly Bear. Hence, Grizzly Bears are safe to keep as pets.
I don't know where I fall on this argument. I once had a mutt that followed my dad home, starving. He was a half pit-bull, and he was a good pet dog. Never bit anyone. Very aggressive towards other male dogs, which I resolved by not allowing him near other male dogs. Lived to be 16, never so much as growled at a human. My sister owned a blue pit bull that was friendly as could be... until one day, out of the blue, he decided to jump the fence and maul the Boxer next door nearly to death.
I generally tend to lean against breed-specific legislation - there are safe Rottweilers and dangerous Labradors - but the people who argue that Pit Bulls have an inherently dangerous capacity rare in other breeds have a valid point.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:How many of you have actually been attacked by a Pitbull ?
Neither myself, nor anyone I personally know, have been been attacked by a Grizzly Bear. Hence, Grizzly Bears are safe to keep as pets.
I don't know where I fall on this argument. I once had a mutt that followed my dad home, starving. He was a half pit-bull, and he was a good pet dog. Never bit anyone. Very aggressive towards other male dogs, which I resolved by not allowing him near other male dogs. Lived to be 16, never so much as growled at a human. My sister owned a blue pit bull that was friendly as could be... until one day, out of the blue, he decided to jump the fence and maul the Boxer next door nearly to death.
I generally tend to lean against breed-specific legislation - there are safe Rottweilers and dangerous Labradors - but the people who argue that Pit Bulls have an inherently dangerous capacity rare in other breeds have a valid point.
Breeding them should be illegal. Kill any individual dog that attacks. All owners should be subject to special training and mandatory sterilization of the animal.
BTW the US has FAR more shootings than Pitt Bull maulings and probably always will.
These arguments always get on my nerves. Your dumbing down information to fit your argument. To compare youd have to first look at statistics that show how many LEGAL gun owners, cause shootings. Why LEGAL? Because they are the responsible ones, obviously some dumb gak felon with an illegal firearm will cause more shootings then non felons. Then you have to compare how many legal gun owners there are to "responsible" pitbull owners there are. The numbers are going to be hugely different because Americans love firearms. Thats like the argument that flying is safer then driving. It may be, but there are a couple hundred million cars in the US, how many planes are there?
Then compare those numbers, legal firearm shootings VS responsible pitbull owners attacks. Now that would be a figure worth using guns as an argument. It might still be higher with guns, but that would just show that MOST of the legal, responsible firearms owners, protected their home/family from previously mentioned dumb gak felon.
First off, I'm not arguing that gun laws should exist, I just think it funny that so many people would consider it an infringement on their liberties to have their guns taken away, yet are ok with the destruction of a family pet just because they do not agree with the concept of a Pitt Bull as a good family pet.
The United Kennel club lists the American Pitt Bull Terrier as the #2 breed by popularity. There are a lot of pitt bulls out there, especially once you add in the American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which are also both in the top 10. So, there ARE a lot of responsible Pitt owners out there with a few felons and jackasses making the rest of us look bad, just like gun owners.
I see around one or two shootings a week on the news in Pittsburgh alone yet I only see a few dog maulings. The CDC accounts for 76 killings by pitt bulls and pitt bull mixes from 1979 to 1998, thats around 4 a year. Every source I could find for gun deaths is in the 10's of thousands per year, including hundreds of accidental gun deaths.
Again, I'm not rallying for gun laws in any ways, in fact in completely against such an idea, but you cannot gak on the liberties that others hold dear and expect the ones that you hold dear to be untouchable.
BTW the US has FAR more shootings than Pitt Bull maulings and probably always will.
These arguments always get on my nerves. Your dumbing down information to fit your argument. To compare youd have to first look at statistics that show how many LEGAL gun owners, cause shootings. Why LEGAL? Because they are the responsible ones, obviously some dumb gak felon with an illegal firearm will cause more shootings then non felons. Then you have to compare how many legal gun owners there are to "responsible" pitbull owners there are. The numbers are going to be hugely different because Americans love firearms. Thats like the argument that flying is safer then driving. It may be, but there are a couple hundred million cars in the US, how many planes are there?
Then compare those numbers, legal firearm shootings VS responsible pitbull owners attacks. Now that would be a figure worth using guns as an argument. It might still be higher with guns, but that would just show that MOST of the legal, responsible firearms owners, protected their home/family from previously mentioned dumb gak felon.
First off, I'm not arguing that gun laws should exist, I just think it funny that so many people would consider it an infringement on their liberties to have their guns taken away, yet are ok with the destruction of a family pet just because they do not agree with the concept of a Pitt Bull as a good family pet.
The United Kennel club lists the American Pitt Bull Terrier as the #2 breed by popularity. There are a lot of pitt bulls out there, especially once you add in the American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which are also both in the top 10. So, there ARE a lot of responsible Pitt owners out there with a few felons and jackasses making the rest of us look bad, just like gun owners.
I see around one or two shootings a week on the news in Pittsburgh alone yet I only see a few dog maulings. The CDC accounts for 76 killings by pitt bulls and pitt bull mixes from 1979 to 1998, thats around 4 a year. Every source I could find for gun deaths is in the 10's of thousands per year, including hundreds of accidental gun deaths.
Again, I'm not rallying for gun laws in any ways, in fact in completely against such an idea, but you cannot gak on the liberties that others hold dear and expect the ones that you hold dear to be untouchable.
One of these things is not like the other...
The idea behind gun laws is not "Dey took our guuuuuuuuuuuns!"--despite what sensational media reports would like you to believe. It's about regulation. Things like full automatic, military hardware should not necessarily be in private civilian's hands. An individual who has repeatedly filed a "stolen gun" report also should not own a gun--because clearly, they aren't taking care of it properly or are in fact selling them on the black market.
You'll also notice that the statements made about "destruction" refer to the destruction of the dogs doing the attacks. Not destroying the family pets. They're also suggesting that there's no reason to continue breeding pit bulls, and they're quite frankly correct.
I'd be more comfortable letting a child swim with a Great White Shark than stay in a house with a pit bull.
Of course you would Kanluwen. You cna swim faster than a small child. After all when there's danger abouts, you don't have to be the fastest, just faster than your friend.
One of these things is not like the other...
The idea behind gun laws is not "Dey took our guuuuuuuuuuuns!"--despite what sensational media reports would like you to believe. It's about regulation. Things like full automatic, military hardware should not necessarily be in private civilian's hands. An individual who has repeatedly filed a "stolen gun" report also should not own a gun--because clearly, they aren't taking care of it properly or are in fact selling them on the black market.
You'll also notice that the statements made about "destruction" refer to the destruction of the dogs doing the attacks. Not destroying the family pets. They're also suggesting that there's no reason to continue breeding pit bulls, and they're quite frankly correct.
Correct how? All I see is your opinion that breeding of Pitts should be discontinued in this statement. The reason they should be bred is the same as any other breed of dog. I can look up countless FACTS that guns are far deadlier than pitts, yet all I am hearing back is opinions brought about by the media casting a glaring light on pitt attacks. Rottys account for half as many maulings as pitts --despite what sensational media reports would like you to believe, but I never see those on the news.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be regulated, they very well should be to stop jackasses from making them look bad, but eradicating the breed to stop a few bad eggs from getting themselves or others killed is NO DIFFERENT then banning all guns to stop murders.
Kanluwen wrote:Things like full automatic, military hardware should not necessarily be in private civilian's hands.
Yeah, that's silly. There are very few weapons that are actually illegal for private citizens to own. A private citizen can own and operate a fully automatic machine gun, and many do. Even high-calibur machine guns.
Gun regulation is based on the idea that restricting the availability of firearms will reduce the number of gun-related crimes that are committed. Unfortunately, unless you have a system like in many places in Europe where all guns are banned, it's very difficult to prevent people from circumventing gun laws.
Also, why would you want to own a pitbull in the first place? They're hideously ugly animals.
Kanluwen wrote:Things like full automatic, military hardware should not necessarily be in private civilian's hands.
Yeah, that's silly. There are very few weapons that are actually illegal for private citizens to own. A private citizen can own and operate a fully automatic machine gun, and many do. Even high-calibur machine guns.
The quote doesn't say that these weapons are illegal to own, but that they should not necessarily be legal to own. While it is possible, it is generally prohibitive due to the red tape and high cost of licenses associated with it. I'm not sure what the purpose of privately owning a chain cannon is, but it certainly makes Knob Creek more interesting.
I'd be more comfortable letting a child swim with a Great White Shark than stay in a house with a pit bull.
Of course you would Kanluwen. You cna swim faster than a small child. After all when there's danger abouts, you don't have to be the fastest, just faster than your friend.
That is true...
But I'd be more comfortable with that, simply because Great White attacks are fairly rare. Most involve cases of 'mistaken identity' where surfers are in areas with a large seal population, and the shark attacks are not always lethal.
Um...it is? Can you say that, aesthetically, you would prefer a pitbull over any other dog?
yes
I think the ghetto cropped ear, oversized head muscle pitts are kind of ugly but the classical bull terrier breeds, including bulldogs are ugly in a very striking way.
I guess they can be so ugly they are cute.
This is closer to my dog, in fact almost identical. A handsome fella he is!
I think my biggest problem is that the classic, and much more stable, breeds of pitt bull are being thrown into the same lot as the ghetto fighting dogs. Most restriction laws that I have seen in America throw these dogs into the same breed.
I have had my dog for 2 years now and got him at the age of 2 from a good family that couldn't keep him. I have never known a dog that was more affectionate, loyal, or docile, and I have known a lot of dogs in my life. I just cannot fathom a dog that gets bullied around by a 3 pound chihuahua going apegak and killing anyone.
Wow that could have been George's brother right there. If you don't bob their ears or tail they're actually a very pretty breed and do well in summer heat in hot parts of the country. The downside is they are very intelligent and get bored easily, leading to desturction of your house.
People who let their dogs sleep in bed with them are weirdos.
Maybe it was how I was raised, but inside is for people, outside is for animals, except in particular circumstances.
Lots (LOTS) of pitbulls in my area, mostly owned by scumbags. Not too worried by them because they tend to be on leads, but no way in hell would I be happy if I was raising kids around here.
Those of you talking in fond terms about your dogs, do you not think this woman would have talked in fond terms about her dog, also? I mean, by all means own a pitbull, but this rubbish about letting them play with babies is insanity. We didn't let even our extremely kid friendly docile corgi/sheepdog cross play with the babies until they were old enough to understand that he was a seperate being and not a big teddy they could pull out of.
Da Boss wrote:People who let their dogs sleep in bed with them are weirdos.
Maybe it was how I was raised, but inside is for people, outside is for animals, except in particular circumstances.
Lots (LOTS) of pitbulls in my area, mostly owned by scumbags. Not too worried by them because they tend to be on leads, but no way in hell would I be happy if I was raising kids around here.
Those of you talking in fond terms about your dogs, do you not think this woman would have talked in fond terms about her dog, also? I mean, by all means own a pitbull, but this rubbish about letting them play with babies is insanity. We didn't let even our extremely kid friendly docile corgi/sheepdog cross play with the babies until they were old enough to understand that he was a seperate being and not a big teddy they could pull out of.
Yeah, I would have to +1 this. We didn't let our nieces near our dog till they understood it wasn't a fun toy, and that was with a docile dog that's never been angry.
Due to the area I live in, there are zero pitbulls, or any other dogs that have caused "Sensational" news. German Shephards the size of bears though.
Ahtman wrote:I'm not sure what the purpose of privately owning a chain cannon is, but it certainly makes Knob Creek more interesting.
I think you answered your own question.
Indeed. I'm just saying they are the porn of the firearms world; no practical purpose beyond just being what they are. You can't hunt with them, and even if you could it wouldn't be a good idea. They are also to unwieldy for home defense, though my hats off to the policeman who has to write up a report including one in such an occasion. Best left to the professionals.
Field Marshal Wiley wrote:Have i been attacked by a pit yeah not my own and plenty of other dogs who were just running free .. yepper i like the thumbs up icon. Willl i wipe out a entire species of animals hell no whats wrong with you. Yall are just hating on a isolated attack i am sure if we looked hard enough any other breed of aggressive dog tragedy can be found I would not let any armed men in my house and my dogs make sure i do not.
So you don't understand what danger is.
This seems like another conversation I've had.
That wasn't a conversation that was just you picking over the corpse of the english language for any bits that you could use in an argument over semantics.
BTW the US has FAR more shootings than Pitt Bull maulings and probably always will.
These arguments always get on my nerves. Your dumbing down information to fit your argument. To compare youd have to first look at statistics that show how many LEGAL gun owners, cause shootings. Why LEGAL? Because they are the responsible ones, obviously some dumb gak felon with an illegal firearm will cause more shootings then non felons. Then you have to compare how many legal gun owners there are to "responsible" pitbull owners there are. The numbers are going to be hugely different because Americans love firearms. Thats like the argument that flying is safer then driving. It may be, but there are a couple hundred million cars in the US, how many planes are there?
Then compare those numbers, legal firearm shootings VS responsible pitbull owners attacks. Now that would be a figure worth using guns as an argument. It might still be higher with guns, but that would just show that MOST of the legal, responsible firearms owners, protected their home/family from previously mentioned dumb gak felon.
First off, I'm not arguing that gun laws should exist, I just think it funny that so many people would consider it an infringement on their liberties to have their guns taken away, yet are ok with the destruction of a family pet just because they do not agree with the concept of a Pitt Bull as a good family pet.
The United Kennel club lists the American Pitt Bull Terrier as the #2 breed by popularity. There are a lot of pitt bulls out there, especially once you add in the American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which are also both in the top 10. So, there ARE a lot of responsible Pitt owners out there with a few felons and jackasses making the rest of us look bad, just like gun owners.
I see around one or two shootings a week on the news in Pittsburgh alone yet I only see a few dog maulings. The CDC accounts for 76 killings by pitt bulls and pitt bull mixes from 1979 to 1998, thats around 4 a year. Every source I could find for gun deaths is in the 10's of thousands per year, including hundreds of accidental gun deaths.
Again, I'm not rallying for gun laws in any ways, in fact in completely against such an idea, but you cannot gak on the liberties that others hold dear and expect the ones that you hold dear to be untouchable.
I just want to state firstly, that Im no actually against PitBulls. Do I think they are dangerous? Yes. Do I think they all will flip out and maul people? No. I have a few friends that are just die hard Pit owners, and Ive never had any trouble with the animals. I personally would never own a PitBull and wouldnt like my children to be around them. Thats a personal preference though. I personally like owning firearms and going out to the range and shooting, that doesnt mean I should force others to do the same. Should those animals be more strictly regulated like firearms are? Id say its a good thing to look into, as PitBulls are known for violent acts, and shouldnt be in the hands of your everyday Joe.
I was simply stating, that it annoys me when people try to make their point, they instantly jump to "well guns kill people too!" yes they do, and so does smoking and cell phones while driving and replacing half your meals with McDonalds. But again,MOST of the violence pertaining to firearms is not law abiding civilians waving their guns around. You cant even throw in ACCIDENTAL injuries and deaths in that argument. For the same reason I dont hear you saying, well its ok, that PitBull accidently ripped that kids face off. Accidents can be and should be prevented. If the guns were locked up properly, and were being treated properly when being cleaned, then people wouldnt accidently shoot themselves
I'm gonna say this right now about Pits...just like people, the actions of a few should not condemn the entire breed.
Yes, Pits were bread to fight, yes they are still bread to fight, yes they can be viscious, yes they can be dangerous but that is why it takes a certain special kind of person to own a Pit bull...
I understand the people in question were Pit Bull advocates...but there is now way in hell I would want a Pit bull if I was planning on starting a family, regardless of the fact that the guy left his pregnant wife alone in a house with two Pits...that's just a stupid thing to do, if you ask me its as much the owner's fault as it is the dog's
That said, for every horror story there are ten happy endings...happily ever after doesn't sell news, a Pit Bull killing a pregnant woman while she slept does...example:
I had a friend in middle school who owned a pit bull since it was a puppy...and that's how it acted through its entire life, like a big puppy, the thing couldn't hurt a fly...not exactly the picture of a killing machine is it?
On the other hand, Pit's are naturally aggressive, especially if they have been rescued from homes where that aggression was amplified, Pits definitely aren't for everyone because of this reason...example:
Another friend in highschool owned a Pit that his dad rescued from a place where they took a shear to the dog's ears and tail...it was headed to be put down because nobody wanted dog that looked like it was made to fight, and fight it did. My friend's dad sports a long, thin scar from where that dog took a pass at him. The story goes that the guy grappled with the dog until it submitted...with dogs, you just gotta show em whose boss sometimes. That family never had another problem with that Pit ever again...
WARORK93 wrote:I'm gonna say this right now about Pits...just like people, the actions of a few should not condemn the entire breed.
Yes, Pits were bread to fight, yes they are still bread to fight, yes they can be viscious, yes they can be dangerous but that is why it takes a certain special kind of person to own a Pit bull...
I understand the people in question were Pit Bull advocates...but there is now way in hell I would want a Pit bull if I was planning on starting a family, regardless of the fact that the guy left his pregnant wife alone in a house with two Pits...that's just a stupid thing to do, if you ask me its as much the owner's fault as it is the dog's
That said, for every horror story there are ten happy endings...happily ever after doesn't sell news, a Pit Bull killing a pregnant woman while she slept does...example:
I had a friend in middle school who owned a pit bull since it was a puppy...and that's how it acted through its entire life, like a big puppy, the thing couldn't hurt a fly...not exactly the picture of a killing machine is it?
On the other hand, Pit's are naturally aggressive, especially if they have been rescued from homes where that aggression was amplified, Pits definitely aren't for everyone because of this reason...example:
Another friend in highschool owned a Pit that his dad rescued from a place where they took a shear to the dog's ears and tail...it was headed to be put down because nobody wanted dog that looked like it was made to fight, and fight it did. My friend's dad sports a long, thin scar from where that dog took a pass at him. The story goes that the guy grappled with the dog until it submitted...with dogs, you just gotta show em whose boss sometimes. That family never had another problem with that Pit ever again...
They tried the wrestle domination thing with TBone. Thats one reason he was given up to the rescue center. TBone don't submit to nobody. Mess with T and you get 8lb of near toothless rage coming at you!
Da Boss wrote:People who let their dogs sleep in bed with them are weirdos.
Maybe it was how I was raised, but inside is for people, outside is for animals, except in particular circumstances.
Before I moved out my parents' house I had a dog sleep with me for as long as I can remember.
That first night at college was very lonely....then I discovered college girls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Best left to the professionals.
That picture, and movie, are clear proof that only politicians should be so armed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Gun regulation is based on the idea that restricting the availability of firearms will reduce the number of gun-related crimes that are committed.
Its also based on the idea that the monopoly on legitimate force is easier to maintain when civilians are restricted in matters of armament.
But dogs are smelly and fart unselfconciously and they have fleas and leave hair in your bed...argh.
I've slept near my dog while camping, out of convenience. (I keep him on a leash with the leash wrapped round my hand, so he can't wander off and bother people during the night.)
I feel like I'm alone in my stance though- plenty of my friends let their furry companions sleep with them. Not for me. My dad instilled too firmly in my mind the "dogs outside, people inside" rule. (Though he's mellowed in his old age and lets my dog in at night sometimes, especially if there's thunder and lightning or fireworks.)
Cats smell like whatever litter you buy...and cat pee when the litter must be changed.
One of my cats had a habit of defecating on himself, which lead to many instances of "This will hurt you more than me." as he closed into the running shower. Much mewling ensued.
Cats generally aren't as smelly. But our dogs have always had a pretty...robust smell. We don't bath them often though to be fair, and they get walked in the fields a lot which leads to a lot of spashing around in ditchwater.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:We should ban all guns too, since both are dangerous when left alone with children or in the hands of irresponsible owners.
Nothing can do the job a gun can do, other than another gun. As such, to the extent that we need something that projects lead at high speeds towards a target, we need guns.
If you want an animal for companionship or guarding your stuff, you have hundreds of other dog breeds to choose from, before considering the breed that might just freak out and kill somebody.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Both are guns and Pitt Bulls dangerous in the hands of irresponsible people, both to themselves and to innocent bystanders. The fact that one has a brain is a poor excuse for an excuse.
Pitbulls are also dangerous in the hands of responsible people. No matter how well you raise the dog, there remains a chance that it's breeding will come out.
I'm still waiting for someone in this thread to explain why it is worth taking that risk, when the person could pick any other breed of dog.
I have a Pitt Bull myself. He sleeps with my cats and gets bullied around by my chihuahua, but if he ever shows any signs of becoming aggressive and cannot be retrained he would get a one way trip to the vets. I would be heartbroken and mortified by the idea, and probably bawl like a little girl afterwards, but I cannot in good conscience allow someone else to be killed/maimed by my poor choices. I am what I would consider a good pet owner.
You really, really need to understand that dogs can panic and lash out, without having ever shown any symptoms before.
You also really, really need to understand the stupidity of having an animal that is potentially so dangerous that it justifies putting it down when it shows any signs of becoming aggressive, when you could have chosen from hundreds of other breeds where that level of danger simply isn't there.
If a ban was put into place on the breeding of Pitts, much like a ban on guns, it would only stop responsible, law abiding citizens from owning a Pitt. If someone is running a dog fighting ring out of their basement do you really think a ban on Pitts would stop them from owning and breeding them?
You need to realise that it isn't just pitbulls raised to fight that are freaking out and killing people. Everyday pitbulls, raised lovingly as pets will do it as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:First off, I'm not arguing that gun laws should exist, I just think it funny that so many people would consider it an infringement on their liberties to have their guns taken away, yet are ok with the destruction of a family pet just because they do not agree with the concept of a Pitt Bull as a good family pet.
No-one in this thread is arguing for the destruction of all pitbulls out there.
The most extreme position stated is no future pitbulls, through a ban on breeding the animals. If you're going to debate something, at least be polite enough to read what people are saying.
I see around one or two shootings a week on the news in Pittsburgh alone yet I only see a few dog maulings. The CDC accounts for 76 killings by pitt bulls and pitt bull mixes from 1979 to 1998, thats around 4 a year. Every source I could find for gun deaths is in the 10's of thousands per year, including hundreds of accidental gun deaths.
Let's go back to the Ford Pinto.
The gas tank failure in the Ford Pinto killed 27 people. Because there were hundreds of other models of cars that could do everything a Ford Pinto could do, but not have a risk of exploding and killing people, we got rid of the Ford Pinto. This is called having some goddamned common sense.
And yet we have a breed of dog that's 'only' killed 76 people in 20 years. There are hundreds of other breeds that haven't killed 76 people, but we actually have people who want to keep getting the dog that's killed people, and arguing for others to be allowed to get the dog that's killed people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARORK93 wrote:I understand the people in question were Pit Bull advocates...but there is now way in hell I would want a Pit bull if I was planning on starting a family, regardless of the fact that the guy left his pregnant wife alone in a house with two Pits...that's just a stupid thing to do, if you ask me its as much the owner's fault as it is the dog's
What?
fething seriously, what?
There's a dog breed that represents such a specific danger to people that part of responsible ownership means never leaving it in the house with your wife, else her death by mauling is your fault... and people are still arguing in favour of keeping this dog as a pet.
This is just fething ridiculous.
That said, for every horror story there are ten happy endings...happily ever after doesn't sell news, a Pit Bull killing a pregnant woman while she slept does...example:
"Come on, buy a pitbull. There's only a one in eleven chance your pregnant wife will be mauled to death."
On the other hand, Pit's are naturally aggressive
Which means that unless you desire aggression in your pet, every other breed is a more sensible choice of pet.
Yet people keep getting pits, and keep pretending when they maul someone that it was something they couldn't see coming.
Kanluwen wrote:Things like full automatic, military hardware should not necessarily be in private civilian's hands.
Yeah, that's silly. There are very few weapons that are actually illegal for private citizens to own. A private citizen can own and operate a fully automatic machine gun, and many do. Even high-calibur machine guns.
Gun regulation is based on the idea that restricting the availability of firearms will reduce the number of gun-related crimes that are committed. Unfortunately, unless you have a system like in many places in Europe where all guns are banned, it's very difficult to prevent people from circumventing gun laws.
Also, why would you want to own a pitbull in the first place? They're hideously ugly animals.
Depends on which European country. Switzerland by law requires citizens to have a fully automatic assault rifle kept in their house, well some citizens. 2 years of military service is mandatory for all male citizens, while in the military they are given government issue assault rifles, and they are required to take the guns home with them and keep them in their home. End result is it's law for citizens to keep a government issue assault rifle in their home. Last time I checked Switzerland isn't the cesspool of Europe, and they have a low crime rate. On the other end of the spectrum Japan has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world, and their crime rate is also very low. Gun control laws are the same in Beverly Hills as they are in Detroit. In the end gun laws have almost no noticeable effect on a crime rate, and are completely overshadowed by other factors such as poverty, unemployment, drug trafficking, drug abuse, gangs, lack of education, and ethnic isolation.
Back on the topic of a large dog. As a parent of a 2 year old, gun owner, 2 and a previous owner of large dogs (I'm in an apartment right now which is the only reason I"m pet free at the moment) an improperly stowed firearm is far more dangerous than a well behaved kid friendly large dog. Then again improperly stowed household cleaning chemicals are as dangerous as an improperly stowed firearm.
The way I see it, I don't give a flying gak whether 'some pitbulls are nice, but there's a few that tend to mutiliate children and all that'.
Oh, they're nice? So are every other breed of dog barring a few.
So you want me to get a breed of dog that's known and infamous for attacking things, have to train it vigilantly to avoid the chance of it *killing people without warning*, or I can just buy a fething Basset Hound or something and never have to worry about that, ever. The analogy with the exploding Ford Fiesta was probably the most spot-on thing I've read in this thread. Sure, they might be nice guard dogs and all, but when you're talking about a pet that could potentially attack you and injure, or even possibly kill you, feth no, I'm getting a different dog. It's not impossible to keep them docile, I just don't feel like I should be worried about it.
The real bummer is when someone who didn't even make the choice to own a statistically-more-lethal-than-others breed of dog gets eaten by a dog from down the street.
WARORK93 wrote:I understand the people in question were Pit Bull advocates...but there is now way in hell I would want a Pit bull if I was planning on starting a family, regardless of the fact that the guy left his pregnant wife alone in a house with two Pits...that's just a stupid thing to do, if you ask me its as much the owner's fault as it is the dog's
What?
fething seriously, what?
There's a dog breed that represents such a specific danger to people that part of responsible ownership means never leaving it in the house with your wife, else her death by mauling is your fault... and people are still arguing in favour of keeping this dog as a pet.
This is just fething ridiculous.
Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.
sebster wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:Adding on to that is the fact both animals were allowed to sleep in the same bed as a pregnant woman...a Pit Bull is simply not an animal that you can easily keep indoors in closed spaces, and especially not near pregnant women and children...don't get me wrong some of them can be family dogs but a family owns a pit Bull at its own risk.
That said, for every horror story there are ten happy endings...happily ever after doesn't sell news, a Pit Bull killing a pregnant woman while she slept does...example:
"Come on, buy a pitbull. There's only a one in eleven chance your pregnant wife will be mauled to death."
Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.
WARORK93 wrote:Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.
You missed my point. If you acknowledge this breed is enough of a danger that they shouldn't be around people looking to start a family, then that's a serious problem with the breed.
When there are hundreds of other breeds available, why not just get one of those breeds?
Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.
I was just making fun of your figure, for every tragedy there's ten happy stories. I'd hope it's a lot better than one in eleven people not getting mauled by their dog.
Meanwhile, you cannot remove the risk of getting mauled entirely, no matter how well you raise the dog. You can do everything right, and there remains a chance the dog will freak out and return to it's breeding.
Kragura wrote:Everyone seems to agree that pit bulls are breed to be aggressive, but no-one who says that defines what aggressive means. pits bulls have been (as all terriers have been) breed to have higher dog on dog aggression than most other dogs (much like a German shepherd mind you) however high dog on dog aggression says nothing about dog on human aggression. we all know that pit bulls are primarily used nowadays as fighting dogs, in a role such as that dog on human aggression is highly frowned upon, What do you think happens to the dog that goes around biting spectators or it owner? it gets culled pretty quickly. so dog on human aggression has actually been breed out of the species over time, the average pit bulls genetic temperament is pretty much the same as other terriers.
Proof?
In fact, I would say the evidence currently out there is completely contrary to your baseless statement.
What evidence world that be exactly? what do you want for proof, a statistical study conducted by the university of whatever on dogs breed in the exact same environment? I wish one existed but I can't find one. any evidence you may have of pit bulls is only evidence in the current context that pit bulls live in.
What you could do is look at the large number of kennel clubs, breeders associations and dog trainers who say exactly what I have. hell you could even bother read the Wikipedia page.
"The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]
The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9] American Pit Bull Terriers generally have a lot of energy and benefit from exercise and stimulation to channel their energy properly and avoid becoming frustrated, bored, or destructive."
Kragura wrote:"The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, "aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable."[8]
The American Temperament Testing Society shows a pass percentage of 86% for American Pit Bull Terriers as opposed to the Golden Retriever with a temperament of 84.9%.[9] American Pit Bull Terriers generally have a lot of energy and benefit from exercise and stimulation to channel their energy properly and avoid becoming frustrated, bored, or destructive."
The point that others are making quite clearly, and I'm frankly baffled that it isn't sinking in, is that all dogs are capable of biting or otherwise acting out.
Some breeds are much more likely to kill someone when they do so. So yes, Golden retrievers have a statistically poorer temperament (according to wiki) but of the dogs that are likely to kill someone certain breeds stand out. Behold, the study that doesn't exist.
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
WARORK93 wrote:Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.
You missed my point. If you acknowledge this breed is enough of a danger that they shouldn't be around people looking to start a family, then that's a serious problem with the breed.
When there are hundreds of other breeds available, why not just get one of those breeds?
exactly.
sebster wrote:
WARORK93 wrote:Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.
I was just making fun of your figure, for every tragedy there's ten happy stories. I'd hope it's a lot better than one in eleven people not getting mauled by their dog.
Meanwhile, you cannot remove the risk of getting mauled entirely, no matter how well you raise the dog. You can do everything right, and there remains a chance the dog will freak out and return to it's breeding.
The point that others are making quite clearly, and I'm frankly baffled that it isn't sinking in, is that all dogs are capable of biting or otherwise acting out.
Some breeds are much more likely to kill someone when they do so. So yes, Golden retrievers have a statistically poorer temperament (according to wiki) but of the dogs that are likely to kill someone certain breeds stand out. Behold, the study that doesn't exist.
Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why. MY point is that it has nothing to do with there breeding, they're not the biggest or scariest dogs out there, there just the one most subjected to terrible conditions.
And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.
Kragura wrote:Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why.
Because they are a large, strong, and aggressive breed. There. Now you know. Also, they don't bite more people, they kill more people. That's the distinction that I think you're missing.
Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.
That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.
Kragura wrote:hell you could even bother read the Wikipedia page.
Meet my friends. The warning tags:
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2010)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2011)
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (April 2011)
I'd also check the discussion and archive. Wikipedia is never good evidence, but sometimes its not even good reference
Kragura wrote:
Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why. MY point is that it has nothing to do with there breeding...
Wat?
These are dogs that were bred in order to fight, and kill, one another. Of course its important, just as the breeding of a Pom is important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.
That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.
The numbers are what they are.
It could be, but it would cost a lot of money, and be unimportant.
The given, in this case, is "dog owners" and the variable is "dog type" the dog type "pit bull" produces more deaths than any other dog type. Case closed.
Monster Rain wrote:
Still, I think a study of every breed of dog in statistically significant numbers under controlled conditions is at the very least improbable.
Yep. Too few people die by dog, per anum, and too much money would be required.
Kragura wrote:Yes pit bulls do kill more people, the question is why.
Because they are a large, strong, and aggressive breed. There. Now you know. Also, they don't bite more people, they kill more people. That's the distinction that I think you're missing.
Kragura wrote:And that is not a study of dogs in identical conditions, that is, as a stated a study of dogs in there current conditions.
That study can't possibly be conducted in any sort of statistically meaningful way, so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.
The numbers are what they are.
No, I know they kill more people however as I said they aren't the biggest largest or strongest breed by a long shot, nor are they anyway near the most aggressive* genetically.
Kragura wrote:Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.
Breeding really isn't that controlled a process. A dog has a feature you like, you breed it with other dogs with that feature. A dog has a feature you don't like, you don't breed it.
The idea that you can control that so closely as to develop aggression towards dogs but not see any increase in aggression to humans or any other animals is kind of silly.
Kragura wrote:
Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.
Yet they kill humans more than any other breed in America.
As has been said, the numbers don't lie. However, people often do, especially to themselves.
Lie in what way? they tell us that pit bulls kill more humans and I haven't tried to debate that point. what they don't tell us is WHY.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Kragura wrote:Breed to kill one another, but also breed not to kill humans.
Breeding really isn't that controlled a process. A dog has a feature you like, you breed it with other dogs with that feature. A dog has a feature you don't like, you don't breed it.
The idea that you can control that so closely as to develop aggression towards dogs but not see any increase in aggression to humans or any other animals is kind of silly.
Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.
Kragura wrote:Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.
The opening story makes it obvious that even when raised well, they still flip out and attack people.
You can say they 'can' breed them all you like, but the number of dead people really shows it hasn't worked.
Kragura wrote:Why? fox hounds were breed to kill foxes, coonhound's to kill raccoons, Dachshund to kill badgers. Hell bulldogs were breed to bite the front lips of enraged bulls, if you can breed that into a dog you can breed it to like humans.
The opening story makes it obvious that even when raised well, they still flip out and attack people.
You can say they 'can' breed them all you like, but the number of dead people really shows it hasn't worked.
the opening story says nothing of how the dogs were raised, of the dogs mental conditions or gives us any real context at all about what was happening at the time. It just says a pit bull killed someone.
Can breed has nothing to do with it, they HAVE been breed. Most pit bulls sold by reputable breeders end up becoming therapy dogs or family dogs, the same role most breeders association's and kennel clubs recommend for them, as I have said before multiple times they have one of the best temperaments of any dogs in the world.
The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs is unusually aggressive.
The dog systematically bred to fight and kill other dogs happens to be owned by people that make it unusually aggressive.
It not that it happens to be, the dog is the best fighting dog you could own, That means dog fighters are going to love it. Once a dog is branded as the 'Tough guy dog' only the 'tough guys' are going to love it. if Alsations were the 'tough guy' dog the we would see the same discussions taking place over them.
We also have to remember the different uses of aggression, pit bulls are unusually aggressive to dogs. but just because a breed is unusually aggressive to dogs, that doesn't mean that it's aggressive to humans. And when we also remember that dog fighters breed dogs to be calm around humans, it seems highly unlikely that a dog bred for over 500 years, specifically for fighting, would have a high dog on human aggressiveness.
Kragura wrote:
It not that it happens to be, the dog is the best fighting dog you could own,
And why do you think that is? Perhaps because breeders have, over many years selected stock for athleticism and aggressiveness?
Kragura wrote:
We also have to remember the different uses of aggression, pit bulls are unusually aggressive to dogs. but just because a breed is unusually aggressive to dogs, that doesn't mean that it's aggressive to humans. And when we also remember that dog fighters breed dogs to be calm around humans, it seems highly unlikely that a dog bred for over 500 years, specifically for fighting, would have a high dog on human aggressiveness.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I meant say whether you mean dog on dog or dog on human aggression, as you should know if you're actually reading what I am saying.
tiny dogs freak out more as a defense mechanism because they cant do much damage so they act tough. I have owned 30+ terriers and none have never purposely hurt me.
I reckon a specia iecense shoud be required to own aggresive dogs.
p.s sry about the ACK of a certain ETTER a certain key on my keyboard has just broken.
WARORK93 wrote:Missed my point. What I was trying to say was this couple has chosen to own two dogs that have the potential to hurt and kill human beings while at the same time trying to start a family...if that ain't a stupid move I don't know what is.
You missed my point. If you acknowledge this breed is enough of a danger that they shouldn't be around people looking to start a family, then that's a serious problem with the breed.
When there are hundreds of other breeds available, why not just get one of those breeds?
Not what I was trying to say at all...my point is that owning a Pit Bull safely is a matter of correct ownership practices and assets.
I was just making fun of your figure, for every tragedy there's ten happy stories. I'd hope it's a lot better than one in eleven people not getting mauled by their dog.
Meanwhile, you cannot remove the risk of getting mauled entirely, no matter how well you raise the dog. You can do everything right, and there remains a chance the dog will freak out and return to it's breeding.
I agree with Sebster, both his points are good ones.
More importantly, in the UK you only ever meet feth heads with status dogs.
In fact, ill find the story, because I read something related just this week.. It made me laugh because there is a fat drunk chav who lives around the corner from me, and his Staffy has a ridiculous big spiky collar on and is actually called Tyson.
yan Goodwin, 23, hurled the pet, Kaya, in its cage from the first-floor window of his council flat during a furious argument with Sarah Symons during their break-up.
Goodwin, who has a £70 per week cannabis habit and receives £800 a month in benefits, was sentenced at Plymouth Magistrates' Court after admitting animal cruelty and being found guilty at an earlier trial of using threatening behaviour during the row in January.
District Judge Paul Farmer also banned him from keeping animals for seven years, telling him: "If you had been sent to prison today you could have no complaint. What you did was disgraceful."
Miss Symons was talking to police on her mobile phone when the incident occurred, and her horror was captured by the police 999 recording.
Goodwin, of Ipswich Close, Plymouth, arrived at court with Miss Symons. Judge Farmer was told they had since reconciled and were again living together.
Speaking outside the court after the hearing, Mr Goodwin apologised for his actions during the row at their former home in Marlborough Street, Plymouth, Devon, at around 3.30am on January 3.
"I am remorseful for my actions, it was in the heat of the moment," he said. "We are all in relationships and we do crazy things for love. And I do love her very much. It was a moment of madness."
He said the couple had not argued since moving back in together and being banned from keeping animals would mean he and his girlfriend would have to get rid of their dog, a Staffordshire/pitbull-crossbreed called Tyson.
And here is the happy couple.
Look at them. No matter what the middle class chislers on here tell you, there are MILLIONS of these people in the UK. They infest my streets, and they fill me with rage!
If I see a fighting dog over here, 99% of the time its got a can swigging, toothless, tattooed fething chav walking it. They usually have a pram as well, with an ugly, fethed up, cyclopean child in it, and the baby is called Lennox or Baxter or Jerome or Shakira or something equally ridiculous.
Anyway, said dog usually has some body armour or something on, ive seen that a few times. And its called "Tyson" or "Ripper" and they laugh when it barks at you and attacks your knads when your walking to the paper shop, and if you stamp on its head, your the bad guy?!
I digress, where was I... Oh yeah, I own a dog, half of my (very large because I am so affable and likeable) circle of friends have dogs.
Get a Labrador, a border terrier, a collie, a jack russel, a saint bernard, whatever floats your bastard boat. There are 100's to choose from that aren't famed for going nuts.
If you buy a Pitbull, your probably a douchebag anyways, almost certainly, why did you pick a pitbull out of all of the dogs on this earth?! Why?! If not for the ridiculous childlike notion that "it looks dead ard"
Screw it. Ive talked myself out of it, we should be encouraging people to buy them!
Then, when it eats your wife and kids it will be good news, because lets face it, they will be on wellfare for their entire lives as well, they probably wont even learn to read, so we will be doing the poor ignorant fools a favour.
The family gets ate, the dog gets shot. Its win or win for me. The only people who lose out are tobacco manufacturers, brewers, and the guys who make Goodfella's microwave pizza, because we are killing off their main consumer.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I meant say whether you mean dog on dog or dog on human aggression, as you should know if you're actually reading what I am saying.
I don't even think you understand what you are posting, aggressive animals don't differentiate between their victims. People force these dogs to fight, do you really think the dog wouldn't turn on its handler if it thought it could get away from the situation, or the handler didn't have the bigger stick?
You are clutching at straws, attempting to make people say that pitbulls are ok if we discount x,y and z.
You're just pulling this information out of your arse.
Kragura wrote:No, I know they kill more people however as I said they aren't the biggest largest or strongest breed by a long shot, nor are they anyway near the most aggressive* genetically.
I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM
I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".
Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.
I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.
FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM
I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:
"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."
I think really the biggest thing is that this guy has no qualms about, eh, his dog mutiliating his pregnant wife to death. And then having really zero problem with it.
If I was that guy, that dog would have been dead in about as long as it takes to find a gun. You don't pull that gak on humans. And if anyone has a problem with it, they can talk to the hand. How much of an donkey-cave do you have to be to own a dog infamous for violence, then have it kill 2 people and go 'Well, that's only a minor tidbit, doesn't represent the rest of them, eh?'
nectarprime wrote:I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".
Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.
I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.
FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM
I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:
"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."
I don't know the origins of the pit bull. No idea if it was bred for fighting, don't care. All I know is that a study that goes back 20 years involved 66 deaths from a pit bull. More than any other breed. The study also seems kind of old. I think an updated study might tell you more because the world is more connected today and word/info gets around more. I wonder how many deaths went unreported in that time frame? I don't mean to attack the breed but I think this proves that an aggressive animal that can kill will do so more often than one that won't. If your point is that non-aggressive breeds like cocker spanial's can kill too then well done. However all this information provided is more information to the conclusion that I made in my post. Pit Bulls are aggressive animals that can kill you, and have. So why would you want to own one? Bear in mind I have watched the Dog Whisperer and think the pit bull "Daddy" is a great dog.....but he's the dog whisperer so.....
My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.
But I do agree with you, the study is old and probably not as accurate as it would be if done today.
I, myself, would not own a pitbull because I'm just really not a fan of them. I'd rather have an english bulldog or a pug
nectarprime wrote:My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.
That's not quite a logical conclusion.
You could want to own a dog that's statistically much less likely to kill you.
Mattyrm your post was hilarious, in part because I am an American and don't get all of British slang. Would someone tell me what Chav, Chislers, Pram, and paper shop - (newspaper?) mean?
I'm not trying to be obtuse/troll, lots of Brits post here and I don't get a lot of their slang, except from context I can make some of it out.
nectarprime wrote:My point is that if your view is "I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them" then you probably wouldn't want to own any dog, or horse for that matter.
That's not quite a logical conclusion.
You could want to own a dog that's statistically much less likely to kill you.
Says you!
I give my dogs kevlar vests and automatics so they can make it a fair fight if they decide to rise against their human overlords.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I meant say whether you mean dog on dog or dog on human aggression, as you should know if you're actually reading what I am saying.
I don't even think you understand what you are posting, aggressive animals don't differentiate between their victims. People force these dogs to fight, do you really think the dog wouldn't turn on its handler if it thought it could get away from the situation, or the handler didn't have the bigger stick?
We've already been through this, [see forum posting rules] hounds were breed to kill raccoons, they are highly sensitive to the behaviour and defence mechanism's of raccoons, and react aggressively*. greyhounds are breed to know and react aggressively** to the behaviour of rabbits. bulldogs are breed to notice when a bull is enraged time a jump at it's nose and then bite the upper lip of the bull without hurting either itself or the other animal. why is it so hard to imagine that a dog can exhibit certain behaviours towards one species, but different ones to another?
The reason they don't turn on their handlers is because they have been breed over hundreds of years not to, the reason they don't attack spectators is because they have been breed over hundreds of years not to.
* dog on raccoon aggression that is
** obviously dog on rabbit aggression
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:No, I know they kill more people however as I said they aren't the biggest largest or strongest breed by a long shot, nor are they anyway near the most aggressive* genetically.
What exactly is the point that you're making?
That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.
That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.
I'm certain that this is wrong.
If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people. They are officially banned in the UK, and its not just because they are "big" because none of the other big dogs are banned.
nectarprime wrote:I find it funny how everyone says "pitts are bred for fighting! that's bad!".
Do yourself a favor and read up about how many breeds were bred for fighting. There's a reason bulldogs are called bulldogs, and it's not because they are as stubborn as a bull.
I do agree that pitts can be dangerous if they are raised wrong. But this can happen with ANY DOG. Of course some breeds are more susceptible.
FWIW the nicest dog I've ever met belongs to a close friend of mine. He's a pit/rot mix and is a big ole teddy bear. But he was neutered young and never beaten.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
$pider wrote:I don't get why so many people feel the need to own an animal that could kill them. It just makes no sense to me. The fact that this guy's wife and unborn child was killed yet he is going to bury the dog's ashes with his wife? Are you kidding me? I'm sure that's what she would have wanted. <----SARCASM
I also don't buy the "it's the owner" excuse. The aggression isn't completely learned it's instinct for the animal. Yeah sure training can blunt that instinct but it's always there. It's part of the animal. There's a reason that some areas have legislation when it comes to pit bull ownership. It's because research has shown them being an aggresive animal. If we were all dog whisperers this wouldn't be an issue, but we are not. Pit Bulls are an aggressive breed of dog that can kill humans. That's a fact that people just cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
Any dog can kill you, as per this quote:
"One suprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsibe for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel."
That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.
I'm certain that this is wrong.
If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.
That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.
I'm certain that this is wrong.
If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.
Why?
I would say due to generations of them being bred to fight. Animals are selectively bred all the time, race horses love to run.
Think about it, some dogs love water, some dogs hate water. For example, Border Terriers generally don't like to swim, and labradors love to swim, they act like otters almost all the ones ive seen, and this is because terriers were used as ratters and labs were used as gun dogs that retrieved things from the water.
Pitbulls were bred to fight. Sure they can be great dogs if you raise them nice, but they must still be more likely to snap and rip your balls off than a famously placid dog like a Labrador or something.
That pit bulls, when brought up in the same conditions as other dogs, have one of the best temperaments of any dog's in the world.
I'm certain that this is wrong.
If you took 1000 Labrador's and 1000 pitbull's, and raised them with nice families, I guarantee that a higher percentage of pitbull's would wind up savaging people.
Why?
I would say due to generations of them being bred to fight. Animals are selectively bred all the time, race horses love to run.
Think about it, some dogs love water, some dogs hate water. For example, Border Terriers generally don't like to swim, and labradors love to swim, they act like otters almost all the ones ive seen, and this is because terriers were used as ratters and labs were used as gun dogs that retrieved things from the water.
Pitbulls were bred to fight. Sure they can be great dogs if you raise them nice, but they must still be more likely to snap and rip your balls off than a famously placid dog like a Labrador or something.
But breed to fight what, pit bulls were breed to fight other dog's and to never attack humans. I know it sounds counter intuitive but many famously placid dogs have violent, awful history's. consider the old English mastiff, pretty much recognised as the best example of a gentle giant you could find in a dog. they were breed to kill any wolves and bears that looked at their masters funny. Or the Rhodesian ridge back breed to kill lions out on the African savannah, when their owners can keep up with their athletic needs they produce calm, very shy dogs.
The ATTS gives pit bulls an overall breed temperament score of 86.4%, that's higher than a golden retriever or St Bernard .Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs, but the conditions they are brought up in do produce dogs like that.
Kragura wrote:The ATTS gives pit bulls an overall breed temperament score of 86.4%, that's higher than a golden retriever or St Bernard .Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs, but the conditions they are brought up in do produce dogs like that.
Yeah, you've pointed out that number already.
The point is, that 13.6% of the time when the pit bull goes ape someone is much more likely to die from it.
Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs
They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.
Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs
They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.
All hail the Ahtman, for he speaketh the true word.
Kragura wrote:Pit bulls are not naturally dangerous dogs
They just kill more people than almost any other breed, but they aren't dangerous. I remember in the article where it said the Pit Bull advocate left his wife while she was sleeping in the bedroom with the dogs where he talked about how afterward he realized it was stupid because they would beat the dogs all the time and were trying to make them more aggressive before their child was born. Lord knows all those fatalities only come from broken home Pit Bulls.
Except of course, as I have already said, we don't know anything about how the dogs were treated so using this as any kind of evidence is just ridiculous.
As I've already said this is a circular argument. "This pit bull killed someone, it did that because it has been breed to do that, how do we know this? because it killed someone." go back and read my responses to Sebster and Dogma, all the arguments that have been made in the last 2-3 pages I've already responded to.
Regardless of breed; all dogs have the possibility for causing serious injury and death. Its in the nature of the beast. So no one breed is better than another.
Mr Hyena wrote:Regardless of breed; all dogs have the possibility for causing serious injury and death. Its in the nature of the beast. So no one breed is better than another.
Different makes and models are actually pretty different.
Oh it will have its own unique functions, gadgets etc. Of course.
Its still just a car though.
Dogs are the same. There are 'cute' dogs, 'smart' dogs and 'aggressive' dogs. Yet all dogs have the same capacity to be aggressive/violent/lethal much in the same way that all cars have the capacity to drive.
But that brings up a good question. No, we shouldn't stop looking for 'safer' cars. What we should do; should also be tempered by the fact a car, like a wild animal; is a lethal device regardless of how many precautions are taken.
And having an un-neutered male dog is asking for trouble (As much as I disagree with the treatment)
Perhaps thats how we solve violence in this world. Dogs, Humans, Cars whatever.
Toss a dart on a map once every 2-3 years or so...wherever it lands gets to host a Deathrace!. I can see it now; the headlines and the shock horror as a Pit Bull manages to win it (claims of the breed being aggressive again); just beating out Old Lady Maple down the street in her pimped out Rocket-Launcher wielding scooter.
I don't have time to read all post so I apologize if I repeat what someone else said, but has anyone mentioned breeding? There are many cases with pits and rots where puppy mills inter breed them repeatedly which creates mentally unstable dogs-which commonly results in aggressive dogs. It's very important to be able to trace their genealogy to ensure proper breeding. And as to a previous post about them not being safe around small children. That is true, but it also true about many dogs.
Mr Hyena wrote:Yet all dogs have the same capacity to be aggressive/violent/lethal much in the same way that all cars have the capacity to drive.
So all Chihuahuas are just as lethal as Pit Bulls? I always thought of them as fiercely annoying, but I didn't know they were equally as dangerous in a mortal sense. not all dogs are equally aggressive/violent/lethal, and they aren't equitable when it comes to practical capability to be lethal either.
The Toy breeds are VERY dangerous with children. (One wonders why someone would leave a dog unmonitored with a very young child...but then again; this is the world we're talking about)
I wouldn't put it past a chihuahua male to do that to a young child.
Still the whole "I have had two Pit Bulls in my life and they never did anything like this; they were the sweetest dogs I have ever seen", sounds very similar to "My Grandpa smoked cigarettes till he was 99 and was very healthy". Sure there are some pits out there that seem as sweet as a daschund, but for the most part the aggression that has been bred into the breed shows up more often than not.
Come on chaps, I don't wish to sound condescending, gak, I dont think I am an intellectual powerhouse, and I am more interested in titty movies and drinking cans than reading books, but some of what you lads type is almost so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a lengthy reply surely?
The car analogy is ridiculous, is an electric car as dangerous as a car that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds, and practically begs you to drive it fast!?
Can a Jack Russell realistically kill you? What would you rather have swinging off your bollocks?! A gakky little 10 inch dog or 150lbs of muscle and teeth?
Which would scare you more eh? A Jack Russell driving a milk float towards you or a Rottweiler drunk driving in a Ford Capri?
Lord Scythican wrote:Still the whole "I have had two Pit Bulls in my life and they never did anything like this; they were the sweetest dogs I have ever seen", sounds very similar to "My Grandpa smoked cigarettes till he was 99 and was very healthy". Sure there are some pits out there that seem as sweet as a daschund, but for the most part the aggression that has been bred into the breed shows up more often than not.
Lord Scythican wrote:Still the whole "I have had two Pit Bulls in my life and they never did anything like this; they were the sweetest dogs I have ever seen", sounds very similar to "My Grandpa smoked cigarettes till he was 99 and was very healthy". Sure there are some pits out there that seem as sweet as a daschund, but for the most part the aggression that has been bred into the breed shows up more often than not.
Do you also take into account why most people who own pittbulls own pittbulls. Sure some of them own them because they really think they are great and beautifull dogs. I But i am willig to bet 50 bucks on the fact that most own them because of the history of the breed. The fact they are fighters. A sort of my dog can kill your dog kind of thing. Coupled with the fact that most owners who i know that have bulls with anger issues are new to the dog owner thing and such do not handle the dogs as they should be kills more bulls then the fact of bulls themselfs
Why is everyone talking about the dogs? Has it gone unnoticed that the fact here is that a woman and her unborn baby were killed? People are supposed to be responsible for and towards their dogs. Not the other way around. Main reason obviously being the dogs can't be responsible for the person. (Don't ask me why, if you don't know, I can't tell you) Instead of doing something about the pitbull's, there should be something done to prevent something like this from happening again. I feel very sorry for the death of that woman and the child, and I understand I'm being insensitive when I say this. But they should have known better when they bought the dog, they should have known better when they had the dog in the same room as them. They bought the dog, they should've known the history of tendencies behind the dog. What happened was their fault. With that being said, a gentle dog does not equal a non violent dog and vice versa. Yes, it is the owners responsibility to train the dog, but it is the people that need to be protected from the violent tendencies of the animal, not the other way around. Meaning a person that did not train their dog well; still must be protected from the animal. You can't just naively say that pitbull's are not dangerous animals if you know about the history of attacks they've committed.
LumenPraebeo wrote:Why is everyone talking about the dogs? Has it gone unnoticed that the fact here is that a woman and her unborn baby were killed? People are supposed to be responsible for and towards their dogs. Not the other way around. Main reason obviously being the dogs can't be responsible for the person. (Don't ask me why, if you don't know, I can't tell you) Instead of doing something about the pitbull's, there should be something done to prevent something like this from happening again. I feel very sorry for the death of that woman and the child, and I understand I'm being insensitive when I say this. But they should have known better when they bought the dog, they should have known better when they had the dog in the same room as them. They bought the dog, they should've known the history of tendencies behind the dog. What happened was their fault. With that being said, a gentle dog does not equal a non violent dog and vice versa. Yes, it is the owners responsibility to train the dog, but it is the people that need to be protected from the violent tendencies of the animal, not the other way around. Meaning a person that did not train their dog well; still must be protected from the animal. You can't just naively say that pitbull's are not dangerous animals if you know about the history of attacks they've committed.
As the wise Hanlon's Razor states: 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.'
LumenPraebeo wrote:Why is everyone talking about the dogs? Has it gone unnoticed that the fact here is that a woman and her unborn baby were killed? People are supposed to be responsible for and towards their dogs. Not the other way around. Main reason obviously being the dogs can't be responsible for the person. (Don't ask me why, if you don't know, I can't tell you) Instead of doing something about the pitbull's, there should be something done to prevent something like this from happening again. I feel very sorry for the death of that woman and the child, and I understand I'm being insensitive when I say this. But they should have known better when they bought the dog, they should have known better when they had the dog in the same room as them. They bought the dog, they should've known the history of tendencies behind the dog. What happened was their fault. With that being said, a gentle dog does not equal a non violent dog and vice versa. Yes, it is the owners responsibility to train the dog, but it is the people that need to be protected from the violent tendencies of the animal, not the other way around. Meaning a person that did not train their dog well; still must be protected from the animal. You can't just naively say that pitbull's are not dangerous animals if you know about the history of attacks they've committed.
Look in the first page, myself and a few others mentioned the woman. I asked about her and the baby, they both died. What else is there to talk about after that?
Red Comet wrote:Just curious with this article. Have they actually analyzed how the owners treated this dog?
I think the fact that the Husband plans to bury the cremated ashes of the dog that killed his wife and unborn child, with them, is a pretty good indicator.
but they at the end of the day are a animal and animals can act out
...That's true...and I'd be lying if I said part of my love for my Pits wasn't due to the fact that they could " bite and mean it" if it came to that...
...So, what's the solution then?...( that will be a freaking novelty to see down here in the 
down. People have opinions here, some based on experience. They are valid, whether or not you disagree with them. Shouting them down does nothing but make you look like the kind of pit bull owner people are afraid of.
