Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

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.

I mean, roller coasters are a thing.

Take your chances! Get a pitbull!

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"?

Ban their breeding.

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...

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.

If this story wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious.

Instead its merely funny as feth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FITZZ wrote:

dogma wrote:

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...

SOFDC wrote:

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.

I don't know what the answer is.

Ouze wrote:

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.

I don't know what the answer is.

Good points all Ouze.

He sure is a friendly chap isn't he?

Ee's smiling an' everyfink!

Medium of Death wrote:

He sure is a friendly chap isn't he?

Ee's smiling an' everyfink!

RUB MY BELLY!

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.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:All owners should be subject to mandatory sterilization and special training of the animal.

Fixed.

Frazzled wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

He sure is a friendly chap isn't he?

Ee's smiling an' everyfink!

RUB MY BELLY!

I'd be more comfortable letting a child swim with a Great White Shark than stay in a house with a pit bull.

lol

In my experience Pits are either owned by "Thugs" or other "little man" types. Much like lowriders or jacked up trucks.

KingCracker wrote:

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.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:

He sure is a friendly chap isn't he?

Ee's smiling an' everyfink!

RUB MY BELLY!

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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.