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.

How is that ugly?

biccat wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

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.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:How is that ugly?

Um...it is? Can you say that, aesthetically, you would prefer a pitbull over any other dog?

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.

biccat wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:How is that ugly?

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.

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.

If you could take out a pit bull's teeth and then lock it in a safe for weeks at a time until you wanted/needed it, that would make perfect sense.

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.

I guess I'm a weirdo, not that that's news. Usually when I go to bed, my bulldog climbs in and lays down next to me, in between me and my wife.

Ouze wrote:

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.

I guess I'm a weirdo. Usually when I go to bed, my dog climbs in and lays down next to me, in between me and my wife.

three dog night baby

biccat wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Nah, I can see what dogma is saying.

Danger is the potential for harming someone, that's all.

Danger is my middle name.

Seriously. My parents were drunk when they named me.

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.

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

Ouze wrote:

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.

I guess I'm a weirdo, not that that's news. Usually when I go to bed, my bulldog climbs in and lays down next to me, in between me and my wife.

My dad has 2 english bulldogs that sleep with him every night. I don't know how he can sleep.

He probably hasnt slept in years. Does he drink alot of coffee?

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.)

If your dog is primarily inside, then they don't really smell, or rather they simply smell like the house.

dogma wrote:If your dog is primarily inside, then they don't really smell, or rather they simply smell like the house.

I don't know... My cat never leaves the house but she sure smells like tacos which is just weird... But then cats aren't gods

Da Boss wrote:smelly and fart unselfconciously and they have fleas...

Did you go to the same Ard Boyz qualifier I did?

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.

biccat wrote:

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.