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.

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'.

sebster wrote:

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.

Sympathy clocks in as well.

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.

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 ?

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."

sebster wrote:No-one has yet explained why they need to own a pitbull, compared to any other dog, or like.... a bear.

That's obvious. Bears are the ultimate security system. Who is going to break into a house with a Bear in it?

No sir. I ask you, who wouldn't want a bear?

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 ?

Yorkies don't have a history of killing people.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:
They are loving, affectionate dogs, but so is every other breed. So why accept the increased risk of the pitbull?

Or any dog at all?

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.

warboss wrote:

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.

So you admit Pitbulls are " Bad" and i disagree and all this ford pinto gak is just stupid

dogma wrote:Sympathy clocks in as well.

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).

Good luck making any of those points.

sebster wrote:

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.

I mean, roller coasters are a thing.