Family Pit Bulls Kill Child

chadwick

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.

again i agree w/ you

these ppl basically owned (9 pits was it?) automatic weapons

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.

An assault rifle - which I feel should be banned - has only one purpose, to kill human beings. There are violent dogs, but violence is not their only function or state of being. Many of them are violent because of conditions well outside their own control. I don't think certain guns and certain dogs are as easily compared as they first appear.

callen

There's always a balance between ones rights and safety of a society. We should always fight when the government wants to limit what a free human wants to do and or own. This includes dogs.

As to previous posters comment....how many breeds should we ban?

Now I've known pit bulls, have been in contact with them due to visiting other freinds houses that had them. I've had dogs all my life and can say I wouldn't trust a pit ever, no matter the training or perceived temperament.

Sooo solution for rights and protecting society.

If your Pit hurts and or kills you are responsible and you go to fkn jail. If it kills, long prison sentence. Also you have to control your animals, always. No different than owning a lion or bear.

I do question ones mentality of wanting to have this breed but that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.

An assault rifle - which I feel should be banned - has only one purpose, to kill human beings. There are violent dogs, but violence is not their only function or state of being. Many of them are violent because of conditions well outside their own control. I don't think certain guns and certain dogs are as easily compared as they first appear.

Quick Wiki reference:
Pitbulls were initially bred in England, and arrived in the United States with the founders. In the U.S., these dogs were used as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions. Some have been selectively bred for their fighting prowess.

In short, the dogs were designed with a practical purpose in mind: being the family lap dog was not one of them.

Guns have been designed for administering death... but pitbulls have been designed and bred for taking down large mammals and for fighting.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen wrote:

There's always a balance between ones rights and safety of a society. We should always fight when the government wants to limit what a free human wants to do and or own. This includes dogs.

As to previous posters comment....how many breeds should we ban?

Now I've known pit bulls, have been in contact with them due to visiting other freinds houses that had them. I've had dogs all my life and can say I wouldn't trust a pit ever, no matter the training or perceived temperament.

Sooo solution for rights and protecting society.

If your Pit hurts and or kills you are responsible and you go to fkn jail. If it kills, long prison sentence. Also you have to control your animals, always. No different than owning a lion or bear.

I do question ones mentality of wanting to have this breed but that's my opinion and I could be wrong.

Now we are back to the original question.

I am in agreement with this frame of mind: your dog goes and does something... you face the consequences for it. Kills a kid- murder. Bites someone- assault with a deadly weapon. Pure and simple. Then let people make up their minds as to what type of dog they wish to have and how they wish to raise it.

Freedom preserved. Responsibility demanded. Done.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.

An assault rifle - which I feel should be banned - has only one purpose, to kill human beings. There are violent dogs, but violence is not their only function or state of being. Many of them are violent because of conditions well outside their own control. I don't think certain guns and certain dogs are as easily compared as they first appear.

Hey, I'm anti-all guns. purpose of each aside, as I believe that's irrelevant to what I was saying. this is how I see it:

pro gun crowd: guns don't kill people, people kill people
anti-gun crowd (which includes POD): guns kill people

pro pit crowd (which includes POD): pits don't kill people, breeders kill people
anti pit crowd: pits kill people

doesn't logic state that you can't put the responsibility on the owner of one and not the other?

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I have over-stated that the breed of dog is dangerous. Given the never-ending stream of stories and history to date... this would seem to be common sense. Exceptions aside... there are waaaaay too many cases where the breed- programmed throughout its lineage- is prone to violent outburst when some form of stimuli sends it over the edge.
Where we can begin to agree is around your assertion that perhaps we should look at executing all the dumb people.

Pits are phsically lethal....size, jaws. No different than a lion or tiger. As such they are dangerous. You can kick most dogs and they will let go..not pits.

Not execute...just put away for a long time....we don't want the government to have this power. Now there is a darwinian effect of pitt bull owners as was demonstrated with this sad story....as also is happening with gun crazed owners as they tend to kill themselves and family members more than non gun owners. It evolution.

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.

An assault rifle - which I feel should be banned - has only one purpose, to kill human beings. There are violent dogs, but violence is not their only function or state of being. Many of them are violent because of conditions well outside their own control. I don't think certain guns and certain dogs are as easily compared as they first appear.

Hey, I'm anti-all guns. purpose of each aside, as I believe that's irrelevant to what I was saying. this is how I see it:

pro gun crowd: guns don't kill people, people kill people
anti-gun crowd (which includes POD): guns kill people

pro pit crowd (which includes POD): pits don't kill people, breeders kill people
anti pit crowd: pits kill people

doesn't logic state that you can't put the responsibility on the owner of one and not the other?

I hear you. And I cannot speak for anyone else. I just reject the comparison because while every assault rifle has the same function to kill, not every pit bull is about to turn violent. Maybe the capacity to turn violent is there, but in that they are not alone in the dog world.

JimmyV

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JimmyV wrote:

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

But an extension of your argument that not every pitbull is viscious could be, "They were the nicest 9 pitbulls you could ever imagine!" It's a matter of where one chooses to draw the line. If one is open to thinking the dog can be safe... then why can't another think 9 are safe?

Regardless, if you are suggesting nine pitbulls is criminally insane... then I think you are suggesting the breed is something to be wary of at the very least. Given this, why is it out of place to suggest a ban of such a dog?

Don't get me wrong... I don't hate the breed of dog. I truly don't hate any dog- even the German Shephard variety that attacked my son. I see a place for the pitbull as a working dog as it was intended: out in the country doing its thing and not in the urban setting, cooped up in a townhome, and going bat shit crazy.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JimmyV wrote:

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

agreed.

chadwick

JimmyV wrote:

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

thank you.... insane indeed. nine, nine, nine, 9, 9, 9, NINE fucking pitbulls in one backyard as well as two other dogs from two different breeds. insanity full on. no excuse at all for such behavior. these people are uneducated, selfish, useless, fucked in the head, & have no give a fuck about their small girl who is trying to grow up in a circus full of nasty ass killer dogs. these ppl should be strung up & beat

JimmyV

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

But an extension of your argument that not every pitbull is viscious could be, "They were the nicest 9 pitbulls you could ever imagine!" It's a matter of where one chooses to draw the line. If one is open to thinking the dog can be safe... then why can't another think 9 are safe?

Regardless, if you are suggesting nine pitbulls is criminally insane... then I think you are suggesting the breed is something to be wary of at the very least. Given this, why is it out of place to suggest a ban of such a dog?

Don't get me wrong... I don't hate the breed of dog. I truly don't hate any dog- even the German Shephard variety that attacked my son. I see a place for the pitbull as a working dog as it was intended: out in the country doing its thing and not in the urban setting, cooped up in a townhome, and going bat shit crazy.

Because no one person can control nine dogs of any breed. It is not possible. And even if they are a large family, there will still be times when only one person (or less) is home to handle the dogs. By having that many dogs they created an uncontrollable situation, and that absolutely contributed to the death of this little girl.

I don't know the background of their nine dogs. Were they rescues or were they raised as pups? I think it is possible to raise a pitbull puppy from birth and have it be the sweetest thing. Is there a potential for violence? Yes, but there is a potential with every animal. Is it a likelihood? I don't think so.

No easy to answer this one.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Here's Sweety Pie. The family dog that broke free from daughter's control, blitzed after a baby seal on the beach, and killed it in a rage.

3 Things:

1. Yes. I know this is a domesticated, wild animal, sought for family company that just did what it does- kill things in predatory fashion.

2. Note the way the dog adheres to the owners commands and ignores the whacks over the head as it seeks to induce carnage. Imagine those jaws locked on a child... just ripping away and shredding tissue.

3. I have seen tons of dogs be playful with animals they come across at the beach and in the forest. This is not typical dog behaviour no matter what anyone wishes to retort with to the contrary. This is typical pitbull behaviour.

Brutal video... so if you are squeamish watching pitbulls kill baby seals... then don't watch it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -lion.html

Way to go, champions... way to go! Wreak havoc on the beach with your hell-hound.

Nice pet. Geezuz. Why not just own a cougar?

PJ_Soul

Other breeds aren't attacking and killing children on a regular basis. Deadly Pit bull attacks are not rare occurances, unlike attacks by other breeds. I am absolutely not one of those bubble wrap people who thinks that all things should be safe all the time. It is my informed opinion that the issues surrounding pit bulls and pit bull owners are unique and extreme.and no, I do not condone killing any animal.

goingtoverona wrote:

why stop there? let's ban all dogs that kill people. we just need a list of of breeds then we can ban them all. i wonder how many breeds of dogs we could ban for killing people. i bet a lot. we could send all the dogs over to china and feed them for a few years.

PJ_Soul wrote:

This week in greater vancouver a little girl was attacked by her neighbor's pit bull. Hundreds of stitches in her face.
I think pit bulls should be banned. I know some are good (i've known some... Yet i NEVER made the assumption that they would never snap and becone viscious, because that is in their nature), but so what? The danger outweighs all the arguments for pit bull ownership. And i do know the arguments, and understand the issue fully ( i am not ignorant Pandora ). And still i think that after all is said and done they should be illegal to own or breed. The fact that it is often the failure of their owners to train them properly is meaningless. The problem is there - why it's there is irrelevant. These dogs are too unpredictable (and it is bullshit that it always a matter of training - that is not always the case. Even if it were, there is no way to ensure pit bull owners are responsible, but there is a way to keep them from having the opportunity to be irresponsible - by making it illegal to own one).

PJ_Soul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Killing them?? Who's talking about a mass murder of pit bulls??

You said it should be illegal to own them. So... What did you think would happen to the roughly nine million in existence in America alone? A government-run pittbull haven with toys and games and nappy time?

They would round them up and kill them.


(And what is a Pitt Bull? That's a term that's used to describe a few different hybrid bulldog/terrier mixes. Does that also include stafordshire terriers?)

It is not that complicated. They could simply make more breeding and selling illegal almost immediately, and have a kind of grandfather clause for owners who already have any at the time of the change in the law. In about 10 years, no more pit bulls. I am not suggesting a massive cull (that idea is so ridiculous, I just assumed people would not consider it an option!). And I'm no law maker, but I would guess this law could only logically work for pure bred. Cross breeds would not pose a problem for long if there are no more pure breds.

chadwick

next week my 7th wife & I are having a (my 19th) child. currently I am raising in our backyard a small herd of spitting cobras. the new born childs bedroom will be located directly in the backyard as we believe in full on gambling & we are insane hillbillies with a lot of whiskey drinking & shooting up crack cocaine going on.

JimmyV

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Here's Sweety Pie. The family dog that broke free from daughter's control, blitzed after a baby seal on the beach, and killed it in a rage.

3 Things:

1. Yes. I know this is a domesticated, wild animal, sought for family company that just did what it does- kill things in predatory fashion.

2. Note the way the dog adheres to the owners commands and ignores the whacks over the head as it seeks to induce carnage. Imagine those jaws locked on a child... just ripping away and shredding tissue.

3. I have seen tons of dogs be playful with animals they come across at the beach and in the forest. This is not typical dog behaviour no matter what anyone wishes to retort with to the contrary. This is typical pitbull behaviour.

Brutal video... so if you are squeamish watching pitbulls kill baby seals... then don't watch it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -lion.html

Way to go, champions... way to go! Wreak havoc on the beach with your hell-hound.

Nice pet. Geezuz. Why not just own a cougar?

Not going to watch the video because I am sure it is just as horrifying as you describe.

But...I have seen an otherwise loveable beagle murder a squirrel. My own dog would like nothing more than to get off leash and hunt down the many rabbits in our yard. They don't always play nice with other animals.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Also, just because this cannot be stressed enough, having nine pitbulls in any home is insane. In a home with small children it is criminally insane.

But an extension of your argument that not every pitbull is viscious could be, "They were the nicest 9 pitbulls you could ever imagine!" It's a matter of where one chooses to draw the line. If one is open to thinking the dog can be safe... then why can't another think 9 are safe?

Regardless, if you are suggesting nine pitbulls is criminally insane... then I think you are suggesting the breed is something to be wary of at the very least. Given this, why is it out of place to suggest a ban of such a dog?

Don't get me wrong... I don't hate the breed of dog. I truly don't hate any dog- even the German Shephard variety that attacked my son. I see a place for the pitbull as a working dog as it was intended: out in the country doing its thing and not in the urban setting, cooped up in a townhome, and going bat shit crazy.

Because no one person can control nine dogs of any breed. It is not possible. And even if they are a large family, there will still be times when only one person (or less) is home to handle the dogs. By having that many dogs they created an uncontrollable situation, and that absolutely contributed to the death of this little girl.

I don't know the background of their nine dogs. Were they rescues or were they raised as pups? I think it is possible to raise a pitbull puppy from birth and have it be the sweetest thing. Is there a potential for violence? Yes, but there is a potential with every animal. Is it a likelihood? I don't think so.

No easy to answer this one.

I just don't think any of that is even relevant. 1 or 9 of those things... these attacks keep happening, and in every case it is the first time the damned things have killed someone. Most of the time, it seems to me, it is about a unique accident occurring. The baby got out in a way that had never happened before. The baby plays with the dogs all the time and they were affectionate... until they killed her. The little girl whose face almost got ripped off in my city this week was attacked by one who was always kept in a kennel and was usually muzzled. But shit happens and it escaped, to the horror of its owners.... someone ALWAYS has an excuse when this shit happens. They are always remorseful and seem shocked. To me, that's like keeping a fucking tiger in your backyard and then being surprised when it somehow gets out and eats someone.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Here's Sweety Pie. The family dog that broke free from daughter's control, blitzed after a baby seal on the beach, and killed it in a rage.

3 Things:

1. Yes. I know this is a domesticated, wild animal, sought for family company that just did what it does- kill things in predatory fashion.

2. Note the way the dog adheres to the owners commands and ignores the whacks over the head as it seeks to induce carnage. Imagine those jaws locked on a child... just ripping away and shredding tissue.

3. I have seen tons of dogs be playful with animals they come across at the beach and in the forest. This is not typical dog behaviour no matter what anyone wishes to retort with to the contrary. This is typical pitbull behaviour.

Brutal video... so if you are squeamish watching pitbulls kill baby seals... then don't watch it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -lion.html

Way to go, champions... way to go! Wreak havoc on the beach with your hell-hound.

Nice pet. Geezuz. Why not just own a cougar?

Not going to watch the video because I am sure it is just as horrifying as you describe.

But...I have seen an otherwise loveable beagle murder a squirrel. My own dog would like nothing more than to get off leash and hunt down the many rabbits in our yard. They don't always play nice with other animals.

And cats do the same. The difference is that most dog breeds that are kept as pets don't have a tendency to try and eat humans! That sucks for the baby seal, but that just isn't the same thing. Trying to compare pit bulls to other breeds (except a couple of other ones similar to them), as though they are the same as far as aggression levels go, makes no sense at all. It comes of as compete denial IMO. Or, really, it's just a bunk argument that people keep making because they can't come up with a truly good argument to defend pit bull ownership.