Pit bull lover? Don't live in Mississippi

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.

I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"

Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.

Child killed? Murder.

Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?

completely agree.

whispering hands

Last-12-Exit said:

It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.

You've never had one of these amazing animals for a pet then. They are incredible dogs! The sad thing is, we as humans have criminalized them. We hear or read God awful stories of terrible dog owner responsibility lapses that end up costing precious children, or any other human, or some other diffusive breed of dog their lives.. That's not the dog's fault. It is always the human's fault. We took wolves as pets, transformed them into this crazy patchwork of unique and distinctive breeds, and made them our side borne companions! They didn't go have a pack meeting and say to one another, ' hey, let's go live with those two legged dogs over there..'

I honestly am sickened to know that this is a possible law.. The humans fucked up, the dogs pay the price! I will ALWAYS advocate for this breed! Always because just like a poodle or a Golden Retriever, it is a DOG first, BREED second, and alllllllllll dogs operate the exact same way. If you DON'T lead, they will.. Period!

Drowned Out

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.

I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"

Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.

Child killed? Murder.

Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?

sure, this makes sense (well, not the 'wild' animal part, but the rest of it)...and legislation doesn't have to be breed specific to accomplish this. It should be any pet that can inflict serious injury. That would include labs, retrievers, and a lot of breeds that people consider such great family pets. Speaking of family pets...if you google 'best dog breeds for a family'....some of you will probably be surprised to see staffie's and boxers etc on most lists. If raised right, some of the bully breeds are the best to have with kids!
It really is about people being morons...or at least careless. We will never cure stupid, and there will always be 'accidents' (ie: dog getting out of the yard or whatever). We can only look at the data and do our best to reduce harm, as with any attempt to legislate stupid. Prohibiting anything has consequences - we can't say they're unforeseen when there are many case studies to examine.

whispering hands

The beautiful solution to humans owning Cougars and such, is that humans are generally dumb... And get eaten or killed by these 'pets'. This, solving one problem. Giving us a few less stupid humans to continue the breeding cycle. Here's the thing. Dogs are very unique in how simplistic they think. It is literally Instinct causes reaction. Unlike us.. We hem and haw and think on things, and an and strategize.. A dog just does. Here's where people start to misunderstand the Pit Bull. These dogs are one of the very few breeds proven to actually think out a situation. ( so far there's them, GS, Malinois, Most of your hinting breeds and working breeds.. But Heelers, Shepards, and Pits ranked highest). So. People go get these dogs, have no clue that they have to keep them
Mentally and physically engaged in order to satisfy their instinctive psychological needs. So the dog gets bored.. A bored Pit Bull is dangerous! Just as dangerous as one left untrained. Sadly I see the combination of untrained, unsocialized, and unrestrained... This is where the accidents happen. Smart dogs should never be owned by stupid people. Unfortunately for these magnificent dogs, that is too often the case.

hedonist

Drowned Out said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.

I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"

Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.

Child killed? Murder.

Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?

sure, this makes sense (well, not the 'wild' animal part, but the rest of it)...and legislation doesn't have to be breed specific to accomplish this. It should be any pet that can inflict serious injury. That would include labs, retrievers, and a lot of breeds that people consider such great family pets. Speaking of family pets...if you google 'best dog breeds for a family'....some of you will probably be surprised to see staffie's and boxers etc on most lists. If raised right, some of the bully breeds are the best to have with kids!
It really is about people being morons...or at least careless. We will never cure stupid, and there will always be 'accidents' (ie: dog getting out of the yard or whatever). We can only look at the data and do our best to reduce harm, as with any attempt to legislate stupid. Prohibiting anything has consequences - we can't say they're unforeseen when there are many case studies to examine.

With both of you. Gotta love common sense.

hedonist

And...anyone breeding, raising these or any dogs for purposes of fighting? Same repercussions - even worse, actually.

whispering hands

hedonist said:

And...anyone breeding, raising these or any dogs for purposes of fighting? Same repercussions - even worse, actually.

When I owned and operated my
Rescue in KC, 90% of our dogs were fighting ring raid recoveries.. We also worked with The Boys and Girls club up there and had an after school program where these kids got to come help out with the dogs that were handleable. These were kids that were brought up thinking dog fighting was sooooo cool. Then they'd get to my facility, and be crying by the time they left. I wanted as a child to be an animal control officer. But I know o couldn't... I would end up doing to the human what they'd done to the dog.. It's so sad, and says so much about how messed up humans are..

goingtoverona

@Paulo, i like it, i like puppies of pits better i think. got a nice ring to it.

@thirty, i don't think it's fair to compare wild animals with animals that have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years. in my opinion.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

@Paulo, i like it, i like puppies of pits better i think. got a nice ring to it.

@thirty, i don't think it's fair to compare wild animals with animals that have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years. in my opinion.

Regardless.

Are you in favour of accountability or not?

goingtoverona

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

goingtoverona

yes i agree 100 percent with that. and yes i would call that assault with a deadly weapon.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Yes. Of course.

This is the risk you assume when you decide to take on a dog that, as you have just expressed, can be unpredictable and dangerous.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

yes i agree 100 percent with that. and yes i would call that assault with a deadly weapon.

We're all good then.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Yes. Of course.

This is the risk you assume when you decide to take on a dog that, as you have just expressed, can be unpredictable and dangerous.

As has been pointed out several times, that is the nature of dogs in general, not just some specific breeds.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Yes. Of course.

This is the risk you assume when you decide to take on a dog that, as you have just expressed, can be unpredictable and dangerous.

As has been pointed out several times, that is the nature of dogs in general, not just some specific breeds.

Owners should be responsible for their dog no matter what the breed. The policy we are discussing doesn't discern. But let's be real: I'll roll the dice on a golden lab playing nice with the neighborhood children over a pitbull any day.

rr165892

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

All about accountability Verona.Good stuff here

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Yes. Of course.

This is the risk you assume when you decide to take on a dog that, as you have just expressed, can be unpredictable and dangerous.

As has been pointed out several times, that is the nature of dogs in general, not just some specific breeds.

I basically disagree with that though. That is not the nature of a lot of dogs. Not all dogs have the same tendency towards viciousness. It's really a matter of degrees. I.e. 1 in 10 pitbulls attack to kill for no reason. 1 in 20,000 labs (or some other less vicious dog) do the same (not actual stats, obviously - just making a point).

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?

Okay.

So we are in agreement. If someone feels the need to purchase a pitbull and it mauls a neighbourhood child... they are guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. They had an inherent responsibility to train, control, and contain the dog they desired and, obviously, failed to do so. Shrugging their shoulders, putting the dog down, and going out and purchasing another does not cut it.

Right?

But so many of these attacks are a complete shock to the owners. I can't even remember how many times I've heard the owners of pitbulls that attacked said that it was the most gentle and lovable dog ever, gentle as a mouse, great with kids, never gave them or anyone else a reason to believe it would ever do such a thing... and suddenly it ripped a kid's face off for no apparent reason. Should those people be charged too?

Yes. Of course.

This is the risk you assume when you decide to take on a dog that, as you have just expressed, can be unpredictable and dangerous.

As has been pointed out several times, that is the nature of dogs in general, not just some specific breeds.

Owners should be responsible for their dog no matter what the breed. The policy we are discussing doesn't discern. But let's be real: I'll roll the dice on a golden lab playing nice with the neighborhood children over a pitbull any day.

Exactly.
I feel like this "but all dogs could attack" concept is a real cop out, or an unjustified defense of pit bulls and other notably dangerous dogs.