Pit bull lover? Don't live in Mississippi

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

oh brother man, you started losing me comparing wild animals with animals domesticated for tens of thousands of years........again. and completely lost me at i'm wrong and I know it.
but seriously, about your admirable pit bull ban, do I have it right?

I think you have asked a question of me here... but I'm not very good with hieroglyphics. Can you try again to say what it is you are trying to say?

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

"allowed to die out". YES!!!!, that's all i'm saying too PJsoul, let's just add every single breed that has ever killed a person. we can't take the chance that one might strike again!!!

I'm not one for the "slippery slope" argument. It just isn't an effective argument against most things. Of course I don't think ending the breeding of these dogs will end all dog attacks for the rest of time. But I believe it is undeniable that pit bulls (and a couple of other breeds) are MUCH more likely to behave like that (despite all this rhetoric attempting to claim otherwise - sorry, I just don't buy it), so why not REDUCE the danger to the public? I really don't see why not... it's not like pit bulls are integral to the ecosystem. They were bred for fighting. Now that society generally disapproves of using dogs for this purpose, I can't think of any really good argument to continue breeding them since they present a higher risk to the public.

goingtoverona

@thirty

it was in the post before one of your other posts, I think I posted it while you were typing on a reply. I wanted to know about your pit bull ban. would it be current owners grandfathered in with some kind of sterilization clause? basically I want to know, if your pit bull ban was implemented worldwide, would there be any pit bulls left in twenty years?

and man you took a huge giant leap from dogs that kill people to dogs that tickle. did you not see that part where I said let's ban the dogs that have killed people? i'm trying to save lives here, not sure where the tickling thing came from.

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

it was in the post before one of your other posts, I think I posted it while you were typing on a reply. I wanted to know about your pit bull ban. would it be current owners grandfathered in with some kind of sterilization clause? basically I want to know, if your pit bull ban was implemented worldwide, would there be any pit bulls left in twenty years?

I don't know who you're talking to here... but just wanted to say for my part, yes, I think that a ban on breeding and a requirement to spay/neuter all of them now would make it so that there are no pit bulls left in 20 years, besides within illegal dog fighting rings. You know there would be an underground market for them... and I'm not usually in support of prohibition, but all rules do not apply equally, so I'm not about to start comparing this to the war on drugs or anything.
What would be the downside to pit bulls not existing btw? Who would be losing out? Not the environment/ecosystem... I guess pit bull fanatics would be. But seriously, pit bull fanatics are weirdos, aren't they?? I don't mean those passionate about rescuing pit bulls (they are more animal welfare fanatics... I am one of those too). I mean those who are actually "into" them... I get the sense that those people are into them BECAUSE of their vicious reputation... that is total speculation on my part. It's just what it seems like to me through observation.

goingtoverona

@pjsoul, you got me convinced. now let's add, tobacco, alcohol, knives, guns, and cars to that list. and we are doing some serious harm reduction. oh and all the other dog breeds that kill people of course.

and I was talking to thirty in previous post, i'll edit to show that.

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

@pjsoul, you got me convinced. now let's add, tobacco, alcohol, knives, guns, and cars to that list. and we are doing some serious harm reduction. oh and all the other dog breeds that kill people of course.

See my above post and the one before that addressing this.
Again, not all rules apply equally. It's a very very weak argument, always.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

it was in the post before one of your other posts, I think I posted it while you were typing on a reply. I wanted to know about your pit bull ban. would it be current owners grandfathered in with some kind of sterilization clause? basically I want to know, if your pit bull ban was implemented worldwide, would there be any pit bulls left in twenty years?

and man you took a huge giant leap from dogs that kill people to dogs that tickle. did you not see that part where I said let's ban the dogs that have killed people? i'm trying to save lives here, not sure where the tickling thing came from.

Restrictions on ownership.

Pitbulls serve a purpose as a working dog, but they don't exactly fit the ideal mold of suburban family pet. So... a license required to own one is reasonable. I feel the same for German Shepherds, Rottweilers and other breeds as well.

Just because a person wants a big, tough dog doesn't mean they should have one.

* I'm not bothering with your silly ban Pomeranians too argument.

goingtoverona

I just wanna save lives. whatever it takes. save lives.

Drowned Out

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.

Ok, I'm confused. With this post you seemed to acknowledge the temperament stats and the breed-specific legislation stance of virtually every major canine advocacy group in north America that I posted earlier - by saying that the 'policy we are discussing doesn't discern'....but now you seem to be back on the 'pitbulls are worse than other breeds' wagon.

Here again is the link to the definitive temperament study:
http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

Breed - number tested - passed - failed - percentage
AMERICAN BULLDOG 199 171 28 85.9%
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 870 755 115 86.8%
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 657 555 102 84.5%

Now, lets look at the temperament of the top 10 breeds (by popularity) in the US (as defined by the AKC) :
LABRADOR RETRIEVER 805 741 64 92.0%
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG 3194 2,710 484 84.8%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 785 669 116 85.2%
BULLDOG 136 96 40 70.6%
BEAGLE 75 60 15 80.0%
YORKSHIRE TERRIER 41 34 7 82.9%
STANDARD POODLE 253 219 34 86.6%
BOXER 449 375 74 83.5%
FRENCH BULLDOG 42 40 2 95.2%
ROTTWEILER 5652 4,751 901 84.1%

So...temperament-wise, the pit breeds are in line with all of the popular larger breeds (except labs), and less aggressive than most small breeds. So your "propensity for violence given their roots" statement holds no water. Given this evidence...should we decide which breeds get to survive based solely on the damage they can inflict? Way too much grey there. Not to mention difficulties in determining the actual breed of a dog. And...the point I made earlier about a resultant rise in attacks by different breeds as specific breeds are banned and 'bad' owners choose other breeds. We'd have to do away with German Shepards, too....I wonder if Golden Retrievers would make the cut? This is the reason all those agencies are against breed-specific legislation.
Not to mention....dogs have individual personalities, just like humans. I think comparing large, wild animals to domesticated dogs is about as ingenious as comparing one human race to another and defining a policy without considering individual background, environment, etc. If we want people to stop killing each other, we should watch the news and decide which races should be allowed to live, which should be banned, wiped out, or allowed to die out. I'm all for accountability, but not overreaching legislation aimed at wiping out ANY breed.

As for the legislation that started the discussion....there has been a crazy epidemic of cops shooting dogs, I'm sure this legislation is meant as cover for these incidents. I read that a cop kills a pet every 98 minutes in the US. I have a fb friend who posts every incident caught on video., so I've been exposed to a lot more than what makes the nightly news across the US and Canada. I can tell you without hesitation that there are WAY too many cops with cavalier attitudes about killing an animal.

PJ_Soul

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

goingtoverona

@thirty
I wouldn't be against some sort of licensing or mandatory training class, but you said ban earlier so I thought you were arguing for a ban. ban is very different from requiring a license.

and POMERIANS KILL BABIES IN THEIR CRIBS!!!!! FACT!!!!!

callen

goingtoverona said:

I wouldn't be against some sort of licensing or mandatory training class, but you said ban earlier so I thought you were arguing for a ban. ban is very different from requiring a license.

and POMERIANS KILL BABIES IN THEIR CRIBS!!!!! FACT!!!!!

Take public trans from work and other day staring out the window, saw a couple of big Pitts off on the side of road foraging for food. No tags. Sure as hell rather come a crossed pack of Pomeranians than those two dogs. THere is no comparison. This reminds me if he car gun comparison, same stretch.

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

@thirty
I wouldn't be against some sort of licensing or mandatory training class, but you said ban earlier so I thought you were arguing for a ban. ban is very different from requiring a license.

and POMERIANS KILL BABIES IN THEIR CRIBS!!!!! FACT!!!!!

A pomeranian killed a 6 week old baby once, apparently, in 2000.
I wouldn't even leave a 6 week old baby alone with a cat, let alone a dog.

Drowned Out

PJ_Soul said:

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

Again....would golden retrievers make the cut? Boxers? German Shepards? Are you supporting a ban or a license? Whichever you choose - is it breed-specific, or defined by size and/or ability to inflict damage?
Again, ranting about specific breeds as dangerous dogs is not much different than ranting about a human race. You are talking in massively over-arching generalities that have no place in our courts or legislative assemblies.

PJ_Soul

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

Again....would golden retrievers make the cut? Boxers? German Shepards? Are you supporting a ban or a license? Whichever you choose - is it breed-specific, or defined by size and/or ability to inflict damage?
Again, ranting about dangerous dogs as a whole is not much different than ranting about a human race. You are talking in massively over-arching generalities that have no place in our courts or legislative assemblies.

I disagree completely that you can fairly compare an opinion about a dog breed with an opinion about the human race in any way.
It is the generality of the argument that is the point. Basically, I don't care about all the pit bulls that don't kill people (and don't care of the breed doesn't exist - there just doesn't seem to be any good reason to care about that). I only care about the ones that do. And they inflict more death and damage for any reason, be it size, fighting/attack styles, etc, than most other breeds (my arguments apply to other truly comparable breeds too, of course).

Drowned Out

we might as well ban all large dogs. Akitas can sure as hell do a lot of damage and are more tempermental than the breeds we're discussing.
Great Danes are way more aggressive than pit breeds.
I saw a Chow ragdoll my terri-poo when I was a kid - fucked it right up. Chowacide!
Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Saint Bernards....can't do much damage, right? Have you seen Cujo?

PJ_Soul

Drowned Out said:

we might as well ban all large dogs. Akitas and huskies can sure as hell do a lot of damage and are more tempermental than the breeds we're discussing.

But there are not nearly as many deaths and severe injuries caused by these breeds... Plus, those dogs were and are bred for a purpose besides fighting. Again, my argument isn't about eliminating dog attacks. It's just about reducing the risks. It's far from a black and white argument, obviously.

callen

Drowned Out said:

we might as well ban all large dogs. Akitas can sure as hell do a lot of damage and are more tempermental than the breeds we're discussing.
Great Danes are way more aggressive than pit breeds.
I saw a Chow ragdoll my terri-poo when I was a kid - fucked it right up. Chowacide!
Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Saint Bernards....can't do much damage, right? Have you seen Cujo?

Good points and if Pitts were banned the weak/Cool would flock to another breed.

I though would still rather deal with golden than Pitt. They are powerful biting machines.

HughFreakingDillon

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

Again, ranting about specific breeds as dangerous dogs is not much different than ranting about a human race. You are talking in massively over-arching generalities that have no place in our courts or legislative assemblies.

I always find this argument interesting. for one, dogs have zero conscience. they have instinct. most humans have both. so yes, dogs have different rights than humans.

a buddy of mine has a dog. another buddy and myself were making jokes about him having to go home and pamper it every lunch hour, and I made a joke about him being intimate with it. He freaked out. he then went on to say that is the exact same as if he were making a joke about me being intimate with my daughter. I was so incredibly disgusted by his comment and his ignorance, still to this day I have a hard time remaining friends with him. and we were longtime good friends.

and then the idiot had a kid, and he wised the fuck up.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Drowned Out said:

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.

Ok, I'm confused. With this post you seemed to acknowledge the temperament stats and the breed-specific legislation stance of virtually every major canine advocacy group in north America that I posted earlier - by saying that the 'policy we are discussing doesn't discern'....but now you seem to be back on the 'pitbulls are worse than other breeds' wagon.

Here again is the link to the definitive temperament study:
http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

Breed - number tested - passed - failed - percentage
AMERICAN BULLDOG 199 171 28 85.9%
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 870 755 115 86.8%
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 657 555 102 84.5%

Now, lets look at the temperament of the top 10 breeds (by popularity) in the US (as defined by the AKC) :
LABRADOR RETRIEVER 805 741 64 92.0%
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG 3194 2,710 484 84.8%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 785 669 116 85.2%
BULLDOG 136 96 40 70.6%
BEAGLE 75 60 15 80.0%
YORKSHIRE TERRIER 41 34 7 82.9%
STANDARD POODLE 253 219 34 86.6%
BOXER 449 375 74 83.5%
FRENCH BULLDOG 42 40 2 95.2%
ROTTWEILER 5652 4,751 901 84.1%

So...temperament-wise, the pit breeds are in line with all of the popular larger breeds (except labs), and less aggressive than most small breeds. So your "propensity for violence given their roots" statement holds no water. Given this evidence...should we decide which breeds get to survive based solely on the damage they can inflict? Way too much grey there. Not to mention difficulties in determining the actual breed of a dog. And...the point I made earlier about a resultant rise in attacks by different breeds as specific breeds are banned and 'bad' owners choose other breeds. We'd have to do away with German Shepards, too....I wonder if Golden Retrievers would make the cut? This is the reason all those agencies are against breed-specific legislation.
Not to mention....dogs have individual personalities, just like humans. I think comparing large, wild animals to domesticated dogs is about as ingenious as comparing one human race to another and defining a policy without considering individual background, environment, etc. If we want people to stop killing each other, we should watch the news and decide which races should be allowed to live, which should be banned, wiped out, or allowed to die out. I'm all for accountability, but not overreaching legislation aimed at wiping out ANY breed.

As for the legislation that started the discussion....there has been a crazy epidemic of cops shooting dogs, I'm sure this legislation is meant as cover for these incidents. I read that a cop kills a pet every 98 minutes in the US. I have a fb friend who posts every incident caught on video., so I've been exposed to a lot more than what makes the nightly news across the US and Canada. I can tell you without hesitation that there are WAY too many cops with cavalier attitudes about killing an animal.

Interesting...

The news feeds and social media efforts that depict pitbull attacks have led to poorly formed opinions by some such as myself that pitbulls are menacing.

Yet, fb serves as a reasonable medium to construct an attitude where one believes there are WAY too many cops who will readily kill an animal.

I'm not necessarily going to argue against what you have suggested, but I'm not going to back off my position that pitbulls pose a problem either. Until I read story after story about labs out of control... I'm not inclined to believe we should be more concerned with them.

I can accept those studies you have presented, however they do not tell the whole story. The bigger piece to this picture- and what I have already alluded to- is the ownership piece. Further, pitbulls have been bred to fight. So... suggesting the breed has a propensity for violence is not a stretch (yes, not all, but selective breeding warrants consideration when trying to dismiss such an assertion as easily as you tried to do).