Pitbulls must be banned

on Apr 18, 2005

" The problem isn't the breed- the problem is the people who buy them then abuse them. "

A Black Lab is the same size or bigger than a pit bull, and can be abused, and can attack people. Yet how many people are killed by them, even when they are attacked?

Like I said above, the Cocker Spaniel is one of the most "biting" dogs in the world, and yet people aren't up in arms about it. Why? Because they don't kill and maim when they bite.

They don't pick Pit Bulls to train to fight and kill arbitrarily. Notice also, that police and military generally don't pick Pit Bulls to train as attack dogs, either. Why? The demeanor of the breed.

17

Ionolast

on Apr 18, 2005

police and military generally don't pick Pit Bulls to train as attack dogs, either. Why? The demeanor of the breed.

Maybe German Shephards are smarter than Pit Bulls.

18

KarmaGirl

on Apr 19, 2005

A Black Lab is the same size or bigger than a pit bull, and can be abused, and can attack people. Yet how many people are killed by them, even when they are attacked?

There was a child in my home town that was almost killed (the child ended up having half her face rebuilt) by a Springer Spaniel that was just a family dog. I had heard about the dog after we had ours put down (was from the same litter) after it torn my Dad's hand apart for no reason. If it were a child instead of my Dad, whom knew how to react, that dog could have easily killed the child.

Pit Bulls are strong dogs, and they *can* kill. Other dogs kill, too. You don't hear about it as much because of the attention that Pit Bulls get. And, it's self feeding. People buy pit bulls because other people are scared of them. A lot of pit bulls are specifically trained to be mean. Rots can be just as good killing machines (which happens a lot in Detroit area) but they don't get the publicity that pit bulls do.

Maybe German Shephards are smarter than Pit Bulls.

German Shepherds are smarter and easier to train. Pit Bulls really aren't that bright. Most herding class dogs are quite smart and trainable (which is why they get used for herding).

19

Myrrander

on Apr 19, 2005

It's a question of training. I have trained several pit bull dogs and pit mixes and found that they can be very loving, non-violent dogs.

There's also a new trend called "reverse breeding," in which breeders, instead of breeding characteristics of fighting dogs, instead breed gentler characteristics. This is another long term solution.

Pits are extremely excitable, they need a lot of attention and in-depth training.

How many more freedoms should we take away? Pretty soon, we'll all be little robots.

20

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

If guns or knives could by themselves break their leash, wander on to someone else's property and kill their kids, I'd tend to agree. I have been bitten by dogs, I have owned dogs, I don't have a problem with dogs.

That's the "varation" of the theme. Hold the ownwers responsible for the actions of their dog, don't make mindless blanket bans that do nothing but pander to the part of the population that wouldn't own one anyway.

This isn't "out ot the blue". We don't allow people to own a lot of animals.

Yes, I know, my brother owned a pet skunk for awhile. Guess how many states those are banned as pets? Ferrets, snakes, various kind of lizards, all are banned in one state or another, for what? Just because the people who wouldn't own them called for it and once again leaders led by ignorance.

If we would hold people more responsible, we wouldn't have to have so many innane laws.

21

Dynosoar

on Apr 19, 2005

Any dog, in the wrong hands, can be just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Do we ban guns as well? How about SUV's, they kill more motorist than any other vehicle, or how about a ban on alcoholic beverages over 50 proof.....

You can't legislate away personal responsibility.

So it goes........

22

Dynosoar

on Apr 19, 2005

Any dog, in the wrong hands, can be just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Do we ban guns as well? How about SUV's, they kill more motorist than any other vehicle, or how about a ban on alcoholic beverages over 50 proof.....

You can't legislate away personal responsibility.

So it goes........

23

sushiK

on Apr 19, 2005

We are not normally allowed to personally own certain animals such as tigers.
Why because they are to dangerous to society and cannot be trusted unless in appropriate hands.

Pitbulls should be thrown into this category and taken off the market for citizens to own.

24

bakerstreet

on Apr 19, 2005

*boggle*

I can't understand why you people keep comparing dogs to guns. Guns don't decide to shoot people, they are inanimate objects. Dogs decide to kill kids, for no apparent reason.

Holding the owner "responsible" obviously doesn't help, because these breeds continue to kill people. Someone's 200 pound "baby" tears your kid to pieces and they go to some minimum security jail for a couple of years. I'm sure it is satisfying.

Come on. Its a dog, one step up from the meat we eat at dinner. Does it really matter what sub-category you own? If people feel they have to own a dangerous dog, they have more problems than their dog.

And if nothing else, please stop acting like they are dolls. They are living animals with minds of their owns. Stop with the asinine "Dogs don't kill people, owners kill people" bullshit. It's either ignorant or dishonest.

25

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2005

OK,let's go with your theory on banning pit bulls for the moment, for the sake of argument.

A pit bull is not a dog that can survive in the wild. it is a dog that has been bred (albeit, admittedly, for a destructive purpose). There would be tremendous cost involved in identifying owners and rounding up dogs, and added court costs to force owners to surrender their dogs. In addition, it would set a legal precedent that would put all other breeds of domestic dogs under scrutiny.

Now comes the fun part. Now that we have these dogs, we have to set about euthanizing them. Once they are euthanized, they will need to be properly disposed of. All of this comes at a cost that will likely run into billions. Who's willing to underwrite these costs? Are you, because I, for one,sure as hell don't want MY tax dollars appropriated to eradicate a dog because of the horribly irresponsible minority of pit bull owners.

People who run around parroting phrases like "ban this!" and "ban that!" do not for a second stop to consider the real consequences of their attempts to create a utopia. The real consequences are loss of personal liberty and a society in which everyone is looking over everybody else's shoulder to direct their government to ban everything that offends them. It is a slippery slope best avoided by freedom loving citizens.

No,the right to own a pit bull doesn't fall under the category of gun ownership. But we must seriously evaluate our motives when we attempt to stifle individual liberties in order to create a "perfectly safe" society. The leading cause of accidental death in the United States is the automobile; as ridiculous as it is to ban the car on such pretenses, it is equally ridiculous to propose an outright pit bull ban.

26

Ionolast

on Apr 19, 2005

Pit Bulls are strong dogs, and they *can* kill. Other dogs kill, too. You don't hear about it as much because of the attention that Pit Bulls get. And, it's self feeding. People buy pit bulls because other people are scared of them. A lot of pit bulls are specifically trained to be mean. Rots can be just as good killing machines (which happens a lot in Detroit area) but they don't get the publicity that pit bulls do.

German Shephards used to get the publicity, then they were considered to not be as dangerous as they used to be. Then it was Dobermans, then Rotweilers, now Pit Bulls. Not that I don't think Pit Bulls are inherently more dangerous than the others, I do, but it seems that we always have to have a "devil." I wonder which breed will be next.

27

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

You can't legislate away personal responsibility.

Oh Dynosaur, but that is what they try to do. It isn't the shooter's fault, it's the gun laws. It isn't the pet owner's fault, it the pet laws. It isn't the driver's fault, it is the driving laws. Blah Blah Blah!

28

ParaTed2k

on Apr 19, 2005

Holding the owner "responsible" obviously doesn't help, because these breeds continue to kill people. Someone's 200 pound "baby" tears your kid to pieces and they go to some minimum security jail for a couple of years. I'm sure it is satisfying.

That's the point, we don't hold the owners any more responsible than we hold people who cause fatal car accidents.

Also, our penal system is not meant to "satisfy" the victim (or the perpetrator or that matter), it is meant to "satisfy" the demands of justice.

29

Shovelheat

on Apr 19, 2005

I saw a kid get attacked by a pit bull in the street in front of my house about two years ago. I went screaming at it and scared it off and, luckily, a cop was nearby and heard the commotion. The dog ran into my back yard and I told the cop SHOOT IT!! which he reluctantly did. Didn't bother me a bit, I had a .38 special in the house but didn't have enough time to get to it. The kid was taken by ambulance to the hospital and got over twentysomething stitches. His parents were glad I was there. So was I!

Just my two cents...

30

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 19, 2005

I saw a kid get attacked by a pit bull in the street in front of my house about two years ago. I went screaming at it and scared it off and, luckily, a cop was nearby and heard the commotion. The dog ran into my back yard and I told the cop SHOOT IT!! which he reluctantly did. Didn't bother me a bit, I had a .38 special in the house but didn't have enough time to get to it. The kid was taken by ambulance to the hospital and got over twentysomething stitches. His parents were glad I was there. So was I!

Just my two cents...

And I have absolutely ZERO problem with your response. The author of this thread,however, is proposing a FAR MORE EXTREME solution.