I told Alli this thread would get to 10 pages at least.

And you want to blame that on the Breed?

If someone shot themselves with a gun, would you blame the gun?

it is safe to assume that all dogs have the same ratio of good to bad owners, and if so then why do pit bulls always make up 50% of attacks and dog murders?

hint: it's the breed.

if 50% of self inflicted gunshot wounds happened with one gun, yeah, I'd say the gun was inherently unsafe.

like a pit bull

Guns are often a problem. Guns are controlled. Many types of guns are even illegal. Guns are illegal to possess in many countries around the world as its widely acknowledge they are a problem. You are arguing against pitbull control and not arguing for anything else. If you could understand that part of your own argument and position, there wouldn't be an argument. All you have to say is "yeah, there should be some sort of training or licensing requirements.." or something. But you just keep making the same arguments that suggest you are against doing anything at all and that deny there is any sort of issue at all.

You occasionally blame the owner, but its not the owner thats attacking children. If you can't put forth a credible solution to deal with owners, then you have to accept the solution to deal with the dogs.

Self inflicted is self inflected, but on that note, .22 caliber guns account for most of the gun deaths in the US and assault weapons account very few. Yet it's the assault weapons that get the bad press.

I have a Pit Bull in the house, he's not dangerous.

I don't believe I suggested anywhere that there were packs of them out there, but I suppose it's a valid point of sorts.

But that's the bulk of the problem with this breed entirely, that too many redneck, trailortrash, or lowlifes of one sort or another get them as guard dogs, train them minimaly or not at all, and said training is to bring out their agression of course. Like I said, it is these types that are going to get the entire breed banned.

Idiots who leave their pb tied or chained in the yard all day and neglect him/her.
Mullet-wearing morons who get pb's "because they're cool" and they intimidate the neighbors
Idiots who just don't know what they're doing and get a pb as a family pet, not having the least clue how to properly train a dog.


Some say pitbulls get a bad rap in the media. All I can say is that every single dog attack that gets reported and where someone got injured all make the news here, not just those involving pitbulls. ALL. It just so happens that most (as in more than half) do involve pitbulls. Thus people are sick of hearing about them.

I would agree about punishing the owners more rather than an outright banning, but either way something has to be done. I hazard a good guess a lot of goverments are leaning towards going the banning route though.

hope you are aware every pit owner says that after an attack, i hope.

Because assault weapons are used in violent crimes. A metal jacketed .223 or 7.62 can go through cars and buildings and children's bedrooms and through innocent people and very often do. .22's don't.

Are you so silly that you can't understand the disproportionate danger of a children's gun and an AK-47 used by gang members to spray down a neighborhood? Kinda in line with your stance on pitbulls as well.

No, rare that a violent crime involves an assault weapon.

Children's gun? Really?

voila!

Pitbull by themselves are NOT bad... It's the way some of these owners raise them.. You can see the same problem with Dobermans or Rothwellers...

I've been raised around dogs. My dad was having a kennel back in the day breeding and training German Shepherds for several Police Depts...

I remember he had one once, and the dog was very gentle, been raised as anormal dog, not to become an Attack Dog..

IT IS Not the race.. IT IS the owners.... It's just like saying Black Peoples are all thieves... All Italians are Mobsters.. ...

If an owner is to blame, yes, but you wouldn't believe how many times some shit for brains kid jumps a wall to find a dog and gets bite, then the dog gets put down and the kid sues the owner. Remember we live in a world that happens a lot

thats exactly what all those other parents of dead children thought too.

I'm not citing "press" I'm citing facts.

a .22 caliber rifle can certainly kill. So can a pellet gun. The danger of a .22 doesn't even begin to compare to the danger of an AK-47 where a few rounds can cut a person in 1/2. Where those rounds can travel great distances and with enough energy go through cars, homes, buildings and other structures and kill innocent people as happens all the time. The two just don't compare, which is why there are laws specifically targeting one of them.

You keep playing these retarded games with irrelevant comparisons to deflect attention away from the topic of discussion and your weak arguments. If you want to start a thread about .22's... start a thread about .22's. People here are talking about dogs.

I raised my daughter around horses, those horses were alot more dangerous. That's a fact

Of the estimated 14,446 horseback-related head injuries treated in 2009, 3,798 were serious enough to require hospitalization. There were an estimated 4,958 concussions and 97 skull fractures. Subdural hematomas and brain hemorrhages comprised many of the serious injuries. According to the Equestrian Medical Safety Association, head injuries account for an estimated 60 percent of deaths resulting from equestrian accidents.

So are you going to want to get rid of horses next?

Facts are assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes, more apt to be a .22 pistol

Hey moron, can't read?, .22 kill more people , assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes, what a fucking retard

Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes

Yeah I know, blame me, I knew Obama was wrong before he started.

And I know Pit Bulls are very cool dogs

why would I do that when you can simply choose not to climb on.

how many of the dead children had the choice to not climb on?
I understand that against my facts, you have to make far reaching analogies but facts are facts, analogies, aren't.



facts are, you're morelikely to get attacked and or killed by a pitbull than any other breed.

gun facts along with horse facts, have no place in a dog thread unless you don't have dog facts to back up your fanciful ideas about dogs.

Facts really seem to bother you. So lets continue. I've owned quite the assortment of assault weapons since I was very young. I was raised by ignorant assholes. I sold off 3 stainless Ruger Mini-14's for $1,500 each because the 2 dipshits I sold them to thought they were going to be banned the following month. I remember the exact year/summer this started and it made me some money. I continued to make fun of the guy that bought two of them for many years after that.

The introduction of bans on assault weapons came into being during the crack/cocaine epidemic and the growth of gangs and gang violence in cities. It happened because innocent people were getting killed in their beds at night while they slept by stray bullets. It happened because people were using 30-50 round mags full of ammo that was going through police kevlar/cars/homes/buildings and children that were 1/2 a mile away playing in the street. The list of reasons why are long. It had to do with the specifics of those weapons and the specific problem those weapons presented. Much like the specific problem of pitbulls that you are in so much denial about.

:2 cents:

Vendzilla, I know you're really saving up to drop the final nuclear bomb of arguments... "people drown, so should we outlaw water". Please PM me when you do so i can try to tackle that well reasoned piece of brilliance.

Facts are , I really don't give a shit, I'm done, too many ignorant people about dogs in this thread, go ahead, jump my fence, my dog will kill you and all your babies you leave on the ground for him to eat.

You want to start killing a breed because of your ignorance, go ahead. I'll shoot anyone that comes near mine, ban or not

I still can't keep the idea of the movie deliverance when I see your name, do you have purdy lips?

Please show us where all the many times that has happened moron. How many times have cops been attacked by assault weapons versus 22 pistols?

Funny, i did imagine you being a hillbilly running around the kentucky hills trying to rape and kill wandering campers with your friendly pitbull.

I bet you are a fantastic banjo player!

And no, forget about my lips. I'm not into dudes. I'm just not. Thanks for the interest however.

must suck to live in fear to think people are always trying to kill and attack you. so much you need to barricade yourself in your home with guns and violent dogs.

god forbid some kid in the neighborhood hops your fence to get his baseball. sad really.

he came without facts, he left without facts.

but everyone else was ignorant.

I thought that was your bath house name?

I came out with facts, but you listened to the media, go figure

cool story bro

I actually don't think its safe to assume that. You ever see your typical June Cleaver type suburbanite owning a Pit Bull?

I love how with all I wrote, it was your homophobic sence that you needed to defend the most, not the bull shit you wrote

I guess he's not done. This guy is about as emotional and irrational as a pitbull.

this many posts about pitbulls.. ha. I agree though Oystein, it's ridiculous.

He fails to comprehend basic psychology, if you want a guard dog thats going to scare people out of your property, would you get a poodle?

http://us.cdn3.123rf.com/168nwm/xala...huahua-dog.jpg

here's the truth why he wants Pit Bulls banned, so his fi fi won't be brutalized by the Pit Bulls of the world.

You guys want to baby proof the world, the meek shall inherent the earth, but by then, no one will want it

Still haven't answered the question Bath House boy!

What more can be said to the guy who writes incessantly that he dog is the most innocent and beautiful and peaceful creature on earth because of its own wonderful owner and then who later says his pitbull will eat people and even their children/babies (owner is apparently a violent asshole?)?

I have a problem with idiots that judge the many for the actions of the few.

Breed ban laws simply don't work. Anybody arguing otherwise is doing so purely out of emotion. Those are the facts, period.

What does work well are breed neutral aggressive dog laws. If you really want to reduce the number of people being hurt by dogs, you would address the underlying issues and not just a symptom.

You were raised by assholes, bath house boy, wheres the answer to the question dip shit?

don't throw facts in here, they won't listen, they won't even answer the questions posed them.

The Squealer was traumatized by poodles at a young age and will jump on the band wagon to kill all breeds, facts or not

what you wrote makes no sence. :2 cents:

I don't think any dogs should be killed. I don't think any breed should be killed. I never said anything like that. I was simply pointing out there is a legitimate problem. Rather than confront that like a mature adult and propose workable solutions like a mature adult, you spend your time saying "everyone wants to murder our dogs", which is retarded.

You have to be a woman. I can't think of another man that i've seen on this board that was so irrational and that made so little sense.

its his favorite theme

Hey ... don't count out poodles, they were originally bred to hunt wild boar, and I've seen a few do aggression work. Hell I once saw an Afgan Hound doing aggression work, It was rather funny, but it is capable of doing the job. But that having been said, I think the Pit Bull represents to many what it was originally bred to do. Until you can get that out of the minds of the many Assholes that own/breed them, and that don't adequately know how to train/control them, you are going to have continued reports of attacks, and the breed is going to suffer the consequences. I think that the key here is that the breed has more potential to go wrong than many others.

So is the goal to stop the number of people hurt or killed by pittbulls or to stop the number of people hurt or killed by dogs?

Breed ban legislation will decrease the number of people hurt or killed by pittbulls but no evidence suggests it will decrease the number of people hurt or killed by dogs in general.

Breeed-neutral aggressive dog legisation will decrease the number of people hurt or killed by dogs in general.

So which goal is it you're interested in?

I dont have a goal. I believe there is a problem with Pitts and Rotts. I know you have one. I know you love your dog. I also know you're rational and not like Vendzilla who is acting like he's a menopausal junkie looking for a fix.

However, I haven't heard anyone propose a solution other than "blame the owners". It really doesn't matter after the fact if the owner is to blame or not.

It seems to me there are 3 basic options

1) do nothing
2) do something with owners BEFORE they own one and make them accountable, licensed dog, trained etc.
3) ban breeds

Seems to me there is a reasonable answer in dealing with owners... licensing, training etc for Pits, rotts etc.

But the argument should never be "get rid of them all" or "there is no problem". Both are retarded views in my opinion.

When it comes to legislation, either you have a great solution, or you have no solution. It's the "no solution" part, that leads to breed specific legislation.

Well there is a solution that works much better than BSL, and that's breed-neutral aggressive dog legislation.

Here's a short list of organizations that support that position: CDC, ASACP, Humane Society, American Veterinary Medical Association.

Here's a short list of scientific studies (alas not conducted on GFY) that support the position that breed ban legislation is not effective: Klaassen et al., 1996; Ott et al., 2007; Rosado, 2007

Here's a scientific study that supports the position that breed-neutral aggressive dog legislation does work: Bradley, 2006

I whole-heartidly support breed-neutral aggressive dog legislation. Nobody should have to suffer being bitten, maimed or killed by anybody else's pet. I'm fine with restrictive licensing requirements and severe criminal and civil penalties for the owners of aggressive dogs of all types, Pittbulls included. Shouldn't you be?

In short, let's work to reduce the number of aggressive dogs period and not just the number of aggressive Pittbulls. Surely you can see the benefit of persuing the first course rather than the second?