Pit Bull terries [Archive]

sabre_ac

20 Mar 2002, 17:10

New laws were passed in WA with strict regulations on these "fighting" breeds.
They are to be muzzled when out in public and to be kept in child proof pens.
Yes this is a good step by the government, but my opinion is they should all be shot.
Australia has no place for such a breed, they were bred for fighting and how they are brought up has little to do with it.
I know 4 familys with these dogs who are very strict with there pit bulls and are good homes.Yet let this dog loose near other dogs and it attacks, not to mention dont dare step on there propery.

Pit bulls should be outlawed, they are a dangerous weapon and unlike guns the owner has little control over them.

Docker_Brat

20 Mar 2002, 18:16

Although I don't think much of vicious breeds, they're only as bad as their owners.

Children are more dangerous.

mantis

20 Mar 2002, 19:49

The legislation is a joke, I have spoken to my local ranger , the minute I heard about.

He is furious that they weren't consulted & asked for their input, seeing as they are the ones that have to police the legislation.

His points are:

How do you know if a dog has Pit Bull in it, unless it is a pedigree with papers, (of which there are very few), they could be a cross of a multiple of breeds, including Staffordshire terriers, Rhodesian Ridge Backs, or Bull Mastiffs. eg: my dog has gone from a Neopolitan Bullf Mastiff X American Pit Bull to a Neopolitan Bull Mastiff X, (breed/breeds) of the Mum unknown, but deifinitely no Pit Bull, it can't be proved one way or the other.

Basically, the rangers said they have no way of being able to enforce this legislation, unless they have hard evidence that a dog has Pit Bull in it.

Ranger also said that Pit Bulls, while they can be danger to other dogs, they are very good with people, except a few who don't have responsible owners, who care for them & train them properly & yes he has met Kenny & thinks he is a lovely natured dog.

I rang 6PR & informed them of the above about the rangers position & they agreed, it is almost impossible to prove if a dog is part Pit Bull.

There is already legislation in place which covers all vicious dogs who have proven a danger by attacking or threatening dogs/or people, which has the same restrictions as this new one for Pit Bull , so basically, this legislation isn't worth the paper it is written on, except for pedigree dogs.

mantis

20 Mar 2002, 23:07

I am surprised that no one has bothered to argue with me, could it be because I have quoted professionals in this field & I am right.

Pit Bulls are no more dangerous to people than any other untrained, badly treated, large breed of dog.

sabre_ac

20 Mar 2002, 23:10

Originally posted by mantis
I am surprised that no one has bothered to argue with me, could it be because I have quoted professionals in this field & I am right.

Pit Bulls are no more dangerous to people than any other untrained, badly treated, large breed of dog.

Mantis I addressed this.
With pitbulls it is not the owner.
They have an instinct of attack no about of training will remove this from them.

mantis

20 Mar 2002, 23:16

Originally posted by sabre_ac
Pit bulls should be outlawed, they are a dangerous weapon and unlike guns the owner has little control over them.

LOL Sabre, so all gun owners are responsible, OK got it now guns aren't a dangerous weapon. :rolleyes:

Disagree with the owner not having control over them, a well bred, well trained Pit Bull is totally under control of their owners,

Pit Bulls live to please their owners, they are a pack dog originally & as long as the owner assumes the roll of pack leader, you can get you dog to do anything.

mantis

20 Mar 2002, 23:19

Originally posted by sabre_ac

Mantis I addressed this.
With pitbulls it is not the owner.
They have an instinct of attack no about of training will remove this from them.

Sabre

Only ones that are bred for fighting, if you have a Pit Bull & treat it like any other dog, they are not agressive,

OK how do you explain the Rangers who deal with aggressive dogs day in, day out, saying Pit Bulls are OK.

vanders

21 Mar 2002, 13:16

Originally posted by sabre_ac
.
I know 4 familys with these dogs who are very strict with there pit bulls and are good homes.Yet let this dog loose near other dogs and it attacks, not to mention dont dare step on there propery.

Pit bulls should be outlawed, they are a dangerous weapon and unlike guns the owner has little control over them.

What a crock of sh.it. If you let any dog loose near another dog that they arent familiar with, then they'll attack, if you stop on any dogs property, then they'll go nuts.

It's part of a dogs mentality, not just a pit bull. Sheesh.

Docker_Brat

21 Mar 2002, 17:21

Originally posted by mantis
I am surprised that no one has bothered to argue with me, could it be because I have quoted professionals in this field & I am right.

What a strange statement. Are you fishing for an argument?

mantis

21 Mar 2002, 18:08

Originally posted by Docker_Brat

What a strange statement. Are you fishing for an argument?

Nup, genuinely surprised, it is most unusual, :D :D :D

Hansie Cronje

21 Mar 2002, 21:39

Originally posted by vanders

What a crock of sh.it. If you let any dog loose near another dog that they arent familiar with, then they'll attack, if you stop on any dogs property, then they'll go nuts.

It's part of a dogs mentality, not just a pit bull. Sheesh.

Yeah those Jack Russells can get real narky, much prefer a pit bull to claw my face :rolleyes:

gPhonque

21 Mar 2002, 23:33

Originally posted by mantis
I am surprised that no one has bothered to argue with me, could it be because I have quoted professionals in this field & I am right.

I actually agree with you.

A dog will only be as good as its owner.

Sabre - in reply to your "dangerous weapon" line - a man with a penis can be a dangerous weapon.

Shall we ban the penis as well?

Or just ban men?

Fat Red

22 Mar 2002, 11:06

I agree with Sandie that the legislation sounds useless.

And I have no doubt that well-managed pit bulls are usually safe.

But it's just not true that they are not more dangerous when they aren't looked after properly.

A labrador that is not looked after properly might behave badly, but it won't attack people and even if it did, it can't do the damage that a pit bull can.

As for the dangerous weapon line, it's stupid. We have all sorts of laws banning dangerous things. Some dangerous things aren't banned, because their usefulness outweighs their danger eg cars. Doesn't apply to pit bulls--they might be useful, but no more so than other dogs.

Bloodstained Angel

22 Mar 2002, 11:28

jeepers Fat Red - you wanna go back and read over that last post of yours ?

My wife was absolutely savaged by a Black Labrador when she was a little girl, still has the scars to prove it too.

The attack was unprovoked and very vicious

ANY dog is a ****ing menace if it has not been raised and trained properly - breed has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I've seen badly raised dogs of all shapes and sizes create havoc in public if they are not collared and muzzled.

cheers

Fat Red

22 Mar 2002, 12:57

Fair enough, I over-generalised. Any breed can be aggressive.

However the point about how much damage they can do is valid.

sabre_ac

22 Mar 2002, 13:33

Originally posted by gPhonque

I actually agree with you.

A dog will only be as good as its owner.

Sabre - in reply to your "dangerous weapon" line - a man with a penis can be a dangerous weapon.

Shall we ban the penis as well?

Or just ban men?

Man has far more control over his penis than pit bulls have over there pit bulls.
This dogs have inbuilt INSTINCT to attack, this can be bred out if that.
Pit bulls have a bad rep for just that,they have earnt it with vicious attacks on people and other dogs.
My fox terrier was attacked and the owner of hte pit bull was powerless to stop there dog.
Ill admit it had they owner of that pit bull not been around I would not have hesitated in maiming/killing this dog.

gPhonque

22 Mar 2002, 21:44

Originally posted by sabre_ac
Man has far more control over his penis than pit bulls have over there pit bulls.

Crap.

A good dog owner will more control over his dog than a lot of men would have over their penis.

This dogs have inbuilt INSTINCT to attack, this can be bred out if that.

Some men have an inbuilt instinct to think with their diicks and assault/rape women. (or cheat with their best mates wife....doh!)

Pit bulls have a bad rep for just that,they have earnt it with vicious attacks on people

The same with men.

Ask any young girl who has to get a taxi home by herself late at night.

My fox terrier was attacked and the owner of hte pit bull was powerless to stop there dog.

Bad owner.

Ill admit it had they owner of that pit bull not been around I would not have hesitated in maiming/killing this dog.

Of course you would. And i wouldn't blame you.

Had the owner been a responsible master, you would not have needed to.

I guarantee you'd find that most pitbull owners are more than responsible with their dogs.

Why don't we ban irresponsible dog owners?

After all, they are the cause of the problem.

Although in the case (i think it was here in Victoria) last year or the year before where the little kid got attacked after he jumped over the fence into his neighbours backyard only to have a group of pitbulls attack him, can not be blamed on either the dog OR the owner. A dog is always going to defend his turf. Most breeds of dog will. Not just pit bulls.

mantis

22 Mar 2002, 22:16

Originally posted by sabre_ac
Man has far more control over his penis than pit bulls have over there pit bulls.

I.m not even going to buy into that one,

This dogs have inbuilt INSTINCT to attack, this can be bred out if that.

No they don't have an inbuilt instinct to attack, they are taught that by people who want them to be vicious, if it is taught to be loving & obedient from birth, they are no more dangerous than any other breed of dog, The second part of this sentence I don't understand, think you left out some words maybe.

Pit bulls have a bad rep for just that,they have earnt it with vicious attacks on people and other dogs.

Exactly, they have a bad rep because of a few bad apples, there are also lots of vicious human beings, but we don't want all human beings to be killed do we.

My fox terrier was attacked and the owner of hte pit bull was powerless to stop there dog.

I am sorry that your dog was attacked, I hope it is OK though I doubt it, because if a really vicious Pit Bull attacked a Foxy they wouldn't survive the attack. How was the owner powerless to stop their dog? my dog is 45kgs, yet when he was attacked by a German Shepherd, I was able to pull Kenny away from the fight & control him & I am only 53kgs.

Ill admit it had they owner of that pit bull not been around I would not have hesitated in maiming/killing this dog.

Well, when my dog was attacked by the Shepherd & I ended up with a gaping wound on my leg that needed 20 stitches, I wasn't angry at the dogs, just the stupid owner walking her dog without a lead, she is the one I wanted to hurt, not the dogs fault.

Cheers

Asgardian

23 Mar 2002, 03:34

Trying to argue with Mantis is like beating your head against a battleship, all that will happen is you're gonna get a sore head.

I KNOW plenty about these dogs, I know plenty about a lot of dog breeds, a hobby of mine was being part of the Kennel Club, anyway, I'm sick of arguing, so read these links if you want to know the TRUTH about Pit Bulls

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_47000/47563.stm

http://home.golden.net/~samu/pitbull/ChelseaGreen.html

http://home.golden.net/~samu/pitbull/index.html

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html

http://members.m4d.com/forum/read/ddk/254374/

http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-980428-190259.html

http://www.knx1070.com/editorial/2000/00-111.html

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-96/02-10-96/04r07238.htm

http://www.ebcoalition.org/Articals/12-06-00%20Pit%20bull%20attacks%20sheriff.htm

http://204.27.188.70/daily/02-96/02-10-96/1pitbull.htm

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_1.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/dogs000628.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dogbreeds.pdf

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wtae/20020318/lo/1124186_1.html

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/local_london/archive/1998/09/12/localnews7-6VQ.html

PIT BULL ATTACK!
Written by: Bill Wise
Athens-Clarke County Animal Control, Georgia

“Boy Killed By Pit Bull - (SAVANNAH) -- A six-year-old Savannah boy is dead... after being attacked by his stepfather's pit bull. Eric Dukes was pronounced dead at Memorial Medical Center just an hour after the pit bull attacked him yesterday afternoon. Charges could be filed against the stepfather. The dog was kept fenced in, but got out. Police believe Eric was trying to get the dog back behind the fence when the attack occurred.”
So read the headlines on March 2nd, 99; one day after two separate attacks by Pit Bulls in California, one attack killing a 3-year-old girl.

http://www.dog-play.com/pitbull.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/pitbull000719.html

http://www.wire.net.au/~melinda/dogs.htm

There are 1000's more, but why cast pearls before swine?

London Dave

23 Mar 2002, 04:50

Nice one As, I did hear on the BBC radio news this morning a lady in san francisco has been found guilty of 2nd degree murder after her ''nice friendly family' pets mauled a woman to death. I didnt catch the whole story, but apparently the dogs mauled the woman, she and her hubby took the dogs inside and let the victim bleed to death in the hall.

mantis

23 Mar 2002, 08:20

Originally posted by London Dave
Nice one As, I did hear on the BBC radio news this morning a lady in san francisco has been found guilty of 2nd degree murder after her ''nice friendly family' pets mauled a woman to death. I didnt catch the whole story, but apparently the dogs mauled the woman, she and her hubby took the dogs inside and let the victim bleed to death in the hall.

They weren't nice friendly pets, they had them as guard dogs & knew they were aggressive, there had been other complaints about these dogs before.

Also, only the wife was home at the time of the attack, that is why she got 14 years jail & the husband only four.

Final point, THEY WEREN'T PITBULLS.

I don't deny Pitbulls never attack people, but they aren't the only breed, putting restrictions on dogs breed specific is dangerous, as by concentrating on a few breeds, people are going to get attacked by others.

All dogs should be confined to the property & not roam free & should always be walked on a lead when in public & children should never be left unsupervised around dogs.

This would drastically reduce the number of dog attacks.

gPhonque

23 Mar 2002, 15:44

Originally posted by Asgardian
http://home.golden.net/~samu/pitbull/ChelseaGreen.html

"Chelsea residents afraid to go outside because aggressive pitbulls lurk around Jacqueline and Josephine streets."

http://home.golden.net/~samu/pitbull/index.html

"The dogs are never claimed by any owners, and always seen running free, either singular or as a pair."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html

"Pit-bull owners had converted the little park in front of our apartment building into a dog-training ground, where they goaded their animals into attacking one another or taught them to hang from tree branches to strengthen their jaws and their tenacity."

http://www.knx1070.com/editorial/2000/00-111.html

"In Newberry Springs, one such dog got loose on a street"

http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-96/02-10-96/04r07238.htm

"when three pit bulls in the yard of their absentee owner mauled the German shepherd of the people next door when the dog somehow strayed to the other side of the fence."

http://www.ebcoalition.org/Articals/12-06-00%20Pit%20bull%20attacks%20sheriff.htm

"The dog ran through an open gate when the deputies approached the residence"

http://204.27.188.70/daily/02-96/02-10-96/1pitbull.htm

"Neighbors say that the pit bulls' owner, Brian Jaguilski, has not lived at 36 Florence Street since January"

"The German shepherd was mauled in Mr. Jaguilski's yard after it apparently jumped a dividing fence"

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/dogs000628.html

"After hearing report’s of the boy’s death, the man reportedly confronted the pit bull’s owner over his failure to keep the dog on a leash.
The dog owner allegedly responded by punching his nose. The pit bull followed its master’s lead, attacking the elderly man as he fell to the ground. Both the dog and its owner fled before police arrived. The man is being sought for questioning."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dogbreeds.pdf

"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans, and therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs."

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wtae/20020318/lo/1124186_1.html

"Mayfield said the dogs got of the yard and attacked him"

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/local_london/archive/1998/09/12/localnews7-6VQ.html

"The man was walking across the small square when the terrier, which had been let off its lead,"

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/pitbull000719.html

"“He intentionally let the dogs loose,” says prosecutor Steve Sinfield. “He knew they were dangerous. That’s why we want second-degree murder.”"

All fantastic examples of bad owners. (apart from the www.cdc.gov link)

Which side of the fence are you on?

cheers!

mantis

23 Mar 2002, 18:22

Originally posted by gPhonque

[ All fantastic examples of bad owners. (apart from the www.cdc.gov link)

Which side of the fence are you on? [/B]

Unfortunately gPhonque, responsible dog owners don't make good headlines, or whip up hysteria like bad owners do. :mad:

Guess I should also mention, that I bred & showed dogs for 15 years, my dog at that time won best of breed at the Royal Melbourne Show, I had Cairn Terriers then because my kids were young & big dogs & childtren don't mix, now there is only myself I don;t have to worry about having a big dog.

Maggie Greg

24 Mar 2002, 21:47

I agree with Dr. Hugh Wirth.

The dog should be banned. All those existing here need to be rounded up and exterminated.

Easy solution. Bleeding heart dog owners have many other breeds to choose from if they really are dog lovers (not in the biblical sense, though I am not always so sure).

gPhonque

29 Mar 2002, 12:19

No reply from Asgard.

Perhaps next time he should check that the links he's posting actually do something to back up his argument. :p

M29

31 Mar 2002, 00:37

Shíte Originally posted by vanders

What a crock of sh.it. If you let any dog loose near another dog that they arent familiar with, then they'll attack, if you stop on any dogs property, then they'll go nuts.

It's part of a dogs mentality, not just a pit bull. Sheesh.

I tried that. Rounded up some mates, layed some bets and much to my dismay of a full on blood both, they sniffed each others arses.

You've never actually owned a dog have you?
****, my ****ing cat attacks the dog and the dog ****s itself. Infact, my cat has attacked visitors more than the ****ing dog.

M29

31 Mar 2002, 00:40

As for pitbulls, I think they are an ugly breed, would never own one myself and can't see any appeal in them unless you want a guard dog.

Sydneyfan

31 Mar 2002, 07:28

Originally posted by M29

I tried that. Rounded up some mates, layed some bets and much to my dismay of a full on blood both, they sniffed each others arses.

****, my ****ing cat attacks the dog and the dog ****s itself. Infact, my cat has attacked visitors more than the ****ing dog.

To quote Joffa, Pure Thucking Gold! :p

M29

31 Mar 2002, 14:14

That should read 'Blood Bath' not blod both. :)

mantis

31 Mar 2002, 16:05

Originally posted by M29
That should read 'Blood Bath' not blod both. :)

That will teach you not to post after you have been out celebrating a win. :D

M29

31 Mar 2002, 17:16

Originally posted by mantis

That will teach you not to post after you have been out celebrating a win. :D

I know. And I dont even drink. :(

Frodo

2 Apr 2002, 15:32

Mantis is probably quite correct in that it is hard to police but none the less the government is making an effort to do something about the situation.

Yes a bad owner can make a dog vicious, I doubt anyone would argue about that, but with a pit bull there is a genetic problem that 'may' cause a dog to attack without provocation no matter how good an owner they have. I accept that the vast majority of pit bulls will be no problem at all but whilst the breed is allowed unmuzzled in public there are going to be continual reports of children scarred for life. And that is a situation I find intolerable to society.

evade28

2 Apr 2002, 19:59

If you let any dog loose near another dog that they arent familiar with, then they'll attack

no they dont, most dogs just want to play with other dogs they meet, they are more aggressive if they are on leads, restrained, as they cant use their body language properly. pit bulls are ok with ppl (mostly) but not with dogs, yes SOME are, but the majority are not ok with other dogs.

every dog is capable of attack, the thing with pit bulls is they dont let go. yes there are other dogs that dont as well (staffy etc) but the size of pitbulls is what makes them more dangerous.

M29

2 Apr 2002, 20:48

Originally posted by evade28

no they dont, most dogs just want to play with other dogs they meet, they are more aggressive if they are on leads, restrained, as they cant use their body language properly. pit bulls are ok with ppl (mostly) but not with dogs, yes SOME are, but the majority are not ok with other dogs.

every dog is capable of attack, the thing with pit bulls is they dont let go. yes there are other dogs that dont as well (staffy etc) but the size of pitbulls is what makes them more dangerous.

Evade, as I said to that stupid comment made by vanders, most dogs just sniff each others ar$e and run around.

Frodo

3 Apr 2002, 00:49

There's a huge choice of dogs around so why bother with a pit bull that is a problem breed. I'm not suggesting putting them down, it would be too sad for the owners, but I would support making breeding of pit bulls illegal.

mantis

4 Apr 2002, 02:21

Originally posted by Frodo
Mantis is probably quite correct in that it is hard to police but none the less the government is making an effort to do something about the situation.

Yes a bad owner can make a dog vicious, I doubt anyone would argue about that, but with a pit bull there is a genetic problem that 'may' cause a dog to attack without provocation no matter how good an owner they have. I accept that the vast majority of pit bulls will be no problem at all but whilst the breed is allowed unmuzzled in public there are going to be continual reports of children scarred for life. And that is a situation I find intolerable to society.

I am going to have to wash my mouth out after this, but Frodo's post is pretty much spot on, except for the genetic problem, pitbulls were made vicious by people who trained them to fight, if a pitbull is born & raised in a normal environment like any other breed they are fantastic, gentle, loving, obedient pets.

I don't have a problem with them having to wear muzzles in public if it makes people feel safer, but all dogs should be on a lead when out in public & all dogs should be confined to the property, not be able to wander the streets & the most important thing is children should never be left unsupervised around any dog.

Just an aside, in the paper yesterday they reported that 2 people got bitten by Siberian Huskies, one had their arm bitten & one had part of their ear bitten off, these dogs aren't known to be vicious, but the dogs got into a fight & the people got hurt trying to seperate them, now my question is, what would the headlines have been if it was 2 Pitbulls instead of Huskies involved?

"TWO PEOPLE SAVAGED BY VICIOUS PITBULLS"

The headline about the attack, was no where near as sensationalist as it would have been if Pitbulls were involved, wonder why Pitbulls have a bad name, bad media perhaps.:mad:

M29

4 Apr 2002, 18:52

Originally posted by mantis

Just an aside, in the paper yesterday they reported that 2 people got bitten by Siberian Huskies, one had their arm bitten & one had part of their ear bitten off, these dogs aren't known to be vicious, but the dogs got into a fight & the people got hurt trying to seperate them, now my question is, what would the headlines have been if it was 2 Pitbulls instead of Huskies involved?

"TWO PEOPLE SAVAGED BY VICIOUS PITBULLS"

The headline about the attack, was no where near as sensationalist as it would have been if Pitbulls were involved, wonder why Pitbulls have a bad name, bad media perhaps.:mad:

Because huskies are cute goodlooking dogs. The same 'law' if you like applies to humans. Good looking people can get away with everything, but ugly bastards cant.

Satay Mat

4 Apr 2002, 19:45

here is how I see it.

It is true that if a Bassett Hound has a bad owner then it can be dangerous. So owners are a big part of the problem.

However......

Let's assume that bad owners are randomly distributed amongst breeds.....how many kids die from being mauled by rampaging Bassett Hounds ? Do you think that there are really heaps but when it hits an editors desk he says "oh....we won't run that....it's not a pit bull".

So, all breeds have bad owners and yet there appears to be a hugely disproportionate amount of attacks by pit bulls and other fighting breeds compared with Bassett Hounds. This suggests to me that these breeds are inherintly more dangerous than others....a good reason for restricting them.

To use an analogy....a responsible gun owner will not kill people regardless of whether he has a 303 or an AK47. But most people in society agree with restrictions on AK47's as when one falls into the hands of a non-responsible owner they are likely to do far more damage than a 303....so we ban AK47's.

I think the same applies to dangerous breeds. If one falls into the hands of an irresponsible owner then it is more likely to do damage than a poodle...so ban pit bulls and keep poodles.

Satay Mat

RoosLuver

10 Apr 2002, 11:38

My next door neighbour has one, and its fine when any of my family go near it, I believe the laws should come into affect if they are "feral"

oh_my_hat

22 Apr 2002, 10:20

oh_my_hat

22 Apr 2002, 10:21

Originally posted by RoosLuver
My next door neighbour has one, and its fine when any of my family go near it, I believe the laws should come into affect if they are "feral" When are they defined as "feral"? After their first attack on an innocent child/defenseless breed of dog?

mantis

22 May 2002, 01:28

Did you people here about the tragic death of a man in QLD, who was killed by his sons dogs, not one of them was a Pitbull, in fact one was part Irish Terrier which haven't got a reputation for being vicious at all.

Then they showed the son, guess what, you could tell straight away that the dogs were vicious because of the owner, so once again I say any dog can be vicious with the wrong owner, or gentle as with the right owner.

Blue'n'Gold

12 Jun 2002, 11:23

Originally posted by mantis
Did you people here about the tragic death of a man in QLD, who was killed by his sons dogs, not one of them was a Pitbull, in fact one was part Irish Terrier which haven't got a reputation for being vicious at all.

Then they showed the son, guess what, you could tell straight away that the dogs were vicious because of the owner, so once again I say any dog can be vicious with the wrong owner, or gentle as with the right owner.

I totally agree.. the largest problem we are faced as a society with vicious dogs is the animals owners... My children have been unfortunate enough to have been attacked twice now at shopping centres by dogs.. both tied to a leash thankfully but neither a pit bull. (my children did not approach either animal, just attempted to walk past)

However my point is this... Why do people who own dogs with that sort of temperament leave their animals in a public place unattended???? totally irresponsible if you ask me

gPhonque

12 Jun 2002, 17:22

Originally posted by Satay Mat
here is how I see it.

It is true that if a Bassett Hound has a bad owner then it can be dangerous. So owners are a big part of the problem.

However......

Let's assume that bad owners are randomly distributed amongst breeds.....how many kids die from being mauled by rampaging Bassett Hounds ? Do you think that there are really heaps but when it hits an editors desk he says "oh....we won't run that....it's not a pit bull".

So, all breeds have bad owners and yet there appears to be a hugely disproportionate amount of attacks by pit bulls and other fighting breeds compared with Bassett Hounds. This suggests to me that these breeds are inherintly more dangerous than others....a good reason for restricting them.

To use an analogy....a responsible gun owner will not kill people regardless of whether he has a 303 or an AK47. But most people in society agree with restrictions on AK47's as when one falls into the hands of a non-responsible owner they are likely to do far more damage than a 303....so we ban AK47's.

I think the same applies to dangerous breeds. If one falls into the hands of an irresponsible owner then it is more likely to do damage than a poodle...so ban pit bulls and keep poodles.

Satay Mat

What a pointless post that is.

You're basically saying that Pit Bulls are dangerous when compared to, of all breeds, Basset Hounds.

I mean, really? Are they?

Now let's compare German Shephards with Basset Hounds.

Or are German Shephards politically correct?

Rather than punishing the responsible dog owners of this country, how about we try punishing the irresponsible owners? Now there's a thought!

Take away the right of an irresponsible dog owner to own a Pit Bull and he/she'll just go and get a Rottweiler....or a German Shephard......or any other "dangerous" breed of dog that will protect their drug stash or whatever it is they're trying to protect.

Christ.....a car is more dangerous in the wrong hands than a Pit Bull is. Let's ban cars as well, or doesn't than suit you?

By the way, i don't own a Pit Bull.

I think the same applies to dangerous breeds. If one falls into the hands of an irresponsible owner then it is more likely to do damage than a poodle...so ban pit bulls and keep poodles.

I think the same applies to cars. If one falls into the hands of an irresponsible owner, then it is more likely to do damage than a bicycle.....so ban cars and keep bicycles. :rolleyes:

OR......tighten the laws that enable people to drive cars/own dogs/etc. Simple.

Frodo

12 Jun 2002, 21:59

I think this debate is getting off the track.
You can't introduce a car into the debate as being similar to the dog. A car is completeley controlled by the driver, it doesn't have the ability to suddenly go off on it's own and hurt someone.
Sure a car needs a rersponsible driver and for sure dogs need responsible owners and a lot of hurt is caused by irresponsible drivers and irresponsible dog owners.
But the question that this thread asks is whether or not there is a gene in the pit bull that may remain dormant in the majority of cases but can randomly cause the dog to attack without reason.

mantis

14 Jun 2002, 02:03

Originally posted by Frodo
But the question that this thread asks is whether or not there is a gene in the pit bull that may remain dormant in the majority of cases but can randomly cause the dog to attack without reason.

OK once again I will say that there is no gene in a pitbull any different than any other breed of dog, which will cause it to suddenly attack without reason.

Most people would have seen on the news tonight a 9 year old girl visciously mauled by a dog, it was a Bull Mastiff/Staffordshire Terrier, Mastiffs are a gentle non agressive dog.

OK why did this dog attack, evidentley it was chained up in the yard but got free & jumped a low fence.

Firstly, if you chain a dog up it can get aggressive, who wouldn't get aggro being chained up in a yard, secondly. because it was chained the owners only had low fences.

Once again, irresponsible owners have caused a child horrific injuries & trauma & the death of a dog.

It is about time we stopped spreading breed specific fear, because any dog is capable of causing injury, but instead start doing something about owners & making sure that people who own dogs, are made more aware of their responsibilites as a dog owner, to do everything they can to keep their pet happy, without endangering the general public.

I think maybe any owner of a dog who attacks someone outside their property, should get a huge fine, not the usual $1,000, more $10,000, if there is a second offence then jail them, that way you are punishing the bad owner & not the dog, who is also a victim.

BTige

14 Jun 2002, 05:24

There are no doubt still some around, but the Pitbull breed is banned in the UK.

S.J Rollin

14 Jun 2002, 15:10

People sometimes mistake my dog for a large American Pit Bull due to his brindle colour, his muscular frame and because he has a head like a house brick.

He was bred for hunting pigs and did so for a couple of years but is now in early retirement in suburban Perth... He is an assortment of breeds (including staffy/mastiff/ridgeback) and diplays the physical traits of them all but "Queensland Pig Dog" is what I call him when asked by inquiring folk who are intrigued at such a handsome and athletic beast.

He has no genie... he is a diciplined, very well excercised and dearly loved dog. His placid temperment is evident immediatley and I have lost count at the number of strangers who have either commented about his build v nature or come and patted him and let their young children do the same.

he sometimes scares little dogs with his enthusiam to play... but then cowers into an apologetic stance on his quarters if they yelp in fear. During the bum sniff he always displays dominant body language with a curled upright (scorpion like) tail but he is as soft as butter. He has never stuck it bolt upright in an aggresive nature at another animal.

Would he attack anything?... yeah cats and he loves to chase seagulls! it is just his hunting aspect coming out and he is awesome to watch when he is on the lead and he picks up the scent of a neighbourhood cat from several houses back. But give him the word...and he will get back to the bussines of ****ing on every second tree or shrub.

I bet, given an irresponsible owner and poor upbringing... he could quite easily have been a nasty piece of work.

Dont know if this has much to do with your discussion ...just my bit but i definitely agree that it is the owner that dictates the nature of the animal.

gPhonque

15 Jun 2002, 21:36

Originally posted by S.J Rollin
People sometimes mistake my dog for a large American Pit Bull due to his brindle colour, his muscular frame and because he has a head like a house brick.

He was bred for hunting pigs and did so for a couple of years but is now in early retirement in suburban Perth... He is an assortment of breeds (including staffy/mastiff/ridgeback) and diplays the physical traits of them all but "Queensland Pig Dog" is what I call him when asked by inquiring folk who are intrigued at such a handsome and athletic beast.

He has no genie... he is a diciplined, very well excercised and dearly loved dog. His placid temperment is evident immediatley and I have lost count at the number of strangers who have either commented about his build v nature or come and patted him and let their young children do the same.

he sometimes scares little dogs with his enthusiam to play... but then cowers into an apologetic stance on his quarters if they yelp in fear. During the bum sniff he always displays dominant body language with a curled upright (scorpion like) tail but he is as soft as butter. He has never stuck it bolt upright in an aggresive nature at another animal.

Would he attack anything?... yeah cats and he loves to chase seagulls! it is just his hunting aspect coming out and he is awesome to watch when he is on the lead and he picks up the scent of a neighbourhood cat from several houses back. But give him the word...and he will get back to the bussines of ****ing on every second tree or shrub.

I bet, given an irresponsible owner and poor upbringing... he could quite easily have been a nasty piece of work.

Dont know if this has much to do with your discussion ...just my bit but i definitely agree that it is the owner that dictates the nature of the animal.

It has absolutely everything to do with it. Everything you said was 100% bang on the money, although you, mantis and I already know that.

Most (all?) of these people who are calling for the outright banning of these dogs are simply narrowminded whingers. It doesn't really bother them if Pit Bulls are outlawed or not. They see a media "report" (translation: brainwash) and decide that these dogs are evil. The majority of them come to this conclusion despite having never had first hand experience with a Pit Bull in their life.

dreamkillers

16 Jun 2002, 00:59

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2002/nq020608.gif

mantis

19 Jun 2002, 00:44

Originally posted by dreamkillers
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2002/nq020608.gif

Sorry I am confused, the cartoon means what?:confused:

dreamkillers

19 Jun 2002, 01:07

Originally posted by mantis

Sorry I am confused, the cartoon means what?:confused:

It's meant as a joke to those that blame the dogs and not the owners...........

but I'm sure a few of the pro gun lobby in the US would see it in reverse as the cartoon suggests.........

Frodo

21 Jun 2002, 01:19

Originally posted by dreamkillers

It's meant as a joke to those that blame the dogs and not the owners...........

but I'm sure a few of the pro gun lobby in the US would see it in reverse as the cartoon suggests.........

Many more than just the gun lobby I suspect.

I guess the question is "should we allow guns to be sold whilst the odd one may accidentally go off and kill someone due to a manufacturing defect?"
There are thoise that would say ban them and those that would say that they don't have any defect. Whose to say who is right?

gPhonque

21 Jun 2002, 10:44

Originally posted by Frodo

Many more than just the gun lobby I suspect.

I guess the question is "should we allow guns to be sold whilst the odd one may accidentally go off and kill someone due to a manufacturing defect?"
There are thoise that would say ban them and those that would say that they don't have any defect. Whose to say who is right?

The same applies to humans.

Shall we ban reproduction because of a few bad parents?

Frodo

21 Jun 2002, 11:13

Originally posted by gPhonque

The same applies to humans.

Shall we ban reproduction because of a few bad parents?

That poses a very interesting question.

If it was found that a certain race had a genetic defect which could at any time turn them into killers then would society try to exterminate that race? I doubt it.

But genetic engineering is fast becoming a reality and soon those genes that make many people angry too often will be able to be removed along with heeditory health problems.

gPhonque

21 Jun 2002, 11:39

Originally posted by Frodo

That poses a very interesting question.

If it was found that a certain race had a genetic defect which could at any time turn them into killers then would society try to exterminate that race? I doubt it.

But genetic engineering is fast becoming a reality and soon those genes that make many people angry too often will be able to be removed along with heeditory health problems.

Have you seen Gattaca?

dreamkillers

21 Jun 2002, 16:09

Originally posted by Frodo

Many more than just the gun lobby I suspect.

I guess the question is "should we allow guns to be sold whilst the odd one may accidentally go off and kill someone due to a manufacturing defect?"
There are thoise that would say ban them and those that would say that they don't have any defect. Whose to say who is right?

I hope those that say ban them don't use cars or computers.......for a start.........;)

unfortunately today some people prefer not to be responsible for their actions.........just look at the public service in general.......:D

mantis

22 Jun 2002, 02:31

I agree dreamkiller, someone commits a crime & their defence is, I was drunk or on drugs, big deal, no one forced you to get drunk or high.

Guns, dogs, cars, alcohol, swimming pools are all involved in many deaths & injuries each year, should we ban them all, or should we make people who are in control of these potential killers punished severely if they cause the death or injury of someone through their irresponsibility.

Vindaloo Mat

24 Jun 2002, 03:51

of course both extreme positions are nonsense....

Banning all dogs is nonsense....

Banning no dogs is also nonsense.....

again, most people agree that in a normal situaiton owning an AK47 is not acceptable....you may be pefctly responsible but if you are not then you can wipe out a whole shopping centre.

I still think it is the same with Pit Bulls. I agree that in almost all cases of Pit Bull attack it is the result of a bad owner....not necessarily the dog itself.....however when you do get a bad owner Pit Bulls seem to be more likely to attack and cause serious damage than most other breeds.

So, do we ban AK47's ?? Yes and most people see the logic.

The question then is should we ban Pit Bulls, generally I think we should....in the hands of a bad owner they cause damage and kill people....other breeds could as well....but from what I have seen typically other breeds do not to the same extent.

Vindaloo Mat

dreamkillers

26 Jun 2002, 23:23

Originally posted by mantis
I agree dreamkiller, someone commits a crime & their defence is, I was drunk or on drugs, big deal, no one forced you to get drunk or high.

Guns, dogs, cars, alcohol, swimming pools are all involved in many deaths & injuries each year, should we ban them all, or should we make people who are in control of these potential killers punished severely if they cause the death or injury of someone through their irresponsibility.

It would be nice if we had punishments that fit the crime.........I'd love to see them bring back corporal punishment (not capital). If some of the idiots that get away with things these days were locked in stocks and given a nice flogging (I won't suggest Rowan Atkinson's Fatal Beatings....:D).

Another thing I would love to see is people gagged & locked in stocks and put on display in city malls etc so they can be humiliated and have people give them the abuse they deserve. Instead of the pebbles and stones used from Life Of Brian give us tomatoes to throw at them..........

Some people say you can't do these things......but I don't see a problem with it...........I don't see too many people committing second offences after being publicly humiliated for their irresponsible actions...........

and just imagine the crowds that would rock up to ensure they got their punishment........much better than the slap on the wrists most get these days and being let off for a lame excuse from the past.........

dreamkillers

26 Jun 2002, 23:28

Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
of course both extreme positions are nonsense....

Banning all dogs is nonsense....

Banning no dogs is also nonsense.....

again, most people agree that in a normal situaiton owning an AK47 is not acceptable....you may be pefctly responsible but if you are not then you can wipe out a whole shopping centre.

I still think it is the same with Pit Bulls. I agree that in almost all cases of Pit Bull attack it is the result of a bad owner....not necessarily the dog itself.....however when you do get a bad owner Pit Bulls seem to be more likely to attack and cause serious damage than most other breeds.

So, do we ban AK47's ?? Yes and most people see the logic.

The question then is should we ban Pit Bulls, generally I think we should....in the hands of a bad owner they cause damage and kill people....other breeds could as well....but from what I have seen typically other breeds do not to the same extent.

Vindaloo Mat

I can see your point but don't agree with it.........yes we do have bans on fully automatic weapons yet you can still legally buy many semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic............

what we need are punishments that match the crime........if your dog assaults some one you should be charged with the same crime as if you personally assaulted the person - as a dog owner you have the responsibility of controlling it's action..........

too many people get away with these brual assaults........

Vindaloo Mat

27 Jun 2002, 00:21

yes...that I agree with

and I would still ban Pit Bulls !!!! ;)

66MunsterT

6 Jul 2002, 13:26

To hell with the dog, beware of the owner.
Especially Mantis.:) :)

Cheers,

66:D

mantis

10 Jul 2002, 02:03

Originally posted by 66MunsterT
To hell with the dog, beware of the owner.
Especially Mantis.:) :)

Cheers,

66:D

You're not wrong there, I know people who would rather take on Kenny than me.:eek:

Don't know why. :D

funkyfreo

3 May 2005, 18:42

Sorry to drag really old thread up - could not find a more current one on killer dogs:

NSW to put bite on pit bulls
Premier Bob Carr has announced a ban on pit bulls and other similar dogs in New South Wales.

Under a plan announced in Parliament it will be an offence to breed, sell, give away or acquire pit bulls, American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Argentinian fighting dogs and Brazilian fighting dogs.

All current owners of the dogs will have to have them de-sexed once the new laws are passed.

Mr Carr says while the new laws are strong, the Government needed to go further.

"A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash and too often someone ends up in emergency after an encounter with one of these dogs," he said.

Blues_Man

3 May 2005, 19:38

DaveW

3 May 2005, 20:08

Bravo Bob Carr.

skipper kelly

3 May 2005, 20:43

best news Ive heard for a while.

mantis

3 May 2005, 20:48

This slide show is what APBT are really like when they have responsible owners, which fortunately the majority do.
http://www.dapbt.org/American_Pit_Bull_Terriers/flash_detected.html

Edit: Have the sound on, might be a crappy song but it brings it all together. ;)

Fullarton Power

3 May 2005, 22:26

mantis

3 May 2005, 23:11

Here is another flash, this one actually tells the story better plus has better music, but be warned, the first few images are very graphic & disturbing.

http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/

- PC -

3 May 2005, 23:46

Here is another flash, this one actually tells the story better plus has better music, but be warned, the first few images are very graphic & disturbing.

http://www.pitbullproblem.tk/

Mantis ..do you have the sound bite from Howard Sattlers radio show..he had a Sandy from B..... , she went right off..and good on her too ;)

2 things will now happen

Breeders will now breed .. American Mastiff Bull Terriers..change the name and not the dog

When the next dog atack happens and it is a German Shepherd will the government get rid of them???

Also ..why not punish the owners and not the dogs? Then maybe people will take extra care in training their dogs

mantis

3 May 2005, 23:50

Mantis ..do you have the sound bite from Howard Sattlers radio show..he had a Sandy from B..... , she went right off..and good on her too ;)

Damn, I missed that, did she come across Ok. ;)

- PC -

3 May 2005, 23:58

Damn, I missed that, did she come across Ok. ;)A little upset but very clear in her purpose.As I said she focused on ownership responsibilities. I have to agree with her. As posted above I think if the owners feel some heat as well in either fines or jail, then maybe you will see different choices in pet selection, and there will be a natural decline in ownership, or they will make more effort in home security.

Black Thunder

4 May 2005, 00:06

mantis

4 May 2005, 00:24

The problem with pit bulls is they are so deadly when they attack. I don't know the full statistics or anything, but it seems that when a pit bull attacks, it's with alarming brilliance (so-to-speak) and usually kills/maims they're target.

I think Satay Mat's analogy a couple of pages back was the best one.

And lastly, i don't know why anyone on earth would want to own one. They are possibly the ugliest breed of dog in Australia.

The bolded bit says it all. :rolleyes:

The reason why people love owning them, is because they are devoted, gentle, affectionate & intelligent dogs & beauty is in the eye of the beholder, have to love the "Pitty smile". :D

EDIT: BT, did you even bother to look at the links I posted, or do you only want to listen to the media sensationalism bullshyte side?

SaintsSupporter

4 May 2005, 02:12

I feel sorry for them because MOST of them are perfectly fine dogs, and are good pets - just a select few, and I mean select - get angry and do something stupid, and they get banned.

What's next? A man of Arabic appearance bites someone, will Bob Carr ban everyone of Arabic appearance?

demon_dave

4 May 2005, 04:19

What a crock of sh.it. If you let any dog loose near another dog that they arent familiar with, then they'll attack, if you stop on any dogs property, then they'll go nuts.

It's part of a dogs mentality, not just a pit bull. Sheesh.

now thats a crock, I've got a rhodesian ridgeback and he's the most docile dog I've ever had, doesn't attack other dogs, never has. Its not part of their mentallity, maybe their owners mentallity is to question

medusala

4 May 2005, 06:16

OK once again I will say that there is no gene in a pitbull any different than any other breed of dog, which will cause it to suddenly attack without reason.
.

Pit bulls are vicious not just because of their training but because of their BREEDING. They have been specifically bred to fight just as many other dogs such as rottweilers, shepherds, retrievers, hounds, sheepdogs etc were created for a specific purpose. They arent a random product of nature.

Would any sane person own a pit bull? Not likely. Those who do tend to be average individuals. What a great combination: thugs owning thug dogs.

otaku

4 May 2005, 09:27

The bolded bit says it all. :rolleyes:

And it is funny that when i provided the statistics that showed how pit bulls were, by far, the breed of dog most likely to cause serious injury or fatality, you poo-pooed it :rolleyes:

The reason why people love owning them, is because they are devoted, gentle, affectionate & intelligent dogs & beauty is in the eye of the beholder, have to love the "Pitty smile". :D

EDIT: BT, did you even bother to look at the links I posted, or do you only want to listen to the media sensationalism bullshyte side?

Did you ever look at the articles i have posted for you? Or did you simply listen to the biased "dog lover" sites you visit?

Angry Dragon

4 May 2005, 09:43

Would any sane person own a pit bull? Not likely.

Well said.

Qsaint

4 May 2005, 09:53

Pit bulls are vicious not just because of their training but because of their BREEDING. They have been specifically bred to fight just as many other dogs such as rottweilers, shepherds, retrievers, hounds, sheepdogs etc were created for a specific purpose. They arent a random product of nature.

.

Correct I have a husky, and because they have been bread to pull, they have one really bad tendency they run away and never come back, they just keep going. Nearly every individual dog I know of is the same, no amount of training can get rid of this. It is the same for the pitbulls, you can not train their attacking nature out of them

Blues_Man

4 May 2005, 10:24

A little upset but very clear in her purpose.As I said she focused on ownership responsibilities. I have to agree with her. As posted above I think if the owners feel some heat as well in either fines or jail, then maybe you will see different choices in pet selection, and there will be a natural decline in ownership, or they will make more effort in home security.
I disagree entirely ..there are people out there who would delight in owning a dangerous and vicious breed of dog . and any threat of fines or jail time would just add to the attraction of owning such a dog
there are strict gun laws regarding who can and cannot own a gun . how many of these no hopers do you think own illegal guns ?
I'm guessing a lot , and the threat of fines and jail time has not hindered them in any shape or form .
the only way is to eliminate this breed of dog from society completely

Kingpin

4 May 2005, 11:44

About time some action was taken.

- PC -

4 May 2005, 11:51

I disagree entirely ..there are people out there who would delight in owning a dangerous and vicious breed of dog . and any threat of fines or jail time would just add to the attraction of owning such a dog Absolutely correct.
there are strict gun laws regarding who can and cannot own a gun . how many of these no hopers do you think own illegal guns ?How many guns bark at night?

Blues_Man

4 May 2005, 12:00

Absolutely correct.
How many guns bark at night?
mine does ;)

PAFC2004

4 May 2005, 12:06

funkyfreo

4 May 2005, 12:12

What a stupid suggestion. These dogs have the right to live just like any other. Provided they are locked up and muzzled, there shouldn't be an issue. There are a lot of other breeds that behave in similar ways.

Yeah but the dogs do have a right to live - no one is going to go around killing them all. It is just denying breeding rights, making de-sexing compulsory, so the breed ceases to exist. Still plenty of other dogs to choose from, and no actual living dogs get killed or mistreated. Perfectly sensible.

otaku

4 May 2005, 12:12

What a stupid suggestion. These dogs have the right to live just like any other. Provided they are locked up and muzzled, there shouldn't be an issue. There are a lot of other breeds that behave in similar ways.

pit bulls are the breed most likely to seriously injure or fatally injure a person out of all dog breeds.

Go do some research, and you will find this is the case.

PAFC2004

4 May 2005, 12:16

pit bulls are the breed most likely to seriously injure or fatally injure a person out of all dog breeds.

Go do some research, and you will find this is the case.

Research? I have a fair idea what I am talking about... I would never get a pit bull, but that's just me. Pit bulls are amazingly affectionate and loyal towards their owners. While they might pose a threat to other animals and children, so do many other breeds. Staffordshire terriers pose a threat to other animals, but are one of the friendliest breeds towards humans.

As long as pit bulls are kept responsibly, there should be no issue.

otaku

4 May 2005, 12:21

Research?

yes, research - something you are obviously not familiar with. Go look up which breed is listed as having the most fatalities and serious injuries of humans recorded against it.

I have a fair idea what I am talking about...

doesnt seem that way.

I would never get a pit bull, but that's just me. Pit bulls are amazingly affectionate and loyal towards their owners. While they might pose a threat to other animals and children, so do many other breeds. Staffordshire terriers pose a threat to other animals, but are one of the friendliest breeds towards humans.

The bolded area says it all. All dogs pose a threat, i admit. But pit bulls pose the biggest and most serious threat. On that reasoning alone, there should (and is now) be legislation preventing people owning these dogs.

As long as pit bulls are kept responsibly, there should be no issue.

As long as guns are kept resonsibly, there should be no issue, But there is. 99% of gun owners are responsible. You dont see guns being freely available. You dont see guns walking the streets untended. If you live in a society that believes in gun control, you will have to accept that it will also believe in control of dangerous breeds of dogs.

PAFC2004

4 May 2005, 12:29

Do you have any research to prove your arguements? I do know what I am talking about.
The only purpose guns serve are to kill people. Pit bulls are not kept to kill people, they are kept as pets.

If research does prove pit bulls cause more deaths than other breeds, what does that matter? By your logic, any breed that has caused a death should be outlawed... Why does the 2nd most dangerous breed get to live etc?

otaku

4 May 2005, 13:24

Do you have any research to prove your arguements? I do know what I am talking about.

Go to the CDC website, and check out the stats on deaths caused by dogs. You will find that, yes, I do have research yto prove my point.

The only purpose guns serve are to kill people. Pit bulls are not kept to kill people, they are kept as pets.

Guns serve many purposes, one of which is to kill. Dogs serve many purposes, one of which is to kill.

If research does prove pit bulls cause more deaths than other breeds, what does that matter? By your logic, any breed that has caused a death should be outlawed... Why does the 2nd most dangerous breed get to live etc?

What does that matter? You are joking right? I am not saying to kill tese animals. I am saying you shouldnt be allowed to breed, sell or own these animals.

Any breed that routinely comes under scrutiny for killing people should be investigated.

PAFC2004

4 May 2005, 13:28

Go to the CDC website, and check out the stats on deaths caused by dogs. You will find that, yes, I do have research yto prove my point.

Guns serve many purposes, one of which is to kill. Dogs serve many purposes, one of which is to kill.

What does that matter? You are joking right? I am not saying to kill tese animals. I am saying you shouldnt be allowed to breed, sell or own these animals.

Any breed that routinely comes under scrutiny for killing people should be investigated.

The main purpose for a gun is to kill people. These dogs are NOT kept to kill people. Many pit bulls are still bred to be extremely agressive, but are not kept in order to kill things. The agression should be bred out through selective breedings, and training dogs to be agressive should be outlawed, not the breed.

otaku

4 May 2005, 13:57

The main purpose for a gun is to kill people. These dogs are NOT kept to kill people. Many pit bulls are still bred to be extremely agressive, but are not kept in order to kill things. The agression should be bred out through selective breedings, and training dogs to be agressive should be outlawed, not the breed.

The main purpose of guns (ie the reason they were developed) was to kill. The usage of my guns are to shoot holes in paper. No other reason. The main purpose of pit bulls (ie the reason they were developed) is to fight and kill.

They are exactly the same.

And why should we (society) put up with constant attacks by pitbulls whilst they are being bred to be docile?? They are a problem now, not 100 years down the track.

Chelt_Eagle

4 May 2005, 14:07

destroy the c**ts of things. They are filth, bad genetics and bad traits cant be erased

Fullarton Power

4 May 2005, 15:21

The main purpose for a gun is to kill people. These dogs are NOT kept to kill people. Many pit bulls are still bred to be extremely agressive, but are not kept in order to kill things. The agression should be bred out through selective breedings, and training dogs to be agressive should be outlawed, not the breed.Exactly right. The acts of the owners should be punished, not the dogs.
The problem of aggressive dogs, whether they be Pitbulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, or Bichon Frise, would be eliminated by a system of licensing for dog owners. This would ideally entail full psychoanalysis and personality testing to identify aggressive and or intimidatory traits in a prospective owner. Anyone displaying such tendencies should be therefore barred from owning certain breeds.
Aggressive owners = aggressive dogs. Simple.
But don't expect this mamby pamby society to ever face up to that, and act on it.

skipper kelly

4 May 2005, 15:39

Exactly right. The acts of the owners should be punished, not the dogs.
The problem of aggressive dogs, whether they be Pitbulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Akitas, or Bichon Frise, would be eliminated by a system of licensing for dog owners. This would ideally entail full psychoanalysis and personality testing to identify aggressive and or intimidatory traits in a prospective owner. Anyone displaying such tendencies should be therefore barred from owning certain breeds.
Aggressive owners = aggressive dogs. Simple.
But don't expect this mamby pamby society to ever face up to that, and act on it.

this is the funniest thing I have ever read. thanks :D :D :D

Blues_Man

4 May 2005, 17:20

Qsaint

4 May 2005, 17:48