Every year dozens of innocent infants and children are killed by pit bulls and people seriously injured through unprovoked attacked. These are vicious animals that were intentionally bred through artificial selective breeding programs to "kill" in a "pit." Hence the name "pit bull." There is no civilized reason why they should have ever been selectively bred in the first place, they are nothing but vicious "killing machines," and they should be constitutionally banned at the federal level. Numerous cities and counties have already inacted laws prohibited them, but almost always "after" a child gets killed by one.

What we need is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL); in simple terms, a statute or regulation that is directed toward this specific "dangerous" breed. Pit bull dogs have already been brought to the public's attention as a threat, and such legislation is strongly supported by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Stringent laws governing, preventing and/or restraining pit bulls have been passed in many states. For example, Florida's City Commission passed an ordinance that requires persons who own pit bull dogs to sign registration forms and prove the possession of $25,000 of public liability insurance. Towns in Missouri, New Mexico and Cincinnatti have completely banned pit bulls and allowed county officers to confiscate and euthanize the dogs. Cincinnati's regulation defines "vicious dogs to include all pit bull terriers" and puts special restrictions on their confinement, sale, and control.

Proponents of these laws cite a number of reasons for supporting breed-specific regulations. For example, Peg Jordan, an Oakland, California resident, was recently mauled by a pit bull and spent several days in the hospital with more surgery to come. Although she owns two German Shepherds, she argues that dog owners rationalize their dogs' conduct, and that she is fed up with dog owners who intend their dogs to be "fuzzy guns." In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Broward County Legislative Committee is now considering a bill that would ban specific breeds of dogs from public areas. The Fort Lauderdale community has become hotly concerned about the "intimidating pit bulls" on the beachfront which are "scaring 'family' tourists" away. They are also fedup will this menacing threat. Broward County has been the site of 115 pit bull dog bites.

We need to inact legislation now at the constitutional federal level to alleviate this deadly problem in the United States. People and parent's of children should not have to be worried or concerned about this clear and obvious, yet blatantly irresponsible threat, when they innocently and casually go for a walk down the street or take a stroll on a public beach somewhere.

Overview of Current Municipal Animal Control Ordinances:
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusodmunicipalordinances.htm
http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com/laws.html

Every year dozens of innocent infants and children are killed by pit bulls and people seriously injured through unprovoked attacked. These are vicious animals that were intentionally bred through artificial selective breeding programs to "kill" in a "pit." Hence the name "Pit Bull." There is no civilized reason why they should have ever been selectively bred in the first place, they are nothing but a vicious "killing machine," and they should be constitutionally banned at the federal level. Numerous cities and counties have already inacted laws prohibited them, but almost always AFTER a child gets killed by one.

What we need is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL), in simple terms, a statute or regulation that is directed toward this specific vicious "dangerous" breed. Pit bull dogs have already been brought to the public's attention as a perceived threat, and such legislation is strongly supported by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Stringent laws governing, preventing and/or restraining pit bulls have been passed in many states. For example, Florida's City Commission passed an ordinance that requires persons who own pit bull dogs to "complete special registration forms and prove the possession of $25,000 of public liability insurance." Towns in Missouri, New Mexico and Cincinnatti have completely banned pit bulls and allowed county officers to confiscate and euthanize the dogs. Cincinnati's regulation defines "vicious dogs to include all pit bull terriers" and puts special restrictions on their confinement, sale, and control.

Proponents of these laws cite a number of reasons for supporting breed-specific regulations. For example, Peg Jordan, an Oakland, California resident, was mauled by a pit bull recently and spent several days in the hospital and will need more surgery in the future. Although she owns two German Shepherds, she argues that dog owners rationalize their dogs' conduct, and that she is fed up with dog owners who intend their dogs to be "fuzzy guns." In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Broward County Legislative Committee is now considering a bill that would ban specific breeds of dogs from public areas. The Fort Lauderdale community has become hotly concerned about the "intimidating pit bulls" on the beachfront which are "scaring 'family' tourists" away. They are fedup will this menacing threat. Broward County has been the site of 115 pit bull dog bites.

I argue that we need to inact legislation now at the constitutional federal level to alleviate this deadly problem in the United States, so that we are all more safe to go wherever we please in public, without this clear and obvious irresponsible threat.

Overview of Current Municipal Animal Control Ordinances: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusodmunicipalordinances.htm
http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com/laws.html


Sir, Fuck you. First you want to ban guns, now dogs? Sorry but I think thats complete bullshit.

If you don't want to deal with the pitbull, don't break into someones house or jump over someones fence. As long as the animal is behind a fence, inside a house, or on a leesh, what right do you have to ban it?

You want to ban it because it's vicious? It's SUPPOSED to be vicious, it's a self defense attack dog. If you leave an infant around a pitbull, a doberman or any sorta dog then you are an idiot. It's stupid to leave an infant around a cat too.

I highly, disagree with your reasoning, I think it's flawed, I think your idea to ban pitbulls is a slippy slope to banning self defense completely. Yeah first it will be pitbulls, then dobermens, then all dogs that can be used for self defense.

What do people like you have against self defense? Why do you want to make people defenseless?

Even if you banned pitbulls, most people would gladly pay the fine to keep their dog. It's even more emotional than taking away guns because people love their dogs.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never posted anything about banning guns. Yes, "as long as the animal is behind a fence or inside a house" there is no problem.

Sir, this is not what the post is saying. This is a serious public safety issue involving random unprovoked and unsuspecting attacks by a sharp set of jaws that will rip your guts, neck and throat out in an instant - nothing at all like a cat's claws and nothing to do with the admirable skills involved in learning martial arts.

I think if we want to promote the banning of self defense, we should start by banning all cats that arent declawed, this way cats cannot scratch anyone anymore.

It would be just as irrational as banning pitbulls in my opinion.

Are we going to outlaw martial arts classes too so kids can't learn to fight when they get bullied?


I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never posted anything about banning guns. Yes, "as long as the animal is behind a fence or inside a house" there is no problem.

Sir, this is not what the post is saying.


Still I disagree with it. I don't think breeds of dog should be banned. If it's on a leesh and properly trained, it should not be banned, and I've been chased by a dog before. I know what it's like to face a dog. Still, I know there seems to be people who just, don't like any form of self defense at all, I don't know why people figure it would be good to ban an entire breed of animal, thats just, ridiculously extreme.

Actually, you are utterly and -completely- wrong on every single level of this argument.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Consider this video, even if it is a bit sappy: http://media.putfile.com/The-TRUTH-About-Pit-Bulls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Specifically: The American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) breed statistics as of December 2005 show an 83.5% passing rate for the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier and a 84.7% passing rate for the Staffordshire bull terrier, as compared to an 81.2% average pass rate for all dog breeds.

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_pitbull

"These “early” pit bulls typically lived in their owner’s homes and actually earned the nickname of “nursemaid’s dog” because they were so reliable with young children. "

Pit bulls are an utterly safe breed. The only problem is with bad training wedded to a viciousness of some of the owners, specifically black owners in the ghetto, where much of America's illegal dog fighting goes on. Moreover, any breeding for fighting a pit bull has had in its past, would be for -dogs-, not humans. Some pit bulls may be aggressive around other dogs, but humans are not dogs, and are not treated the same.

Actually, you are utterly and -completely- wrong on every single level of this argument.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Consider this video, even if it is a bit sappy: http://media.putfile.com/The-TRUTH-About-Pit-Bulls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Specifically: The American Temperament Test Society, Inc. (ATTS) breed statistics as of December 2005 show an 83.5% passing rate for the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier and a 84.7% passing rate for the Staffordshire bull terrier, as compared to an 81.2% average pass rate for all dog breeds.

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_pitbull

"These “early” pit bulls typically lived in their owner’s homes and actually earned the nickname of “nursemaid’s dog” because they were so reliable with young children. "

Pit bulls are an utterly safe breed. The only problem is with bad training wedded to a viciousness of some of the owners, specifically black owners in the ghetto, where much of America's illegal dog fighting goes on. Moreover, any breeding for fighting a pit bull has had in its past, would be for -dogs-, not humans. Some pit bulls may be aggressive around other dogs, but humans are not dogs, and are not treated the same.

Oh great, I just knew you'd add a racist twist to this.
What exactly does being black have to do with being vicious?

You think most people who fight dogs are black in the ghetto? Think again, that trend did not start in ghettos. It was going on in rural areas and all around the country since the very beginning. People were always fighting dogs, racing dogs, and abusing dogs.

TimeTraveller:

The majority of dog-fighting is in black areas. It is a "black neighbourhood" problem. This is, I believe, covered in the video.

Moreover, dog fighting in rural areas isn't that popular anymore. It used to be, about a hundred years ago, but it is not now.

What do people like you have against self defense? Why do you want to make people defenseless?


You are not actually defending yourself by keeping the dog, you are anticipating an attack, very much the same as those who anticipate an attack from you and your dog, which is commendably reasonable because that is what they do; that is what the dogs are bred for, and the reason to keep them and yourself restrained.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h52/The_Devil_Inside_666/brandonandcleotogether.jpg

this is a picture of myself at the age of seven. this dog was my best friend until i was 12 years old. her name was Cleo.

she was the most intelligent, gentle dog i have ever had the pleasure of being associated with, and i would murder my cat (whom i love very much) if i thought it would give me even a half hour with my old friend.

valich, you are a douchebag that spouts what you see on television, trying to pass it off as your own opinion.
you are detestable.

Identification is the greatest danger of keeping a beast, the tendency to end up with the same state of mind as the animal.

No, usually the owner gets a pet to suit their state of mind. Hence, if you want to look and act out your toughness, get a pit bull or rottweiller or something, and then badly train it.
Then you'll increase the chance of it attacking someone.

pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other animal that is domesticated and kept in homes.

my cat learned how to stand on her hind legs to fight, because i taught her.

the point is, animals do what they are trained to do, or to put it another way: dont be an asshole with a pit bull, and you wont end up with an asshole pit bull. treat it like a golden retriever.

its obvious that some of you have never owned a dog.

pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other animal that is domesticated and kept in homes.

This is of course true before they actually bite, but not afterwards.

the same arguments against pit bulls could be made against people having children.

the same arguments against pit bulls could be made against people having children.

And should be, if your children behave the same way.

*shakes head*

no government has the right to deny me of children, or pet...perhaps licensing is acceptable, but bans are not.

People have always bred some dogs of a variety of breeds for viciousness and will continue to do so. People have always even trained some dogs of otherwise tractable breeds for viciousness and will continue to do so. Rottweilers, Dobermans and Saint Bernards are responsible for huge numbers of unprovoked attacks every year. Even the beloved German shepherd shows up on the police blotter. Chows and shar-peis are widely distrusted and most breeders will not sell them to families with small children. I have seen no reports convincing me that pit bulls as a class present a significantly greater risk to children or other humans than any other dog that was not specifically bred to be gentle as a lamb like a golden retriever or a Pekinese.

Pit bulls were never bred by the original developers for the instinct to attack people. That would have worked against themselves, since the dogs needed to be handled and they were destined to perform for crowds. However, they were bred for the instinct to attack other animals. From the owners I've talked to, most pit bulls are not safe around cats or dogs who are not significantly larger than themselves.

For this reason I'm uneasy with pit bulls in my neighborhood. Every dog gets out of his yard once in a while, it's virtually unavoidable. Even mine do once every year or two, and I'm about as compulsively responsible a dog owner as you'll ever meet. But although mine might stupidly run into the street and get killed, they won't frighten anyone or hurt anything larger than a squirrel.

That "once every year or two" when a pit bull gets out of his yard can be a nightmare for the entire neighborhood. Every pet under forty pounds is in mortal danger.

Then there is the issue that not every dog has an AKC or other pedigree. Most dogs are crossbreeds. Pit bulls were bred rather recently by hybridizing several vaguely similar looking breeds including the children's favorite bull terrier. It's impossible to tell with certainty whether any dog that looks like a pit bull really is one.

If pit bulls are legislated out of existence the people who now deliberately own vicious pit bulls will simply turn their attention to some other hapless breed. Presa canarios are already making the news.

The problem is not the dog. It is the owner.

If you passed and implemented a law to have all pit bulls executed, the jerks would train Dobermans, German Sheperds, or some other breed to be vicious attack dogs.

You can train most breeds to be either vicious or docile.

BTW: When I was about ten years old, our next door neighbor had a dog that was a behavioral mess. He was never house broken, would not come when called, and generally caused minor annoyances to his owner. Our dogs were always well trained. One day after our neighbor commented on our well behaved dog, I asked my father why the neighbor's dog could not be trained. After the neightbor had left my father answered my question.In order to train a dog, you have to be smarter than the dog.

PI have seen no reports convincing me that pit bulls as a class present a significantly greater risk to children or other humans than any other dog that was not specifically bred to be gentle as a lamb like a golden retriever or a Pekinese.


http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

key points:


One out of every 6 dog bites are serious enough to require medical attention.

Getting bitten by a dog is the second most frequent cause of visits to emergency rooms.

In 2003 dog bites accounted for about one quarter of all homeowner’s insurance liability claims

...pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks

The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.

The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burglar are one in 177; the odds that it will be a child are 7 out of 10.

hardly an unbiased source.
show an independant study.

hardly an unbiased source.
show an independant study.

If you claim bias then you'd do better to prove the bias, just as I prove yours by posting this, instead of squealing like a dog with its tail stood on.

If you bother to check, the facts are reliably sourced, e.g.

http://www.injurycontrol.com/Hank/reprints/dogbitejbr71203.pdf

Still I disagree with it. I don't think breeds of dog should be banned.
i believe it would be justified in the case of pitbulls.
If it's on a leesh and properly trained, it should not be banned, and I've been chased by a dog before.
by a pit bull?
I know what it's like to face a dog.
yes, A dog, one. dogs are pack animals. you ever face two or more watch their tactics.
Still, I know there seems to be people who just, don't like any form of self defense at all,
there is only one reason for pit bulls and it isn't "self defense"
I don't know why people figure it would be good to ban an entire breed of animal, thats just, ridiculously extreme.
frankly i consider it a reasonable thing to do.

If you claim bias then you'd do better to prove the bias, just as I prove yours by posting this, instead of squealing like a dog with its tail stood on.
the bias is in the linkname. dont be stupid.


If you bother to check, the facts are reliably sourced, e.g.

http://www.injurycontrol.com/Hank/reprints/dogbitejbr71203.pdf
dead link. good try though.

you have never known a pit bull in your life, otherwise you would know that the arguments are fallacy.

the bias is in the linkname. dont be stupid.

You are the ignorant idiot.

The actual report is the copyright of the American Medical Association.



dead link. good try though.

I refered to the facts, which speak for themselves.

The link works from here.

To find an alternative google for Incidence of Dog Bite Injuries Treated in Emergency Departments.

I'm perfectly prepared to believe that pit bulls are responsible for proportionately more attacks on humans than say labradors.
(The two times I've been nipped by dogs, it was a labrador and an alsation)
However I didnt see anything correcting for the situation the dog was in. Like has been said before, if the dog owner is looking specifically for a dog to be hard, and doesnt actually know much about dogs, they will end up with the kind of confused, badly trained dog that will attack someone. Hence, simply condeming pit bulls as dangerous by themselves ignores the owner factor.

i think that it is right pit bulls are dangerous so many times a year poor cats are killed calously by stupid teenagers who have pitbulls as the defensless creatures are hung over the dogs that are trained to be violent.
what you are forgetting is many of these dogs are trained from puppies to adult dogs into being clam creatures and many are brought up in households with children. my next door neighbour has 2 dobermans and a baby the dogs are so sweet and would never harm the child.
i think you are confusing with what you see on tv or read in the newspapers i think that pit bulls should still be allowed so long as *because they can be dangerous* the owners are tested so they dont end up in the wrong hands.
i also think that the moment a dog shows any signs of violence they should be taken away as many of these children are neighbours of the dog who have been in minor incidents with the dogs before a major one which is taken as notice it should not be allowed to get that far.

I don’t believe that pit bulls should be banned, but I do believe that people should have to possess a special license to own one. Anyone that owned a pit bull without a license should have to pay an expensive fine. Pit bulls can be harmless around people, dogs, and cats if they received the proper training from a young age. I think people should have to go through some kind of mandatory inspection to insure that the dogs will grow up in an environment where they will receive the proper training. These mandatory inspections should also apply to other breed like German Shepard’s, Dobermans, and Rottweilers. Cities and towns should also make laws that would require some dogs to pass an obedience test when they have reached a certain age.

Pit bulls are some of the sweetest, loyalest, and friendliest dogs out there. I've had the pleasure and honor of living with two pits in my lifetime, and they are amazing dogs. My pitbulls never attacked anyone. They never bit anyone. They were perfectly fine around toddlers and little kids.

It's the deed, not the breed. The breed isn't inherently bad. Pit bulls are often the victims of abuse and bad training, which is why some of them bite people. The vast majority (the silent majority) of pitbull owners are RESPONSIBLE, and don't let their dogs break rules. It should be the bad owners who should suffer the consequences.

Saying that pitbulls should be banned because they are frequently involved in attacks is like saying that black people should be banned from cities because a lot of gang members are black. See how that's a problem?

It's a spotlight fallacy. Pitbulls only seem to be involved in more attacks because that's all you hear about on the news. People don't generally make a big deal when any other dog bites someone. It's only the pitbulls that poeple hear about.

In my opinion, pitbulls are the most beatiful, friendly, and faithful dogs in existence. They make a great family pet, and banning them is pure ignorance.

Anyone who loves pits should watch these videos. And anyone who supports breed-specific legislation should watch these too, because it's the deed, not the breed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0bLrVPSbEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YugD3TNPcIM

And this site:
http://www.sorryagain.com/sorry1.htm
Click on any of the 800 pages at the bottom to see dogs who are sorry that you didn't get to know them before you judged them.

unless i'm mistaken... pitbulls are trained to fight other DOGS, not actively fight PEOPLE, unless in the case of small children in which case i haven't EVER seen a dog not get uneasy around screaming toddlers. If the fear is of having a pitbull fight other dogs, keep the dog away from other people's dogs, and if your pitbull snarls, give it a swat with a newspaper (not a painful beating, just a swat, but you'd train the dog earlier on to associate a swat by a newspaper with incorrect behavior). It's basic common-sense and training. The owner of ANY dog should have researched it's breed background, even if the dog's a mutt, to understand what dispositions it has and to accomodate them.

So, if a dog ends up ripping someone's face off, or attacking another dog, it's the owner's fault, for they allowed it to happen. Sure, the dog in that case would probably be put down on account of the risk of retraining, but that doesn't mean every dog of that breed needs to be put down.

It's a spotlight fallacy. Pitbulls only seem to be involved in more attacks because that's all you hear about on the news. People don't generally make a big deal when any other dog bites someone. It's only the pitbulls that poeple hear about.


If it is possible to be more accurate than this, or if there is something demonstrably wrong with the victim count, please tell and show:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

TimeTraveller:

The majority of dog-fighting is in black areas. It is a "black neighbourhood" problem. This is, I believe, covered in the video.

Moreover, dog fighting in rural areas isn't that popular anymore. It used to be, about a hundred years ago, but it is not now.

Everything to you is a black problem. Whatever.

Sauna's article reports the solution that would be obvious to anyone not living in a country where the damn government is expected to solve every problem we've ever thought of.

Private enterprise to the rescue: It is becoming increasingly difficult for owners of dogs statistically identified as dangerous to get insurance. Many companies simply won't write a homeowner's policy for a customer with a pit bull, presa canario, etc. Others will charge so much that the dog owner is underwriting his own risk.

Renters don't get off easy just because they don't pay for insurance. Their landlords do and it's starting to become difficult to find a place to live if you have a notorious dog.

It's really sad to see rottweilers on this list. They were originally bred by the Romans to be draft animals in mountain areas where the roads were not good for horses. They were once as placid as draft horses.

Every year dozens of innocent infants and children are killed by pit bulls and people seriously injured through unprovoked attacked. These are vicious animals that were intentionally bred through artificial selective breeding programs to "kill" in a "pit." Hence the name "pit bull." There is no civilized reason why they should have ever been selectively bred in the first place, they are nothing but vicious "killing machines," and they should be constitutionally banned at the federal level. Numerous cities and counties have already inacted laws prohibited them, but almost always "after" a child gets killed by one.

What we need is Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL); in simple terms, a statute or regulation that is directed toward this specific "dangerous" breed. Pit bull dogs have already been brought to the public's attention as a threat, and such legislation is strongly supported by the American Kennel Club (AKC). Stringent laws governing, preventing and/or restraining pit bulls have been passed in many states. For example, Florida's City Commission passed an ordinance that requires persons who own pit bull dogs to sign registration forms and prove the possession of $25,000 of public liability insurance. Towns in Missouri, New Mexico and Cincinnatti have completely banned pit bulls and allowed county officers to confiscate and euthanize the dogs. Cincinnati's regulation defines "vicious dogs to include all pit bull terriers" and puts special restrictions on their confinement, sale, and control.

Proponents of these laws cite a number of reasons for supporting breed-specific regulations. For example, Peg Jordan, an Oakland, California resident, was recently mauled by a pit bull and spent several days in the hospital with more surgery to come. Although she owns two German Shepherds, she argues that dog owners rationalize their dogs' conduct, and that she is fed up with dog owners who intend their dogs to be "fuzzy guns." In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Broward County Legislative Committee is now considering a bill that would ban specific breeds of dogs from public areas. The Fort Lauderdale community has become hotly concerned about the "intimidating pit bulls" on the beachfront which are "scaring 'family' tourists" away. They are also fedup will this menacing threat. Broward County has been the site of 115 pit bull dog bites.

We need to inact legislation now at the constitutional federal level to alleviate this deadly problem in the United States. People and parent's of children should not have to be worried or concerned about this clear and obvious, yet blatantly irresponsible threat, when they innocently and casually go for a walk down the street or take a stroll on a public beach somewhere.

Overview of Current Municipal Animal Control Ordinances:
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovusodmunicipalordinances.htm
http://animalpetdoctor.homestead.com/laws.html

you are being sarcastic, right? :confused:

i believe it would be justified in the case of pitbulls.

by a pit bull?

yes, A dog, one. dogs are pack animals. you ever face two or more watch their tactics.

there is only one reason for pit bulls and it isn't "self defense"

frankly i consider it a reasonable thing to do.

Why? So there can be more robberies, rape victims etc ?

Why is it good to remove everyones defenses when you know we live in a world where people are more violent than pitbulls?

I don’t believe that pit bulls should be banned, but I do believe that people should have to possess a special license to own one. Anyone that owned a pit bull without a license should have to pay an expensive fine. Pit bulls can be harmless around people, dogs, and cats if they received the proper training from a young age. I think people should have to go through some kind of mandatory inspection to insure that the dogs will grow up in an environment where they will receive the proper training. These mandatory inspections should also apply to other breed like German Shepard’s, Dobermans, and Rottweilers. Cities and towns should also make laws that would require some dogs to pass an obedience test when they have reached a certain age.

All of you people who think we should put dogs through all these tests. Can we put humans through an obedience testing process too?

Should we have a license to raise children?

Should violent people be banned?

All the stuff that you apply to dogs can just as easily be applied to people, that includes having dogs put to sleep, and mutilated by removing their tails. Think more about how you treat our dogs.

All the stuff that you apply to dogs can just as easily be applied to people, that includes having dogs put to sleep, and mutilated by removing their tails. Think more about how you treat our dogs.

Indeed, I'd thought that it is generally agreed that humans should not be bought and sold as slaves.

To be consistent, ban the ownership of animals.

Let's ban Pomeranions (http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/2006/April/pitbullattackedbypomeranion0406.pdf)

Why? So there can be more robberies, rape victims etc ?

Why is it good to remove everyones defenses when you know we live in a world where people are more violent than pitbulls?It is these individuals of the dog breeds in question, the ones who are kept for "defense," that are causing all the problems. These are the pit bulls (and other dogs once used for fighting) who are bred to be throwbacks to their squalid ancestry and who are trained to be violent.

Breeding and training a dog for the willingness to attack people, as a means of self defense, is a spectacularly stupid idea.The statistical analysis doesn't cover something that has become obvious to me after living with dogs for many years. Those pit bulls probably made the judgment that those people were the ones who needed to be killed.

Our Lhasa Apsos have better sense than we do. They unfailingly identify the plumber who's going to overcharge us for shoddy work or the in-law who should be exiled to Siberia. Then they make nice with perfect strangers who ultimately turn out to be sweet people. When I walk them sometimes they act hostile toward certain people with no apparent reason, but I know they have identified that person as someone they wouldn't want me to invite home.

Fortunately most Lhasa Apsos weigh less than twenty pounds and have an underbite that makes them pretty innocuous. And furthermore their instinct is simply to identify the bad people and let us decide what to do about it, not to dispense justice themselves. They are watch dogs, not guard dogs.

I'm sure plenty of other dogs have this same instinct. If you get it in a dog that has been specifically bred and trained to kill people, you've got yourself a mighty big problem. Not every bad person is caught trying to crawl through your bedroom window during the night. Lots of them are walking down the street bringing home groceries to their children.

DO NOT KEEP A DOG FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HUMAN BEINGS. It is really idiotic idea that is destined to backfire. Neither you nor your dog have the right to kill people even if you're sure they are bad people.

All of you people who think we should put dogs through all these tests. Can we put humans through an obedience testing process too?

We already do. It's called school.

Should we have a license to raise children?
Yes.

Lets face it, there are people out there who should never be allowed to even have a pot plant, let alone children.

Should violent people be banned?
They already are when they become violent. It's called jail.

All the stuff that you apply to dogs can just as easily be applied to people,
We already do. People who attack, maim, injure or kill others are jailed or sometimes put down depending on the country.

that includes having dogs put to sleep,
Death penalty. Lets also not forget the debate for euthanasia now..

and mutilated by removing their tails.
People are known to do just as bad, if not worse to their fellow human beings, even if those humans are their very family members.

Think more about how you treat our dogs.
And think more how our dogs treat us.

Every dog, around a child or even another animal, can be considered a dangerous animal. Pit bulls more so. I have a cross between a golden retriever and a poodle (golden doodle lol) and my 1 year old adores him. But when they are together in the yard or anywhere else for that matter, I never for one second take my eyes of them. My dog is still a puppy, well trained and does not have a violent streak in him, but I still do not trust any dog to be around my child, no matter how well trained it might be.

I would never buy a pit bull because they have been shown to be more dangerous than other breeds. I'd never buy a doberman or german shepherd either for the same reason.

All of you people who think we should put dogs through all these tests. Can we put humans through an obedience testing process too?

Should we have a license to raise children?

Should violent people be banned?

All the stuff that you apply to dogs can just as easily be applied to people, that includes having dogs put to sleep, and mutilated by removing their tails. Think more about how you treat our dogs.

Do you believe that someone that wants to own a lion or a tiger shouldn’t have to possess some qualifications? (An advanced knowledge about the behavior of the species, proper facilities, Ect) Did you know that a pit bulls jaw has a stronger biting force than wild cats?

Interesting debate. But how do you justify banning an entire breed of animal for the actions of only a few? I see virtually no way to legitimately justify such actions ....and worse, banning the dogs in an entire state or nation.

I think y'all can talk and debate this issue at length, but doesn't it come down to punishing an entire breed of animal for the actions of only a few?

Would any of you consider banning all blacks because a few in NYC happen to murder a few hundred people each year?

Baron Max

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
describes data for deaths due to dog attack, by breed.

Pit bulls and rotties are the leaders, but rotties have outdistanced pit bulls recently.

But as a poster pointed out this data does not consider any other factors, such as to whether these dogs were more likely to be trained as attack dogs therefore skewing the results.

...describes data for deaths due to dog attack, by breed. Pit bulls and rotties are the leaders, but rotties have outdistanced pit bulls recently.

And how do those stats compare to the deaths caused by, say, drunk drivers or murderers? A little perspective is nice when making judgements about things.

Baron Max

Time Traveller:

Yes. It's always the black people...when they are the ones who are the offenders.

But you know, I'm old fashioned. Facts > PC.

If it is possible to be more accurate than this, or if there is something demonstrably wrong with the victim count, please tell and show:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdfThree reasons:
1. This doens't take into account the total number of pitbulls being kept as pets. Those attacks might only represent 1% of the entire pitbull population.

2. A lot of times, bites from "less dangerous" breeds go unreported. That's right - a SPOTLIGHT FALLACY making the conclusion (ban pitbulls) invalid.

3. When a person gets bitten, the breed isn't always known. A lot of times, the authorities, the victim, and the media, have some kind of knee jerk reaction, and say "well, that MUST have been a pitbull, since it sort of looked like one." There are a lot of false reports, in other words.

Time Traveller:

Yes. It's always the black people...when they are the ones who are the offenders.

But you know, I'm old fashioned. Facts > PC.

Why can't you accept personal responsibility for your problems? why always look to blame someone else for your problems?

Thats why none of these problems can be solved, because you and your folk always look to place blame on another group of people instead of focusing on the problems themselves, that exist within people in general. Why are people more violent than pitbulls?

Thats what you should ask, but you can't, because you need someone to blame for all the worlds problems.

Last I checked, I don't have a problem with dog fighting, Time Traveller. There is no "log to remove from my eye" before I "remove the splinter from the neighbour".

Last I checked, I don't have a problem with dog fighting, Time Traveller. There is no "log to remove from my eye" before I "remove the splinter from the neighbour".

How unfortunate then that eyes elsewhere perceive so while the eye with the log does not!

Is it because of seeing the log instead of the World beyond the log, mistaking the one for the other?

Three reasons:
1. This doens't take into account the total number of pitbulls being kept as pets. Those attacks might only represent 1% of the entire pitbull population.

I see.

We have to suspect a mathematical fault, as if they were disingenuous or too idle to work it out, but not as if it matters that we never bothered to work it out.

I gather that the offenders constitute something like 9 percent of dogs kept in the USA, though this is all but impossible to determine for want of a precise test of a dog breed, which the Pit Bull is not anyway, strictly speaking, so what bothers me then is the significantly larger proportion of reported bites, as set against the dubious merit of keeping such an animal, rather than another with not so much of a reputation.



2. A lot of times, bites from "less dangerous" breeds go unreported. That's right - a SPOTLIGHT FALLACY making the conclusion (ban pitbulls) invalid.

While it is not a fallacy to shine the spotlight light on unreported incidents, albeit that there is therefore nothing for the light to reveal?

Come on. One hopes for better than that.


3. When a person gets bitten, the breed isn't always known. A lot of times, the authorities, the victim, and the media, have some kind of knee jerk reaction, and say "well, that MUST have been a pitbull, since it sort of looked like one." There are a lot of false reports, in other words.

Excapt that one has not yet presented the actual evidence of this while if they were some to be shown, stories to show that dogs were falsely accused I've a hunch that we'd have heard of that, and in some detail.

Banning 'Pit Bulls' will achieve little, other breeds can be made just as vicious, and would be. Dogs are very versatile in this respect, any dog can be made bad if you treat it badly.

Pit Bulls are probably seen in the statistics often because assholes who want a vicious dog are attracted by their reputation, so it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. I see plenty of sad assholes with unsocialised aggressive Staffordshire Bull terriers when I'm out walking my dogs. Nearly always the same low rent Chavs/White Trash who have them as a 'status symbol'.

You can't blame the breed for the actions of the people that buy them any more than you can blame Vauxhall Novas for being bought and bodystyled by the very same chavs.

While it is not a fallacy to shine the spotlight light on unreported incidents, albeit that there is therefore nothing for the light to reveal?

Come on. One hopes for better than that.Perhaps you didn't understand me. If people only make a big deal of the pitbull attacks, it only seems that they are more dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_fallacy

Perhaps you didn't understand me. If people only make a big deal of the pitbull attacks, it only seems that they are more dangerous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_fallacy

If if if if if.

You can just as well say that if people only get bitten by Pit Bulls, thats is all we are going to hear about, or if people only want to defend a case, then to them it is spotlight fallacy, because it suits them to seem it to be.

Ok, your logic is correct there. But I happen to know I'm right, because I know there are hundreds of thousands of pitbulls out there that never bite anyone.

But, the sole fact that there are hundreds of thousands of pitbulls out there that never bite anyone, is reason enough not to support a ban.

pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other animal that is domesticated and kept in homes.

my cat learned how to stand on her hind legs to fight, because i taught her.

the point is, animals do what they are trained to do, or to put it another way: dont be an asshole with a pit bull, and you wont end up with an asshole pit bull. treat it like a golden retriever.

its obvious that some of you have never owned a dog.

What the hell are you talking about? You know not what!

Pit bulls were bred exclusively to kill each other in a pit: till death do we part. That is now an instinctively inherent part of their genetic makeup. Sure, you can still get attached to one as a pet and love it for the reciprocal bond that the owner gives it. But you cannot take out that inherent instinct that it has to grasp onto, mutilate, rip the guts out of, and kill another living life!

Your an asshole! Supporting a species that is bred to murder!

Your a douchebag of all the vile and corruption ever brought forth on this Earth if you support a latent psychopathic murdering beast!

Yeah. Bond with it now and lick each other. Then when you're at work tomorrow and the neighbor's infant child innocently crawls over into YOUR yard and your "loveable pet" rips its inside guts and heart out, tearing it to shreds, then you're still going to come home and cuddle with your "loveable pet" and be with it as "men's best friend," denying everything that happened, could have happened, did happen, or will happen.

You're a sociopathic - no! sociopathetic - retard who has no consideration for the life of other's, for the overall safety of the life of others, for the care that we are responsible to maintain and give in society, and for the responsiblity that we all have to help maintain a safe environment. You're an irresponsible idiot who cares not about the love and safety of innocent children!

How many infants and children must die before we do something about this cruel inhumane irresponsible threat that we lay forth upon society to our own blind eyes?

The truth is, not very many pitbulls bite. A small small percentage has earned the breed a bad name. I'm all for a safer society, but banning pitbulls will do CLOSE TO NOTHING, because even though the statistics look bad on paper, they AREN'T dangerous dogs.

The fact is, the vast majority of pitbulls are like these: http://www.sorryagain.com/sorry4.htm

I could make all sorts of analogies regarding breed-specific legislation, but you'd all accuse me of being racist, probably.

As a dog lover and a dog breeder I'm not very fond of pit bulls. Nonetheless, in my professional opinion the individuals who are doing all the biting and killing were specially bred for that trait. Many foolish people actually want mean dogs because they think it will provide safety. Other people just like the "status." They want a dog with a spike collar that snarls at everybody.

If people want that kind of dog, there's always somebody out there who will breed the particularly vicious individuals to each other to reinforce the trait. With most breeds, those are the dogs you neuter immediately and don't even sell. You keep them on the back forty and keep them out of trouble, rather than letting them out into the public.

We had this problem with Lhasa Apsos 25 years ago. More Americans were bitten by Lhasa Apsos than by pit bulls that year. People had done some very poor breeding, resulting in throwbacks to their days as watch dogs around the Buddhist temples in Tibet. We've spent 25 years carefully breeding that trait out of them and nowadays they are as docile as a Pekinese.

The problem with pit bulls is that certain nefarious people WANT that temperament so there are people willing to give it to them. Responsible breeders don't do that. But as long as people want killer dogs, someone will provide them, like drugs and guns. You can't legislate goodness. If pit bulls get legislated out of existence they will just go back to Rottweilers and Dobermans, or pick some other less well-known fighting breed like the Presa Canario that nobody recognizes when they see it. Or get ugly with the wolf hybridizations.

The real problem with pit bulls is that even the best of the breed have the instinct to attack dogs and other animals. They are not safe in a neighborhood where other pets might encounter them. Everybody's dog or cat gets out of the yard occasionally, it's just a fact of life. When it's the pit bulls turn to accidentally get out in the street, it's a smorgasbord of cat and dog meat out there waiting for him.

My buddy has a pit bull that is as sweet as a basset hound, just totally submissive. But he always warns me never to bring my dog over. They even attack dogs that aren't out loose, but simply being walked on a leash by their owner. One of them drew blood on a poodle in my neighborhood a couple of months ago.

Personally I don't see the point in having that kind of dog in existence.

There is a need here to get real about the politics of it.
If there's a dog near me and if I get to vote, the question is "what does it do for me?", and if the answer to that is a negative sum I vote for the ban.

There is a need here to get real about the politics of it.
If there's a dog near me and if I get to vote, the question is "what does it do for me?", and if the answer to that is a negative sum I vote for the ban.

And what after the ban? Which breed to ban next? My dogs were attacked by an unsocialised English Bull Terrier about a month ago, and then I nearly ended up having a punch up with the owner, who was completely unapologetic, and took offence that I had kicked his dog in the balls to get it off one of my dogs.

So I would say it wasn't the dog's fault, having met the owner. I'm sure no matter what breed of dog he had, it would be aggressive, so are you going to vote for all dogs to get banned eventually?

And what after the ban? Which breed to ban next? My dogs were attacked by an unsocialised English Bull Terrier about a month ago, and then I nearly ended up having a punch up with the owner, who was completely unapologetic, and took offence that I had kicked his dog in the balls to get it off one of my dogs.

So I would say it wasn't the dog's fault, having met the owner. I'm sure no matter what breed of dog he had, it would be aggressive, so are you going to vote for all dogs to get banned eventually?

If that means to propose that the merit of any dog would amount to a negative sum, I am willing to entertain the argument.

You appear at least to have made a good start in that direction.

How many people are stupid enough to let their child "innocently" crawl into another person's yard?

Small children should be watched. If they aren't, they are open to all sorts of dangers. A dog cannot be held responsible for killing an infant that invades the territory of its master.

I'd rather confront a pit bull than some other bigger bader dogs, infact a pitbull is a poodle when it comes to a Rotty

If that means to propose that the merit of any dog would amount to a negative sum, I am willing to entertain the argument.

You appear at least to have made a good start in that direction.

So you'd ban most, if not all dogs on safety grounds? I have a better idea, you go live in an ivory tower, out of harm's way instead. A padded one of course, for safety.

How many people are stupid enough to let their child "innocently" crawl into another person's yard?

Small children should be watched. If they aren't, they are open to all sorts of dangers. A dog cannot be held responsible for killing an infant that invades the territory of its master.

People shouldn't keep vicious dogs, they are an accident waiting to happen. Having a dog that needs to be locked away, or leashed all of the time because it would be dangerous if it gets loose is being too optimistic with the level of control you can exercise.

Take this story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/5376788.stm

The owners went on holiday, and the people looking after the place left a door open. The dogs were usally confined to a roof area, but got back into the building, and ripped a baby to pieces.

Nobody is perfect, and accidents will happen if you keep vicious dogs. The breed doesn't matter, it's the attitude of the owners that matters.

You fail to qualify Pit Bulls as a vicious dog. They aren't - according to the organizations that label breeds as dangerous or not.

In fact, they are slightly safer than most dogs according to the research presented previously. You ought to look at that.

But yes, vicious dogs of any breed, if known to be such, should be carefully handled.

A pit bull lives near my house, he barks every time I walk by(the ass hole). But just down the street is a real terrorist, a 200lbs formidable Rottweiller, he's bark alone sends shivers down my brain, even though I pretend to be a man when I walk pass him. According to Pit bulls they know you can out-manuever them, but as far as Rottys are concerned you are red meat.

There is a need here to get real about the politics of it.
If there's a dog near me and if I get to vote, the question is "what does it do for me?", and if the answer to that is a negative sum I vote for the ban.The problem with approaching an issue this way is that democracy will degenerate into pure majoritarianism. Politics at its ugliest, people voting their own selfish interests even if it's not best for the community, or even just to spite someone they don't like.

People end up having only the rights that 51% of the voters grant them. This is how we get laws permitting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Any group of people with an unpopular faith, skin color or hobby can be persecuted by the people who don't like it.

If you bear in mind that the average IQ is only 100 and these are the people who put a Religious Redneck Retard in the White House, it's obvious that trying to resolve social problems by popular vote is a horrifying idea.

Voting selfishly does not equate to voting for a viable civilization.

Valich: You are raving. Your last post makes me wonder if you were conditioned by one of the nuts who train psychotic Pit Bulls.

Others: Those who are in favor of banning Pit Bulls probably never owned a dog and seem to know little, if anything, about dogs.

Dogs are incredibly easy to train, especially if you start when they are young. You can make almost any large dog vicious if that is the type of dog you want. It is easier to train Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Rotweillers, German Shepherds, and various other breeds to be fighting and/or attack dogs. It is difficult to train Golden Retrievers, Saint Bernards, et cetera to be vicious.

You can also train almost any dog to be friendly and docile. Only the gentlest types of dogs can be trained to tolerate abuse from strangers, but even a Pit Bull can be trained to behave in the absence of provocatiion.

I have owned a lot of dogs (mostly German Shepherds). I admit that I would not trust any large dog enough to allow him to roam free among strangers. This is due to knowing that many people do not know how to act in the presence of a large dog. When I was young, I lived in a rual area where dogs of all types were allowed to roam. Nobody ever got bitten because rural people are used to dealing with animals.

It makes sense to have laws requiring dogs to be kept on leashes or in enclosed yards. What you need is legislation relating to the behavior of the owners.

If you want to ban vicious dogs, pass laws relating to the training and owning of such dogs. You could slaughter all the Pit Bulls in the workd and the psycho types who want such animals would train some other breed to be vicious fighting and/or attack dogs. It might even get worse if you bann Pit Bulls. The jerks might start getting breeders to cross a Saint Bernard or a Great Dane with a Wolf and then train the offspring to be an attack dog.

BTW: I have heard that dogs can sense adrenalin, which is relased in the blood stream when a person is either afraid or angry enough to attack. I do not know if this is a valid belief. If true, it would explain why a lot of people who are afraid of dogs are bitten by dogs which are normally friendly. The dog misinterprets the fear as anger indicating an imminent attack.

What you need is legislation relating to the behavior of the owners.


That is what a ban is supposed to do.

With the ownership banned, the owner is responsible, not the dog.


Voting selfishly does not equate to voting for a viable civilization.


What therefore is the implied proposition supposed to be, a dictatorship run by Fraggle Rocker?

"Voting selfishly does not equate to voting for a viable civilization."
What therefore is the implied proposition supposed to be, a dictatorship run by Fraggle Rocker?Hardly. Constitutional, representative democracy is the best system anyone's come up with so far.

The states that allow a bare majority of the voters to enact legislation directly, such as through the initiative process, are often textbook examples of the Tyranny of the Majority. Thirty years ago California voters froze property taxes without changing the capricious way the money is distributed and as a result the state keeps bogarting more of the money, leaving the cities and counties without enough to even fill the potholes in their roads. This year voters in many states passed laws to outlaw gay marriage, which is nothing but discrimination against an unpopular minority by the always mean-spirited children of Abraham.

:m: do you own a pit sir/maam??:m:

are you trying to say all pitbull breeds should put to death???

If you havent heard:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=293048&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

Thats pretty messed up.

You fail to qualify Pit Bulls as a vicious dog. They aren't - according to the organizations that label breeds as dangerous or not.

In fact, they are slightly safer than most dogs according to the research presented previously. You ought to look at that.


So you'd ban most, if not all dogs on safety grounds? I have a better idea, you go live in an ivory tower, out of harm's way instead. A padded one of course, for safety.

Obviously, some here need to improve their reading skills.

I wrote "if ... negative sum" which is exactly what I meant, except for what I'd already written before. N.B. "if".

What the sum is or would be is another matter.

One good argument for allowing is the same as with tobacco, it helps at least to identify the malignant numskulls one needs to steer well clear of. The more repulsive they are to me the better off I am apart in the ivory tower, better that than their sewer.

You fail to qualify Pit Bulls as a vicious dog. They aren't - according to the organizations that label breeds as dangerous or not.

In fact, they are slightly safer than most dogs according to the research presented previously. You ought to look at that.

But yes, vicious dogs of any breed, if known to be such, should be carefully handled.

Pit bulls are vicious dogs and are labelled as such as a "dangerous animal." This is what were fighting for now at the federal level rather than just the local or state level. And this is why the American Kennel Club (AKC) refuses to even recognize them as a breed.

You can't legally transport a loaded gun in your car without a permit. How do you remove the razor sharp locking jaws of a pit bull while in transit so the public is safe. You cannot say that a pit bull is safe just because it is on a leash. Pity the curiousity of the innocent passerbyer little kid who just has a natural inclination to want to pet it - chomp!

Obviously, some here need to improve their reading skills.

I wrote "if ... negative sum"

.. and I wrote "you'd", a contraction for "you would", not "you will", or "you want to". "you would" relies on that if , so check your own comprehension, grammar boy.

.. and I wrote "you'd", a contraction for "you would", not "you will", or "you want to". "you would" relies on that if , so check your own comprehension, grammar boy.

My dear child, I am not a boy and I read well enough to know a leading question when I see one.

Your question was impertinent. My personal preference was not the subject of the thread, nor do I see why it should be.

My dear child, I am not a boy and I read well enough to know a leading question when I see one.

It wasn't a leading question, but an attempt to clarfiy your position, and then to demonstrate that is your position was as I thought it to be, that it would do no good.

Your question was impertinent. My personal preference was not the subject of the thread, nor do I see why it should be.

Jesus christ, if your opinions aren't to be considered, why bother posting?

You fail to qualify Pit Bulls as a vicious dog. They aren't - according to the organizations that label breeds as dangerous or not.

In fact, they are slightly safer than most dogs according to the research presented previously. You ought to look at that.

But yes, vicious dogs of any breed, if known to be such, should be carefully handled.
Pit bulls are especially dangerous because they are a cross between muscle and tenacity( bulldog and terriers). Terriers without any muscle are already half lunatics, just look at my favorite terrier; Jack Russel. Pit bulls are a like a teen on dangerous drugs and alchohol, a volatile combo to say the least. However, all dogs have the capacity to go on a human flesh frenzy, especially without proper observation and training.

... well, im a WHITE cop.

They should be more concerned about the enforceability.

A ban was introduced in the UK and a great deal of controversy followed. On the one hand it gives the police the power to intervene when need be. On the other it brings the law into disrepute; while the good guys play along those you'd want to keep on leash carry on regardless, willing to bite back like the dogs when they feel offended, with more trouble caused than they'd aimed to put a stop to.

There's a vast amount of misinformation and propaganda on this thread. Very few of the people who are answering questions instead of asking them have impartial viewpoints. It would behoove you all to read the Wikipedia article on pit bulls. It's a collection of writings by a number of different people so there's no overall bias. Many of them contradict each other, but still most of them cite reasonably authoritative sources. Despite the inevitable rants, there's far more objective information there than there is here.

One of the interesting tidbits: The rules for dogfighting in England (before it was outlawed 170 years ago) required that the referee be able to pick up any dog while it was engaged in fighting, lift it out of the ring, and hand it to its owner. Any dog that bit the referee would be killed (I would guess probably by the referee on the spot). Fighting dogs typically lived as pets in the homes of their owners' families, generally gamblers. Clearly these dogs by nature did not have an instinct to harm humans.

It's also clear that these dogs have been around in numbers for a couple of centuries, yet it's only recently that complaints about their temperament toward humans have become common. This could be because they have lately been specifically bred and crossbred for this temperament (the American pit bull terrier is a stabilized hybrid of several established breeds), or because people who want scary dogs have lately begun to choose this breed for its looks or cachet (they do have those eerie psychopath eyes) and train (or abuse) the individuals to make them mean. Probably both.

Whichever explanation holds, the root cause for the existence of the specific individuals of the type that are causing the trouble (a small percentage by any standard) is that there are lately a noticeable number of people who want them.

Have we learned nothing from humanity's consistently and disastrously failed experiments with laws against alcohol, prostitution, communism, capitalism, contraception, specific religions, drugs, dancing, emigration, immigration, abortion, inter-racial marriage, etc.? When people want something, someone will find a way to provide it. It's a no-brainer that even if pit bulls are made unavailable (yeah right, just like alcohol and marijuana), as long as this demand exists it will be satisfied by other breeds.

A far more interesting question (with a far more important answer) than the title of this thread is: Why do so many people suddenly desire to keep vicious dogs?

For something more pertinent to discuss:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991

That law proves that passing some laws does nothing to alleviate the problem.

'Pit Bulls' might be banned according to that law, but people will still breed them and call them something else, a 'Staffordshire cross', or 'Bull Terrier' cross. Classification is a real problem when attempting to employ this law.

Recent incidents involving dogs attacking children in Leicester and Cambridge involved Rottweilers and a Bulldog respectively, and those breeds aren't speicified.

That law does make the owner legally culpable for the actions of their dog, and in that much it's a step in the right direction. However, I was unable to find any national statistics on prosecutions brought through this act. I did find this however;

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060515/text/60515w0112.htm

Note the rather low numbers, and these are just cases that were taken to court, not necessarily resulting in convictions.

Therefore I would suggest that while there are undeniable tragedies with dogs attacking people, these events are very rare, and do not warrant the amount of attention, or legislation they recieve. Further legislation will achieve little more than the current laws.

Generally though, dog bites could be reduced quite easily. Re-introduce dog licenses, and only issue them to people with clean criminal records (I was unable to find the stats, but apparently dogs owned by criminals are significantly more likely to bite than others) and also, teach children how to approach dogs. It's amazing how many kids come running towards by dogs waving their arms about screaming 'doggie!'. A very few ask if my dogs are ok with being petted first. According to US stats, 42% of dog bites happen to children 14 years old or less, and the majorty of these incidents happen in the home, or at a family members house. A great deal could easily be prevented using common sense therefore.

Generally though, dog bites could be reduced quite easily. Re-introduce dog licenses, and only issue them to people with clean criminal records (I was unable to find the stats, but apparently dogs owned by criminals are significantly more likely to bite than others) and also, teach children how to approach dogs.

The previous experience proved that licences are not viable as a practical proposition. If criminals were barred they'd simply licence the dogs in somebody else's name.

Dogs of any sort are routinely barred in areas of high density social housing, flats and houses with no gardens, and guess what...

Sir, Fuck you. First you want to ban guns, now dogs? Sorry but I think thats complete bullshit.

If you don't want to deal with the pitbull, don't break into someones house or jump over someones fence. As long as the animal is behind a fence, inside a house, or on a leesh, what right do you have to ban it?

You want to ban it because it's vicious? It's SUPPOSED to be vicious, it's a self defense attack dog. If you leave an infant around a pitbull, a doberman or any sorta dog then you are an idiot. It's stupid to leave an infant around a cat too.

I highly, disagree with your reasoning, I think it's flawed, I think your idea to ban pitbulls is a slippy slope to banning self defense completely. Yeah first it will be pitbulls, then dobermens, then all dogs that can be used for self defense.

What do people like you have against self defense? Why do you want to make people defenseless?

Even if you banned pitbulls, most people would gladly pay the fine to keep their dog. It's even more emotional than taking away guns because people love their dogs.

That's entirely correct.

Hey Valich, cars, alcohol, cigarettes, swimming pools and FALLING kill more people every year than pitbulls: should we ban them too? You'd be interested to know that doctors are responsible for over one hundred thousand deaths in the USA alone each year. Suck it, you're not banning anything.

Oh really? Well I go through safety courses, licensing, registration, waiting periods and authorization to transport permits for my right to own and use firearms for sporting purposes: so, because all of this is regulated and licensed, guns should be impervious to any kind of banning attempts? Good to know, as those bleeding hearts and their emotional rhetoric is getting on my nerves.

Oh really? Well I go through safety courses, licensing, registration, waiting periods and authorization to transport permits for my right to own and use firearms for sporting purposes: so, because all of this is regulated and licensed, guns should be impervious to any kind of banning attempts? Good to know, as those bleeding hearts and their emotional rhetoric is getting on my nerves.

AAAH HA! I was wondering when this would pop up. Very good point. I have to go to school, a licensing phase, and be swore in just to carry a gun on duty. And i have to be re-qualified each year to keep it. Why should guns be banned? This would be a good thread to start.

And a different thread at that.

A pit bull is not a gun that you control to shoot or not, a drink taken by alcoholics that kill thousands every year, a cigarette that you yourself choose to get cancer, or a swimming poll that negligent parents leave unguarded for a child to fall in and drown. There is a major difference here.

A pit bull is a loaded uncontrollable weapon. One person does not have the power, time or foresight to keep watch over this lethal weapon 24 hours/day, to monitor where it always is, or to prevent a young infant from innocently walking into their yard and being mauled. But one person does have the ability to control a gun, their drinking, their smoking, and to put access barriers around a swimming pool. And if they fail to do so, then they are held accountable in court: murder, DUI, DWI, and their own death from cancer should they fail to heed the warnings. The same should be the case for people that attempt to have pit bulls as pets. Most of whom unforesee the inherent danger.

Why do we not have similar laws against pit bull owners, like we have for owning a gun or driving while under the influence?

The previous experience proved that licences are not viable as a practical proposition. If criminals were barred they'd simply licence the dogs in somebody else's name.

A condition of the license could be that it a tag must be attached to the dog's collar, and the Police have the power to inspect the collar and ask for the handler's ID. Some clause will be needed to allow others to walk the dog, and this exception not be abused, but I'm sure it could be arranged. Perhaps like insurance, and people have to be named specifically, again, non-criminals.

Dogs of any sort are routinely barred in areas of high density social housing, flats and houses with no gardens, and guess what...

Not if you own the property, at least not in the UK, and the neither Police nor RSPCA have the powers to sieze an animal unless it is being abused. Just being kept in a small flat or not being walked is not grounds for removal. In this respect, we need tougher laws. Some people have two dogs in small flat at the other end of my street, and I wish ther ewas something I could do, as they never get walked.

A condition of the license could be that it a tag must be attached to the dog's collar, and the Police have the power to inspect the collar and ask for the handler's ID. Some clause will be needed to allow others to walk the dog, and this exception not be abused, but I'm sure it could be arranged. Perhaps like insurance, and people have to be named specifically, again, non-criminals.I don't know how much of your tax money goes to police salaries in your country. In mine the taxpayers will start to become restless if they find they are paying the cops to check dog licenses. Especially when the cities with the most pit bulls are the ones with the highest murder rates.Not if you own the property, at least not in the UK, and the neither Police nor RSPCA have the powers to sieze an animal unless it is being abused.This thread has gotten too long and is rehashing earlier postings. It has already been pointed out that the private sector has ridden to the rescue. Insurance companies take care of the problem when there is no landlord. It is becoming increasingly difficult in the USA for owners of pit bulls and several other breeds to secure homeowners insurance. If your insurance lapses your bank will foreclose on your mortgage, or go out and buy some for $600 a month and add the premium to your bill. Just being kept in a small flat or not being walked is not grounds for removal. In this respect, we need tougher laws.Again, insurance takes care of this because landlords also must have insurance. I won't allow a pit bull on my property because in today's legal climate, if it bites someone and I'm not insured against the million-dollar judgment, the courts will confiscate my building.

deleted

I don't know how much of your tax money goes to police salaries in your country. In mine the taxpayers will start to become restless if they find they are paying the cops to check dog licenses. Especially when the cities with the most pit bulls are the ones with the highest murder rates.

Well, I'm not suggesting they stop every dog owner and ask for their papers, but rather use discretion and perform random checks. It needn't be too much of an overhead.

This thread has gotten too long and is rehashing earlier postings. It has already been pointed out that the private sector has ridden to the rescue. Insurance companies take care of the problem when there is no landlord. It is becoming increasingly difficult in the USA ....

We don't have such in the UK. I was postulating about domestic matters in my post.

According to the Dangerous Dogs Act, 1991:

A constable or an officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may seize—

(c) any dog in a public place (whether or not one to which that section or such an order applies) which appears to him to be dangerously out of control.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_2.htm

Yeah, in a public place, but if there's a crazy dog locked up in a flat, the Police are powerless unless it appears to be mistreated. The Police try to not to get involved with dog issues. My gf's sister worked for the RSPCA and they got calls for stray dogs that are the responsibility of the Police, but the Police would urge people to call the RSPCA. I think you'd have to get bitten before they would get involved, a dog being 'out of control' would probably not warrant investigation, unless it was running up and down a motorway or causing a direct nuisance.

deleted

It is ignorant to pretend that the Police and Local Authorities in the UK are not already empowered.

ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders) may also apply to the ownership of dogs, to the extent of a consequent jail sentence:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/2006/12/08/b2837b63-2ebb-4cfa-9886-25e7ecbfb265.lpf

The practicality of the enforcement may well be in question, and has been, but the legislation sufficient to make a real issue of that was long since introduced, so until such a time as we see a commendably effective enforcement of the actuality it is nonsensical to propose more legislation, in view of the the general neglect of what is already in place.

The fact that this guy was served with an ASBO, and not punished under the 'Dangerous Dogs Act' directly shows what a mess this whole thing is.

ASBOs are bullshit. If people break the law, fine them or throw them in jail. Serving them with an ASBO to try and make them behave is pointless. We have pretty much all of the laws we need, we just need to enforce them.

The best way to engender responsibility, phlogistician, is to show some.

It is polite to acquaint oneself with the facts before pretending to know them, please, and when you get it wrong, own up.

A pit bull is a loaded uncontrollable weapon. One person does not have the power, time or foresight to keep watch over this lethal weapon 24 hours/day, to monitor where it always is, or to prevent a young infant from innocently walking into their yard and being mauled. But one person does have the ability to control a gun, their drinking, their smoking, and to put access barriers around a swimming pool. And if they fail to do so, then they are held accountable in court: murder, DUI, DWI, and their own death from cancer should they fail to heed the warnings. The same should be the case for people that attempt to have pit bulls as pets. Most of whom unforesee the inherent danger.
Indeed.

THE owner of two pit bull terriers that savaged three people in Hobart yesterday never imagined the family pets would drag a man to the ground and tear his ear off.

The pit bull terriers, one a four-year-old full-bred spayed female and the other an intact one-year-old male cross, attacked three people in a quiet suburban street in Hobart yesterday morning.

The attack, in Clarendon St, New Town, put two men and a woman in hospital.

The woman was owner Suyan Lim, 21, who tried to drag the dogs off a visiting friend.

One of the dogs turned on her and then both dogs attacked a neighbour who had come to help.

"We had the girl, Chevy, since she was so little she could fit in the palm of your hand," Ms Lim said.

"My daughter Teisha used to ride on her back and sleep and play with her, she was always gentle.

"It appears that the young male, Piston, may have been the more aggressive one and that Chevy just followed his lead.

"Although they were part of the family and dearly loved, I want them destroyed. You could never have them near people again after what they did."
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20961255-421,00.html)


And the owners were not irresponsible ones either. They were careful with their dogs.

Ms Lim and her partner Max Jones, 22, believed they had taken all the necessary precautions to keep the dogs. They built two-metre steel fences right around their property and a secure dog enclosure, which the dogs were allowed to leave only when Ms Lim and Mr Jones were at home.

It appears the friend was attacked when he went to visit them and after opening the gate to enter the property, noticed the dogs had managed to escape their enclosure and was attacked by them before he even managed to close the gate. The dog's owner was attacked when she came to his aid, as was the neighbour how suffered from part of his ear being torn off.

These are not safe dogs and are a danger to others, including their owners, and even in cases where they are reared as family pets, they can still turn. Will banning them outright rectify the situation? Possibly. Possibly not. Some may just find other ways to have them in secret and some who breed them specifically for aggression will just turn their attention to breeding and rearing other aggressive dogs. This woman and her partner had taken every precaution and the dogs, both family pets, still attacked not only the neighbour and a friend, but also turned on her as well. Something to think about I guess..

So, Bells, are you saying that ye're in favor of punishing the entire specie of dog for the actions of only a few of them?

Is that also the same approach or philosophy you take with humans? If one of them murderers another human, we should ban all humans? :D

Baron Max

Pit Bulls aren't any threat at all. Even the ones that are trained to fight are taught specifically not to bite humans. If an owner goes to pull his dog out of the fight and the other dog bite the owner, that dog loses the fight. Pit Bulls follow me home all the time. I've been jumped more than I've been bit by any dog and I've only been bit by a Pit once.

dog rule man!!

So, Bells, are you saying that ye're in favor of punishing the entire specie of dog for the actions of only a few of them?

Is that also the same approach or philosophy you take with humans? If one of them murderers another human, we should ban all humans? :D

Baron Max

No Baron. I believe that dog owners need to be responsible for their dogs. Just like I believe people need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions, no matter much of a jackarse they may or may not be.

These people were responsible dog owners and the dogs still attacked not only others, but the owner as well. Banning them won't get rid of the breed. There are thousands of pit bulls who will not display similar behaviour, just as there are dozens of pit bulls and other breeds that will. The way I see it is that if a dog, any dog regardless of breed, attacks a person or another pet and is that aggressive, then it needs to be put down and if the owners refuse, fine them and take the animal from them by force.

This woman willingly gave her dogs up to the council to be destroyed because she knows they are now dangerous animals and can no longer be considered loving family pets.

No Baron. I believe that dog owners need to be responsible for their dogs. Just like I believe people need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions, no matter much of a jackarse they may or may not be.

Bells, the dog owners have ALWAYS been responsible for their pets! I don't know where you get that they aren't. I know of no city or state in the nation that does not hold their owners responsible for their pets actions, do you? And if nothing else, there's always civil court.

So in effect, what you're saying is that nothing else needs to be done about pit bulls or any other breed of dog, right? And if that's true, then you and I are in agreement for the first time in history! :D

Baron Max

I think hell just froze over Baron.. :p


There are some owners who will fight tooth and nail to stop their dogs from being put down after it has mauled someone else. And some who never come forward to claim the vicious dog as their own. Takes all kinds I suppose.

The best way to engender responsibility, phlogistician, is to show some.

It is polite to acquaint oneself with the facts before pretending to know them, please, and when you get it wrong, own up.

I guess you feel safe from dog bites, being up on that high horse of yours.

Point out what I got wrong, and stop being cryptic.

deleted

That power would only extend onto private property for the four breeds specifically mentioned in the Dangerous dogs act. As it is illegal to breed or import those dogs, and has been since 1991, dogs that were alive at the point should pretty much be dead by now, so it's hardly relevant anymore.

Therefore, when I mentioned 'crazy dog' I obviously meant a dog which it is legal to own, but is of a violent disposition, and on it's owners property, a 'junkyard mongrel' if you will. Here, as I stated, the Police are powerless to intervene unless the dog is mistreated.

This of course, is to continue to allow the use of guard dogs.

deleted

OK Sauna, which bits don't you grasp?

Four breeds are mentioned specifically, and they cannot be bred, imported, or walked in public without a lead or muzzle. That said, they should no longer exist in the UK, as this law was passed 15 years ago, and they should all be dead by now. What is left, will be cross breeds, not specifically covered, and here is the weakness in the legislation; identification.

The rest of the legislation talks about ALL breeds in public places, or on other people's property, but NOT on the owners property.

In public however, it is very unlikely that anyone will get prosecuted for having a dog that is 'dangerously out of control' unless it actually bites someone. In the case you cited, an ASBO was given! ASBOs were introduced as part of a public order revamp in 1998, seven years after the Dangerous Dogs act. The Act was supposed to stand up by itself, not require additional laws to supplement it. This shows that the law itself is pretty unclear, and that the Police and authorities are reluctant to prosecute under it, hence the rather low number of prosecutions in London in that link I cited. Those were just prosections too, not convictions.

While it's spirit is good, it's enactment is very poor. Technically there is power, but it is rarely exercised, and where it is, the previous legislation would have covered it largely. We still get dog bites, in the cases I cited, by Rottweilers and an American Bulldog. It's hard to see what this act has achieved therefore, so in that context, the 'no' proposition to 'should pit bulls be banned' has been proven, as it will achieve nothing in the USA either.

deleted

The reason to expect a dog licence to make a difference in view of the known inadequacy of the enforcement of a dog ban.


Licensing would provide a way to prove the lineage of a dog, ie whether it is significantly related to, or actually one of the breeds prohibted in the Act. Dogs could be inspected by a vet, and scored against a breed standard before a license was granted.

Yes it does. As I pointed out before, it refers specifically to the seizure of dogs which was specifically your original contention, i.e.

"...the neither Police nor RSPCA have the powers to sieze an animal unless it is being abused."

Technically under certain circumstances, ie, for the four breeds mentined in the act they do, but they don't, because they cannot prove that a dog is one of the breeds mentioned in the act, so will not enter premises unless a prior event, such as a biting incident has taken place.

Tecnically, also in the UK, all free men must practice their archery skills on a Sunday lest they get fined two shillings. Taxi drivers are still legally obligated to carry bails of hay for their horses, as the rules that govern them date back to horse drawn carriages. Maybe you see it now, that a law that is never enforced is not really a law?

As a point of law, you were plainly wrong.

I step on the cracks in the pavement too. Like I said, a law that is never enforced is not really a law.

Your other assertion was also incorrect:

"Not if you own the property, at least not in the UK,..."

A leaseholder (usually referred to as the owner) located in high density social housing such a block of flats is usually subject the very same house rules as the tenant next door.

'usually' oh, that would stand up in court. Seems you are stretching to find an exception to prove a rule.

Now, some questions for you. You seemed to be for banning pit bulls. Taking the UK as an example of where we have suposedly done that, and that we still have incidents with other breeds, do you still hold that opinion? This law will not solve any perceived problem, but just shift it. Do you grasp that?

deleted

Pit Bulls should be classified as dangerous animals like alligators, and should be living in zoos for all of us to enjoy from a distance. Their jaw strength is very high when measured per sq. inch. It can easily break a child's arm and sometimes an adults too. Any other dog that is measured to have a certain bite that exceeds a certain pound per sq. inch should also be considered to be dangerous too. It should be illegal for any parents to have a Pit Bull around any child. This is Child Endangerment . People, especially Children should be able live and not be mauled to death or seriously deformed by this dangerous animal . This breed should only be handled by licensed professionals and zoo keepers. For now, think Nueter and Spay, until deadly dogs are put away.

Good Lord! An animals temperment is a subjective thing. There are some dogs which are naturally agressive, but not "vicious." This type of dog may not be right for a family with small children, but this, of course, depends on the training of said dog. You want to spout crap about the AKC and Pit Bulls? Here's the real diagnosis on a Pit Bull's temperment: "From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog." If you want to talk about the origin of the word "Pit Bull" then you aren't talking about the dog itsself. Pit Bulls are Terriers who are generally well tempered and are extremely suitable for children. The thing to which you refer is the Bull Baiting, where Bulldogs were bred to fight, but that act was banned in 1835, and the agressive attitudes have died out since. The reason pitbulls attack people usually has something to do with the dog being protective of its family and property. If you train a dog the right way you will have no problems with it.

The thing to which you refer is the Bull Baiting, where Bulldogs were bred to fight, but that act was banned in 1835, and the agressive attitudes have died out since. The reason pitbulls attack people usually has something to do with the dog being protective of its family and property. If you train a dog the right way you will have no problems with it.

Bull baiting has died out(I think), but dog fights certainly haven't(come visit me if you don't agree). People make their dogs sniff gunpowder to get more aggressive, but only idiots who aren't experienced with teaching fighting dogs don't teach them not to attack humans. Like I said before, in most cases, if the dog bites the other dog's owner, it loses the fight. They only association that I can image pit bulls to have with aggression is the fact that they are bred for fighting.

I believe that the way a dog has been brought up and treated by it's owner is the main factor in whether or not it's going to lash out and rip out somenones throat. Perhaps some breeds are more prone to anger and lashing out? I really have no idea. I don't think I agree that the breed should be banned.
I have never had contact with a pitbull so I guess my opinion is largely invalid anyway.

deleted

Do I have to read the whole first 5 pages before I can write my own opinion, boss?

deleted

No worries

The way that damn Pitbull took a chunk of meat out of my dog's gut, I'll never know why I took the time to gently pry its jaws apart to save my yelping pup's life. Why I didn't give it a swift kick and disembowel it in the same way it tried to do to my boy I'll never know, but that will never happen again. I've had a long talk with my two pals Smith and Wesson about this. It's a shame that they now have to accompany me wherever I go. It's a crying shame that a meager individual like me needs this type of protection against unwarranted, unprovoked, totally unforeseen and totally unexpected life-threatening attacks.

And a different thread at that.

A pit bull is not a gun that you control to shoot or not, a drink taken by alcoholics that kill thousands every year, a cigarette that you yourself choose to get cancer, or a swimming poll that negligent parents leave unguarded for a child to fall in and drown. There is a major difference here.

A pit bull is a loaded uncontrollable weapon. One person does not have the power, time or foresight to keep watch over this lethal weapon 24 hours/day, to monitor where it always is, or to prevent a young infant from innocently walking into their yard and being mauled. But one person does have the ability to control a gun, their drinking, their smoking, and to put access barriers around a swimming pool. And if they fail to do so, then they are held accountable in court: murder, DUI, DWI, and their own death from cancer should they fail to heed the warnings. The same should be the case for people that attempt to have pit bulls as pets. Most of whom unforesee the inherent danger.

Why do we not have similar laws against pit bull owners, like we have for owning a gun or driving while under the influence?

I must have been misunderstood. I was refering to firearms alone, not dogs. Srry for the mixup

Police shot two pit bulls Tuesday evening after the dogs attacked a man in west Louisville.
Police say three pit bulls trapped the man on top of a car.
The metro council recently passed a dangerous dog ordinance, and Mayor Jerry Abramson is expected to sign it into law sometime in the next few weeks.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5880178

we have a similar situation in the uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6222319.stm

I agree, they are just a dangerous weapon.

I agree, they are a dangerous weapon.

*shakes head*

no government has the right to deny me of children, or pet...perhaps licensing is acceptable, but bans are not.

Licensing can be used to get a ban in through the back door. Government types like going in through the back door.

Licensing can be used to get a ban in through the back door. Government types like going in through the back door.Which is also slang for screwing someone in the butt. Very apt metaphor for government.

we have a similar situation in the uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6222319.stm

This story shows that the 'Dangerous Dogs Act' is a complete failure. The owner is stated to have been 'warned' about his dog, I presume by some authority. This dog was either not recognised as a listed breed, or they didn't pursue the case correctly. Unless this dog was very old, it's been bred since breeding them was made illegal, and that should have been grounds for removing the dog and prosecuting the owner, as well as whatever got the authorities attention.

But the law is badly written, and hard to enforce without support, and it seems, certainly no deterrent.

hippy dog owners, I think I've mentioned this before, but technology has surpassed the ability of dogs to act as burgerler alarms and farming means we don't need to use them to hunt. Dogs are useless, stop being setimental about dogs, ban all of them, own cats. the end.

Hippie dog owners, I think I've mentioned this before, but technology has surpassed the ability of dogs to act as burglar alarms and farming means we don't need to use them to hunt. Dogs are useless, stop being sentimental about dogs, ban all of them, own cats. The end.People tend to have the same kinds of relationships with dogs that they have with other people. I'm wary of people who don't get along with dogs because they generally don't get along very well with other people either. That's one of the important jobs that dogs do: Tell us a lot about the people who do and do not live with them.

Dogs relate to humans in ways that cats cannot. The relationship between dogs and humans goes back 15,000 years to the Mesolithic Era, and some point to evidence that it may go back 100,000 years to the Paleolithic.

Cats only go back five or six thousand years. Cats are not social by nature and to live with us is a tremendous challenge to their solitary instincts. It's hypothesized that it both requires and triggers a psychological reversion to kittenhood. Keeping cats as pets may be freezing them in permanent immaturity.

Dogs are pack-social by nature and observance of a hierarchy is instinctive to them. To be granted a responsibility within our mixed-species pack, even if it is to entertain the children or to relieve the adults from the stresses of their work day, is fulfilment for an adult dog.

Parrots are good companions for humans. They have a strong social instinct, high intelligence, dextrous abilities, longevity, and a newly discovered capacity to use language.

Just like guns don't need to be banned pit bulls do not need to be banned. Do you have any idea how many dog attacks there are every day in this country. No you don't. But I bet you know how many Pit Bull attacks there are. This is what our wonderful media chooses to display to feed the minds of those who do not wish to do their own research. People like the creator of this post. Banning an entire breed of dog is just like Hitler wanting to get rid of the Jews. It is Genocide. Or like the movie jaws when they started killing all sharks. Killer Whales eat cute little leopard seals and penguins every day yet I bet you'd be the first to support a save the whales anti sea world protest. get a life man you freaking tree hugging liberals talk out of both sides of your mouths. And to try to ban them constitutionally? You along with all the other American's who feel that is the way to get things done have forgotten why the constitution was drawn up to begin with. This very small percentage of animals who are the bad apples are due to their owners. You cannot blame a dog who was raised to be aggressive for being aggressive. It is not in their nature, they were originally bred to be hog dogs for hunting. the name "pit bull" came much later my misinformed friend. I have been around pit bulls my entire life. I have even been around pits that were fighting dogs you know how many attacks I have seen that were due to pit bulls? None. I have a Pit Bull as my pet to this day. And you have not met a more sweet, and loving dog. Pits make excellent dogs for kids, because of their high pain tolerance. They are very loyal and protective of their family.

Just a few examples.

pitbulls.iwarp.com/photo.html - Yeah vicious killers...

nbc10.com/news/9365516/detail.html

gonzoskatrinasite.com/gen1/pits_and_rotts.htm

badrap.org/rescue/gallery.cfm - such fierce animals....

So what's your next suggestion for a legislative ban? Black people? Since statistically speaking they are more apt to commit violent crimes? Or Perhaps you want the assault rifle ban back in place? You know since assault rifles and hand guns spring legs and kill people on their own.. Besides. its not the people who obtain these things legally who are committing crimes. So if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Look at Washington D.C. case closed. Simply put if a family gets a pit as a puppy and raises it like they would a cute fluffy golden retriever guess what it isn't going to kill anyone or thing. It is about education and responsibility. You should really use Google before spewing such nonsense publicly.

The actual CDC figures show a maximum of about three deaths per year. Even if it were dozens, there must be some part of "three hundred million people" that most of us don't understand. That's a lot of people to be losing only a few dozen from. What about deaths involving cars and it takes laws to force people to use safety seats? Oh, they'd rather just ban pitbulls, which don't kill thousands of people a year? Better that they inconvenience their neighbor than take steps to make their own homes safer?

People that want to ban pit bulls have never come face to face with something like an Alsatian or Rotty, even a fuckin golden retriever takes a bite off people under the radar. People that get bit by dogs are stupid, thats just the fact, when you are in an area you are unfamiliar with you have to be weary. Whenever a dog charges you, try to fight him off, don't run and don't lie on the ground, you may never get back up if you do that. Then again if the dog is clearly bigger than you...run for your life. If you are getting problems with domestic dogs in civilized areas, you aren't the type to be wondering in the wilderness on adventures.

cpubugs,
So if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Look at Washington D.C. case closed. Simply put if a family gets a pit as a puppy and raises it like they would a cute fluffy golden retriever cute fluffy golden retriever my ass, in some statistics i've seen those guys bite people just as much rottys.

the same arguments against pit bulls could be made against people having children.

lol This was a good one...