[deleted] The data has been provided in post #394 which you already responded to. The case has been closed for 2 weeks now. Oh, and did you just have in post #395 the spelling argument? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
[deleted] please read post #400. Your silly little Merritt-less "study" has been consistently disregarded as in any way valid. Incidentally, I personally don't care for Pit Bulls and would never have one. Two reasons: they tend to go after other peoples' dogs and cats, not kids or adults; and I prefer a meaner dog, like a heeler, that typically has less regard for human life. (I'm being only somewhat facetious; nevertheless, there are countless breeds with a greater propensity towards violence against people.)
If not banned, how about eaten?? New Zealand row over roasted pet A heated debate has begun in New Zealand after a man killed and roasted his family's pit bull terrier, with the intention of eating it. Paea Taufa, of Tongan origin, killed his dog in February after he decided it had become too much of a nuisance. He struck the dog with a hammer, slit its throat and roasted it. His actions sparked a row after the authorities decided that the animal had been killed humanely and that Mr Taufa had done nothing illegal. Under New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act it is legal to kill a dog if it is slaughtered swiftly and painlessly. A commentator in the New Zealand Herald newspaper, Brian Rudman, praised Mr Taufa, saying that pit bull terriers were dangerous. "They should be giving him a medal. If every pit bull owner in the land followed his lead, New Zealand would be a safer place to live." He added: "The pit bull fraternity should be persuaded that their pets, once barbecued, are as delicious as crayfish or rare sirloin."...
well, at least it was put to good use. What do they do with the remains of dogs they put down at the vet? Burn them? wasteful
You know, this thread reads a lot better when you substitute the word "cops" for "pit bulls." And I can provide better data too. My friend's pit bull, Boswell, is the star of the new Pedigree commercial--it's scheduled to air mid-September. Will post a link in due time.
Pit Bulls are great dogs. The only problem with the breed is that they are too willing to please humans, and that makes it too easy to train them to be aggressive. Pit bulls should not be banned, people who train them to fight should be banned, and idiots who blame the dog for the dogs' training should be ignored. http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm Here's a former fighting dog of Michael Vick, now a therapy dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGajvqmxVRA
Pitbulls SHOULD NOT be banned. Ignorant people are the problem. Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog. Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven. Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise. Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to them and might make them want to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they really don't care. They will just get another one because breed bans punish the dog, not the owner. On the other hand, law abiding responsible owners, whose dogs love people and have never done anything wrong, can see their homes invaded, often without a search warrant, and their beloved family members dragged away (in front of their children) to be killed. Not because the dogs are unstable or mean, but simply because of their breed. Meanwhile, the owners of truly dangerous dogs (of any breed) escape punishment because their breed is not targeted by legislation and therefor is believed "safe". A 10 Lbs Pomeranian killed a baby a few years ago... Obviously a problem with that particular dog, not the breed. "The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)" Because of a serious lack of regulation in dog breeding, too many dogs inherit defective genes and are sold to irresponsible owners. A breed ban will not resolve the problem. This nonsense will continue with the next macho breed and will become an endless race between breed specific legislators and unscrupulous breeders. A Pit Bull breeder was shut down last year because Pit Bulls were banned in Topeka, Kansas. All his dogs were seized and destroyed, just for being the wrong breed at the wrong place. The man now breeds and sells African Boerboels, a rare breed from the Mastiff family, completely unknown to legislators. Unlike American Pit Bull Terriers, however, who are known for their love of people, Boerboels are serious guard dogs bred specifically as protectors. An irresponsibly bred and owned Boerboel might actually be more dangerous than an irresponsibly bred and owned Pit Bull. This is what a breed ban has accomplished in Topeka... According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 85.3%of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took the temperament test passed, compared to a 81.9% passing rate for all breeds on average. In the test a dog is placed in a series of confrontational situations. The first sign of aggression or panic is a failure of the test. Pit Bulls have achieved the fourth highest passing rate of all 122 breeds teste So in light of this, what kind of message are we telling abusive and irresponsible individuals when we make the dogs pay the price for their actions? 1.) Since 1998, the breed most involved in fatal attacks has been the **********(don't want to put any other breeds on the spot), not the Pit Bull. 2.) Although there are no accurate or even near accurate census records for dogs in the U.S., in some populations pit bulls are estimated to comprise some 30-40% of the dog population, making it by FAR the most popular breed. Considering that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the U.S., and assuming that pit bulls make up 20% of that population, there would be approximately 10,600,000 pit bulls in our society. In 1998, five pit bulls were involved in 2 fatal attacks. That is roughly ONE dog out of 2,120,000 - or .00004716 percent of the pit bull Population. 3.) Over the 32-year period from 1965-2001, Pit Bulls have been blamed for/accused of an average of 2.48 human fatalities per year. 4.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull. 5.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls. 6.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull. 7.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull. 8) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull. 9) It is estimated that 5,000,000 dogs per year are killed in shelters. Since in many places pit bulls make up 30-50% of the shelter population, and are less likely to be considered for placement than any other breed, guessing that 25% of those dogs killed are pit bulls is a very conservative estimate. Therefore, it can be assumed that roughly 1,250,000 pit bulls are killed per year. Therefore - it is at least a HALF MILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY that a Pit Bull will be killed by a HUMAN than the other way around. 10) The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3. 11) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T! This country wants to ban/destroy 10.5 million innocent dogs for the actions of 0.94% of its category?
not at all. you can fall down a flight of stairs as well, does that mean we should ban stairs? pitbulls were bred into existence too so what is the big deal?
Thanks for registering, although you should be banned for making a bad analogy. Here it is correctly: Banning pittbulls is like banning bad/dangerous cars. There, I fixed it for ya.....For extra credit: http://www.spike.com/blog/top-7-most-dangerous/70693 "the Audi 5000 became synonymous with cars that randomly accelerate from a complete stop with no input from the driver." Sounds like a pitbull, perfect analogy!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Banning pitbulls is like banning bbq chicken, roasted and grilled a bbq'ed pitbull makes for a tasty meal. Banning pitbulls is like pulling a tailless cat's tail, you cant ban a pitbull if its teeth are squeezing your throat and your dead.
Banning pitbulls is like asking James R to unban banned member, its the natural flow of hierarchical power in the veins of life.
This is obviously a hot topic. I can see banning dangerous dogs understandable. There are immature and careless owners out there. I live near a Missouri town where they are banned. Why would you need a vicous attack dog? Protection? That's what guns are for. Also there are other dogs that are suitable for protection than vicous pitbulls. But on the contrary, the owner of the pitbull makes a huge difference.
I dnt agree with a Ban on any dogs all dogs can be dangerous and alot can be killers. I have seen many good Pit's and many bad ones. And no attach is unprovoked the dog see things differently then we do and it will attack a weaker animal if the handler is not payng attention to their dog. If the dog attackes someone of something then the owner should be held responsible not the dog.
Alright, I can do a compromissum: Instead of banning, the owners need a 4 years education in animal psychology and a 50K deposit to the city council. How does that sound? I think it is fair if you want such a fugly and dangerous animal...
I am confident that if someone you loved was attacked and/or killed by a pitbull, your opinion would change dramatically. I hope you never have to experience the unbelievable pain of losing a child to a vicious and unprovoked attack from one of those killing machines. While other dogs can attack people, none have the ability to do the damage a pitbulls jaws can do. I have found that the majority of people who insist on owning a pitbull, do it to feel superior and tough, not for the love of the dog. And because society cannot change the behavior of those people with a slap on the hand, a more aggressive plan needs to take place for the safety of the rest of us.
