Should Pit Bulls be banned

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
I honestly believe you don't even know what a APBT is. I know you can look at websites and spurt propaganda, but do you honestly know ANYTHING about this subject?

I think that I have displayed a knowledge about the subject via my posts. Just because you disagreee with my views, and basic common sense, is not a reason to claim that I am ignorant of the subject.

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
APBT are less human aggressive than most other dogs. Any guard dog/herd dog is more human aggressive.

Funny thing though, the websites that actually are supposed to defend pitbulls unknowingly condemn them(see earlier in the thread).

Originally posted by Arabian Knight
Stop believing the hype, you sound like a friggin' drug war propagandist.

Actually, you seem to be ramped up on the hypo-metre. I have remained calm and posted common sense arguements. You countered with the same lame arguement that everyone who is pro -pit bull counters with.

What anyone who has been raging against me has constantly missed is that I am not anti-dog. I really enjoy dogs and am a dog owner myself. I just think that it is pathetic when someone denies the defining characteristics of a breed because it's their favourite breed. They readily rag on others, but vehemently defend their own choice, APBT owners seem to be the worst in this regard.

I run a dogie daycare I have had good and bad experiences with pit bulls.When you get any dog you have to remember that it is your dog not your baby,YOU have to train it to be a social dog some dogs are aggressive by nature.If you decide to have one of these dogs be responsible YOU are owner and pack leader if you lead they will follow

I don't think they should all be banned or put to sleep, people in general are just reckless about taking care of them. Look at how many children are attacked a year because a owner failed to keep their dog from getting out of a gate that's not locked. Not all pitbulls are bad, but as said above, some are agressive by nature. More often than not it's the owners fault.

Depends, do they wear lipstick?

I didn't think of that...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I think that I have displayed a knowledge about the subject via my posts. Just because you disagreee with my views, and basic common sense, is not a reason to claim that I am ignorant of the subject.

Funny thing though, the websites that actually are supposed to defend pitbulls unknowingly condemn them(see earlier in the thread).

Actually, you seem to be ramped up on the hypo-metre. I have remained calm and posted common sense arguements. You countered with the same lame arguement that everyone who is pro -pit bull counters with.

What anyone who has been raging against me has constantly missed is that I am not anti-dog. I really enjoy dogs and am a dog owner myself. I just think that it is pathetic when someone denies the defining characteristics of a breed because it's their favourite breed. They readily rag on others, but vehemently defend their own choice, APBT owners seem to be the worst in this regard.

the funny thing about it is that people barely complain about Rottweiler's even though they are bigger bite alot harder, and tend to be just as aggressive since they are breed to be extremely territorial

Isn't Sarah Palin a pitbull?

Originally posted by Markus Corvinus
I don't think they should all be banned or put to sleep, people in general are just reckless about taking care of them. Look at how many children are attacked a year because a owner failed to keep their dog from getting out of a gate that's not locked. Not all pitbulls are bad, but as said above, some are agressive by nature. More often than not it's the owners fault.

We should ban the people not the dogs.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Depends, do they wear lipstick?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't Sarah Palin a pitbull?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.

Also you are speaking from personal experience, and you have only worked with a small fraction of the dogs that are out there in a very controled situation. By that train of thought I could say that I've worked with thousands of people in the last couple of years and i have never met one that killed anyone, therefore humans get a bad rap are not as dangerous as some would have you believe.

I have no doubt that they can be great pets, but anyone who is willing to overlook the intended purpose of the breed and it's nature and capabilities towards violence is either letting their bias overtake common sense or is not able to face reality.

they were never bred for dog-fighting...they were bred for things such as badger baiting and are no more inherently aggresive than bloodhounds are when chasing and killing foxes...sure you can argue that they were bred to be used for violent purposes...but the training is far more important than the breeding....it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their decendants were violent

pit bulls, staffordshire bull terriers and other such varieties of dogs bred historically in the UK are extremely common in my home town...infact there are 3 in my street of 50 houses...none of them are as aggressive as the japanese akita that is also on my street....at least to other animals (never seen any of them be aggressive towards people...even the many kids that live on my street)

on the other hand i knew a staffy owner when i lived in a council estate and he kicked that dog around every time he was out with it...and that dog was a maniac and mauled more than a few other dogs in the time i was friends with it's owner

saying that...i could post a link to a picture of a victim of a pitbull attack...and it's not pleasant at all...i'm pretty sure its against forum rules so i'll just say if anyone wants to see it pm me.

i will say this though...muzzles...problem solved

oh...and here's pitbulls being used as therapy dogs in hospitals

http://www.thisisruby.com/tdi.html

Any breed of dog can attack a human. It is up to the owner of that dog to raise it in the right fashion. This is coming from the former owner of an American Pit Bull Terrier.

I love the laser on your rifle, daddy.

Originally posted by jaden101
they were never bred for dog-fighting...they were bred for things such as badger baiting and are no more inherently aggresive than bloodhounds are when chasing and killing foxes

Comparing on a breed to breed basis is pointless as each breed has had particular traits bred into or out of them over a period of years and generations.

The aggressive tendancies bred into a dog that was bred to "fight " another dog/animal (I am aware what statfordshire's were originally bred for, but we are mostly focusing on APBT's here) are different than those aggression tendancies of most hunting dogs.

Originally posted by jaden101
...sure you can argue that they were bred to be used for violent purposes...but the training is far more important than the breeding

But you cannot discount the years of breeding and the basis and demand of characteristics originally desired that justified the breed's very existence. As I said here:

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No offense, but pit bulls were bred to be aggresive. Whether that aggressivenes was intended to be directed to dogs or not, it was a desirable trait that was bred into the dog. To deny that it exists is ridiculous.

Originally posted by jaden101
....it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their decendants were violent

I'm guessing you were going for "it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their ancestor's were violent". (for all of you who are about to pick on me for pointing that out, I'm sure Jaden is sort of smiling right now and knows that I'm just joking...well, sort of. 😉)

If we are going to compare people against dogs...this debate is not going to go anywhere.

Originally posted by KharmaDog

I'm guessing you were going for "it's no more a valid argument to say that than it is to say a person is violent because their ancestor's were violent". (for all of you who are about to pick on me for pointing that out, I'm sure Jaden is sort of smiling right now and knows that I'm just joking...well, sort of. 😉)

hahaha...oops...i was tired....i had a hard day at work 😆

well that's my excuse anyway

I have a Staffordshire bull terrier crossed with a greyhound, he's a lovely dog, but a nightmare to take out on walks. If he sees a dog that has ears that stick up, he seems to take it as a personal insult and try to batter them.

Are Pit Bulls dangerous? Judge for yourself, here are some stats....

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

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Are Pit Bulls dangerous? Judge for yourself, here are some stats....

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

the figures are generally considered a fallacy because not all bites are reported and bites from pitbulls are generally reported in much larger numbers...how many people report bites from chihuahuas for example...or small terriers?

But did you see the difference between Pit bulls and Rotts?

what's your point?...i would hazard a guess that far more people own pitbulls than rottweilers for a start

i would also say that 1110 attacks in 24 years means 46 attacks a year which is less than 1 a week...given that it's estimated that 20% of dogs in the US are pitbulls or pitbull cross's then that means, given that there are an estimated 53,000,000 dogs in the US alone (not including Canada) then that means 10,600,000 pitbulls with the full 46 attacks in a year means that only a fraction of a % of pitbulls attack under any circumstances

here's also another little nugget of information about them

According to the American Canine Temperament Testing Association, 82.5%of the American Pit Bull Terriers that took the temperament test passed, compared to a 77% 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 tested.

You gotta remember, these are only the REPORTED attacks.