Originally posted by Da Pittman
What about the 20 or so other dogs that were breed to be fighting dogs? Because you don’t know what the F you are talking about 😉 No Pit-bull are not likely to attack, I have already shown you how the stats are skewed on this. Again they are not the most likely dog to attack, which is simple and utter BS. It is not though “carefully observed behaviors” and you don’t even know what you are talking about. Yes Pits have a better change at killing compared to smaller dogs to adults but any large breed dog has just as much chance at killing an adult as any Pit. The number of just dog bits which would be more of an indicator favors the smaller dogs, and even there it is not an accurate account because how many times have you seen someone that got bit by a small dog not report it.
Those other dogs haven't earned themselves a reputation, as being the most likely to attack through statistics. You are arguing that an assumption should be made, that the dog will be properly trained; that's never going to happen. They have attacked the most, so they're going to be banned, what can't you get your head around?
Just because you're married to a veterinary student doesn't give you an authority on why and how laws and bans are executed.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenSo just because they have earned a “reputation” which is inflated by public opinion and misleading statistics makes it justified for the ban because of improper handling by their owners? The other dogs that I have brought up are marked by the CDC as “serious threat” in the same class as Pitbulls. Pitbulls have more kills, other dogs which I have brought up more times than I can count have bitten more people then most of these other dogs combined but most bites are not life threatening or do not require medical treatment because of the lack of damage but everyone wants to say that Pitbulls are more likely to bite which is BS.
Those other dogs haven't earned themselves a reputation, as being the most likely to attack through statistics. You are arguing that an assumption should be made, that the dog will be properly trained; that's never going to happen. They have attacked the most, so they're going to be banned, what can't you get your head around?Just because you're married to a veterinary student doesn't give you an authority on why and how laws and bans are executed.
As for me having authority on why and how bans are passed or executed I do as well as everyone else that has to vote them to be passed, if people want to make uninformed decisions that is there choice as is mine to help weed out the BS of this ban.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Yet, my dog, a "pit bull", was attacked by two Golden Retrievers owned by my next door neighbor, and the Dalmatian down the street maimed a two year old girl just a little over a year ago...go figure.You cannot look at a dog, recognize it's breed, and say if its going to attack you or not. All dogs attack, all dogs bite, and all dogs, no matter the breed, can be a loving dog.
Did you completely miss my point on purpose? Or did you willingly choose to ignore it?
Originally posted by Da Pittman
What about the 20 or so other dogs that were breed to be fighting dogs?
Sorry, how silly of me, we were talking about Pitbulls, so that's where I directed my comment, next time I will include all of the over 400 breeds of dog when I make a point so that no one is left out. (that was sarcasm)
As for other dogs that were bred to fight: I agree in case such as presa canarios and the like, however boxers and english bulldogs have been bred as companions over the last hundred years, and so are much less likely to exhibit aggression as a genetically desired aspect of the breed.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No Pit-bull are not likely to attack, I have already shown you how the stats are skewed on this.
Stats mean shit for the most part. When people tell me chihuahua's bite more people than pitbulls it means nothing. When Chihuahua's rip the face off a kid, the arm apart of an old lady, or kill someone, then that point will have some validity.
I love dogs. I believe in responsible ownership of dogs. And if an owner of a pitbull is unwilling to admit that they own a dog that was bred for aggression, strength and brutality, and that those traits could at any time raise to the surface, than they are both irresponsible, naive, and a tad bit on the stupid side.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So just because they have earned a “reputation” which is inflated by public opinion and misleading statistics makes it justified for the ban because of improper handling by their owners? The other dogs that I have brought up are marked by the CDC as “serious threat” in the same class as pit bulls. pit bulls have more kills, other dogs which I have brought up more times than I can count have bitten more people then most of these other dogs combined but most bites are not life threatening or do not require medical treatment because of the lack of damage but everyone wants to say that pit bulls are more likely to bite which is BS.As for me having authority on why and how bans are passed or executed I do as well as everyone else that has to vote them to be passed, if people want to make uninformed decisions that is there choice as is mine to help weed out the BS of this ban.
Your 'weeding out' has consisted solely of you going on about personal experience, though, taking into no account the differences that occur due to circumstance.
Just because you've raised other dogs that have bitten people more, does not change the fact that pit bulls on the whole, are the most likely to bite.
Plus, I believe you said in an earlier post, with some conviction, that any dog can be trained. Yet your dogs, have in the past bitten people; Practice what you preach.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Plus, I believe you said in an earlier post, with some conviction, that any dog can be trained. Yet your dogs, have in the past bitten people; Practice what you preach.
I have owned four dogs in my life. A Golden Retriever, two mutts, and an Irish Wolfhound. In over 30 Years of owning dogs NEVER has one bit anyone. If someone's dog(s) have bitten people on numerous occasions, than they have shown that when it comes to dogs...they should just listen as they have no idea how the f*ck to handle them.
Originally posted by KharmaDogAs are Pitbulls, all the other fighting breeds were breed for aggression, and other traits that would help them in the fighting ring and as the other over a long period of time this is no longer their primary use. Fighting dogs are not put back into the general populace and are destroyed once found. The vast majority of Pitbulls that are own have come from household pets from many generations as well as other fighting dogs.
Sorry, how silly of me, we were talking about Pitbulls, so that's where I directed my comment, next time I will include all of the over 400 breeds of dog when I make a point so that no one is left out. (that was sarcasm)As for other dogs that were bred to fight: I agree in case such as presa canarios and the like, however boxers and english bulldogs have been bred as companions over the last hundred years, and so are much less likely to exhibit aggression as a genetically desired aspect of the breed.
Originally posted by KharmaDogI have never once said that a bite from a small dog is worse than that of a large breed dog, this is why many cases of bite attacks go unreported. There is no question that Pitbulls have more fatal attacks than another breed but that is not the point all fighting dogs in your opinion should be banned.
Stats mean shit for the most part. When people tell me chihuahua's bite more people than pitbulls it means nothing. When Chihuahua's rip the face off a kid, the arm apart of an old lady, or kill someone, then that point will have some validity.I love dogs. I believe in responsible ownership of dogs. And if an owner of a pitbull is unwilling to admit that they own a dog that was bred for aggression, strength and brutality, and that those traits could at any time raise to the surface, than they are both irresponsible, naive, and a tad bit on the stupid side.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenNo I’m not, I’m using personal experience yes but also experts and those that are in the field as well as much research me and my wife have done over the years. Again this is one of the things that I have so much of an issue with is that Pitbulls are not more likely to attack, when they do attack they are more likely to kill or maul the victim but they are not more likely to attack and you would be incorrect that the dogs that I have raised have ever bitten anyone. The “meanest” dog I have ever known was a German Shepherd.
Your 'weeding out' has consisted solely of you going on about personal experience, though, taking into no account the differences that occur due to circumstance.Just because you've raised other dogs that have bitten people more, does not change the fact that pit bulls on the whole, are the most likely to bite.
Plus, I believe you said in an earlier post, with some conviction, that any dog can be trained. Yet your dogs, have in the past bitten people; Practice what you preach.
Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Pit Bulls, Non Bullys, Are some of the prettyest dogs ever. Now I will admit a Bully Pitbull are ****ing ugly ass mother ****ers. But your standered size pit thats a none lead/weight puller are beautiful dogs.See None Bully Red, Very pretty
Grizzles are great looking animals too, I wouldn't want one as a pet though.