"Your" dog doesn't count for the majority. Matter of fact, 90% of the pitbull cases were loving families owning the dog for several years with it showing no aggression at all, then suddenly attacking someone, either provoked or not provoked. Simply saying "Well MY Pitbull is nice" doesn't mean much considering that in this case most of them were..until they went off.
Originally posted by Blax_HydraliskThat is clear bullshit, man...you say that "my" dog doesn't count for the majority, yet you want to ban and exterminate them all? Then why don't we ban and exterminate ALL dog breeds that have attacked, ever? Why don't we kill off all Pomeranians since two of them killed a little girl a few years back?
"Your" dog doesn't count for the majority. Matter of fact, 90% of the pitbull cases were loving families owning the dog for several years with it showing no aggression at all, then suddenly attacking someone, either provoked or not provoked. Simply saying "Well MY Pitbull is nice" doesn't mean much considering that in this case most of them were..until they went off.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
That is clear bullshit, man...not even going to comment on it, because you have little to no idea on what you're talking about. Plus, it has nothing to do with what I said. Good job! Way to stay on some semblance of the topic, rather than responding.
What are you going on about? They are the most likely dog to attack, you can't escape that fact. You have one and it hasn't attacked anyone, wow that means a lot, it's a bit like me saying ''I leave bleach in my two year old's cot, it's never drank it''. Just because your individual case goes against the majority, does not mean the majority cases can be discounted.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenI was talking about the made up fact of "90 percent" were good dogs.
What are you going on about? They are the most likely dog to attack, you can't escape that fact. You have one and it hasn't attacked anyone, wow that means a lot, it's a bit like me saying ''I leave bleach in my two year old's cot, it's never drank it''. Just because your individual case goes against the majority, does not mean the majority cases can be discounted.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenOn the basis that its wrong to exterminate, because that's what a ban would do, a whole breed just because people treat their dogs like crap, and train them to attack. Case in point, Michael Vick. American Pit Bull Terriers get the short end of the stick, yet when other breed of dog attacks, people sweep it under the rug. Simple as that. Have owner restrictions, keep scumbags from owning them, sure, but don't outright ban them.
Right, OK then. So you're arguing against the ban, on the basis of your dogs individual behaviour?
It has been classed as a breed that is likely to attack and with a power that can kill children, and adults alike. That's through statistics and carefully observed behaviours, bans aren't made just to cause an inconvenience. Although it's unfortunate, as I know pit bulls can be lovely dogs, it seems necessary.
Originally posted by KharmaDogWhat about the 20 or so other dogs that were breed to be fighting dogs?
Golden retrievers retrieve.
Border Collies have a desire to herd things.
Sight hounds chase things.
Scent hounds sniff things out.
Newfoundlanders love the water.
German Short hair pointers love to seek out game.
Huskies love to pull.Dogs have been bred to desire to accomplish certain tasks or exhibit certain traits.
Why do people think that this does not apply to aggression?
Originally posted by ZebedeeBecause you don’t know what the F you are talking about 😉
Because they are posters on an internet forum and usually clueless teenagers.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenNo Pit-bull are not likely to attack, I have already shown you how the stats are skewed on this.
Yet, you can say which are more likely to attack. Which is probably what matters.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenAgain 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.
What are you going on about? They are the most likely dog to attack, you can't escape that fact. You have one and it hasn't attacked anyone, wow that means a lot, it's a bit like me saying ''I leave bleach in my two year old's cot, it's never drank it''. Just because your individual case goes against the majority, does not mean the majority cases can be discounted.
Originally posted by Rogue JediNo, don't have a dog. To tell you the truth I really don't like Pitbulls, never been my type of dog.
Pitt, you have a pit? ....hehehehe....a Pitt pit.....Pitt's pit.....
Originally posted by Kelly_Bean😛 Nope named after Pitt the comic character 😉
Notice his name is potentially [Da Pittman] for that reason.. ......
[sarcasm]As a side note all of the dogs below are considered high risk by the CDC, why not ban them all as well?[/sarcasm]
* Pit bulls
* Rottweilers
* German shepherds
* Huskies
* Alaskan malamutes
* Doberman pinschers
* Chows
* Great Danes
* Saint Bernards
* Akitas
http://www.dogbite.org/pages/dogsmostlikely.html
"Many small dog owners overlook their dog's behavior because they are small and/or think they cannot hurt anyone. The truth is, little dogs bite more than big dogs. There have been many cases involving dog bite attacks with smaller dogs such as the case involving a family Pomeranian dog and a 6-week old baby."
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Pit's are ugly as hell asyways. why one would want a pit is beyond me.