iNow Posted October 4, 2007 Author Posted October 4, 2007 To me, the logic is clear cut. They were bred to be what they are : nasty, aggressive killers. <...> A simple google search will show lots of such cases. Have you ever interacted yourself with a pit bull, SkepticLance? If so, how many?
fattyjwoods Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 There isn't much need to interact with a pitbull to relaise they're dangerous
SkepticLance Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 To iNow I have met perhaps 2 pit bulls in my life. I kept my distance and there was no nastiness. This means nothing. As I told you before, I suspect that only 0.01% of interactions with pit bulls would result in serious attacks. However, 0.01% is too many. I think the NZ government approach is the best one - no breeding. To take a pit bull off its owner and put it down would be too cruel, especially to a loving owner. However, I do not think that breeding dogs that are genetically designed to be aggressive is very responsible. A dog lover can love a French poodle or other less aggressive breed just as much.
Paralith Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 There is a hell of a lot of wishful thinking in this thread, by dog lovers who do not like to believe that any breed can be inherently nasty. There are two clear cut facts about pit bulls. 1. They were bred to be aggressive, as a fighting dog, fighting and killing other dogs. They are also still dogs, which have been bred for thousands of years to listen to a human as an authority figure. 2. They are responsible for serious attacks on humans, resulting in maiming and fatalities, at a rate of almost double that of the next worst breed. All the rest is interpretation, and often coloured by emotion rather than hard logic. To me, the logic is clear cut. They were bred to be what they are : nasty, aggressive killers. This is in their genes, as a result of breeding. It is not primarily the result of training and upbringing. Sure, how an owner treats his/her dog has a profound effect on their behaviour. But there are heaps of case histories of pit bulls raised in a caring and loving home which unpredictably turned nasty. A simple google search will show lots of such cases. "a caring and loving home" does not an obedient dog make. Pit bulls are strong, aggressive animals able to do serious damage to people with much less effort than a smaller, weaker dog. What makes a pit bull obedient and less aggressive is not hugs and kisses, but consistent and confident handling. Even the most loving owners can let their dogs walk all over them, and will be unable to control their dogs when they decide to be aggressive. A well owned dog doesn't make it's own decision to be aggressive, it looks to it's authority - the human. With proper handling, a pit bull is safe. With slightly improper handling, a pit bull is capable of doing great harm. A pit bull most certainly requires a very capable owner, and unfortunately, the majority of people who want pit bulls are not.
dichotomy Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 A well owned dog doesn't make it's own decision to be aggressive, it looks to it's authority - the human. With proper handling, a pit bull is safe. I dunno, my dad had a "well owned" boxer when I was a kid. A friend of the family (6-7 year old) accidentally stood on the boxer's foot. It reflex snapped and bit him on the cheek just under his eye, splitting the cheek open. He still has a large scar today. I would hate to think what a Pitbull could do in this situation.
fattyjwoods Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 They are also still dogs, which have been bred for thousands of years to listen to a human as an authority figure. Well they don’t really listen to anybody do they. eg; when a pitbull is mauling a child, do you really think he’ll just stop and come to you if you just said “here boy, come here, whoo’s a good boy, come here you little puppy!” Yes he’ll probably stop, look at you, then plod over to where you are and tear you into pieces. Pit bulls are strong, aggressive animals able to do serious damage to people with much less effort than a smaller, weaker dog. you got that right What makes a pit bull obedient and less aggressive is not hugs and kisses, but consistent and confident handling. Even the most loving owners can let their dogs walk all over them, and will be unable to control their dogs when they decide to be aggressive. this is where you went wrong, confident and consistent handling will not stop the dog from attacking if it wants to, eg. you can’t stop a rapper from acting gangster. neither can you stop an Englishwoman’s tea obsession. It’s just their personality – to be aggressive. A well owned dog doesn't make it's own decision to be aggressive, it looks to it's authority - the human. With proper handling, a pit bull is safe. yes it’s safe but it really isnt safe to the public. so are you saying that it’s their owners saying to them “go bite that kid.” Let me tell you something, most dog attacks happen out of the owners property (over 50%) while their owners are not present, obviously because if your dog was about to attack someone you would certainly pull him or her away. With slightly improper handling, a pit bull is capable of doing great harm. A pit bull most certainly requires a very capable owner, and unfortunately, even if it didn’t have any handling it could do a lot of harm the majority of people who want pit bulls are not. I have to agree with you on this one. but look, sadly neither a good owner nor a bad owner will change a pitbulls personality. eg. a border collie is born to herd, it loves to run and if you keep it in a house it’ll probably go mad. While a Maltese is born to live in a house. This goes for the same for a pitbull – it’s born to fight.
MrSandman Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Yeah, maybe the owners want them to aggresive. Their breeding has a little affect on how the dog resilient to violence. Intinct is still in dogs, but how they will treat humans is entirely up to the owner.
Paralith Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Well they don’t really listen to anybody do they. eg; when a pitbull is mauling a child, do you really think he’ll just stop and come to you if you just said “here boy, come here, whoo’s a good boy, come here you little puppy!” Yes he’ll probably stop, look at you, then plod over to where you are and tear you into pieces. the point is that a good dog owner stops the dog before the mauling ever takes place. a dog that is allowed to maul is clearly not under it's owner's control, and, as you say, will not simply stop if asked nicely. this is where you went wrong, confident and consistent handling will not stop the dog from attacking if it wants to, eg. you can’t stop a rapper from acting gangster. neither can you stop an Englishwoman’s tea obsession. It’s just their personality – to be aggressive. I think using people as an example works against you. People are a lot more plastic than dogs. The difference is that people are a lot less inclined to change just because someone else is telling them too. A dog is much more willing and able in this respect. yes it’s safe but it really isnt safe to the public. so are you saying that it’s their owners saying to them “go bite that kid.” Let me tell you something, most dog attacks happen out of the owners property (over 50%) while their owners are not present, obviously because if your dog was about to attack someone you would certainly pull him or her away. once a dog is well enough trained the owner doesn't have to be present 100% of the time. Dogs descended from territorial animals, and an ill-trained dog that thinks he's the boss will defend what he thinks is his territory. but look, sadly neither a good owner nor a bad owner will change a pitbulls personality. eg. a border collie is born to herd, it loves to run and if you keep it in a house it’ll probably go mad. While a Maltese is born to live in a house. This goes for the same for a pitbull – it’s born to fight. Yet a border collie can still be kept happily in an urban setting if given the right amount of exersize and allowed to expend their natural energy in a controlled manner. The same goes for a pit bull. If a pit bull is kept pent up, it will become frustrated like any other dog will, and being a pit bull it is more likely to express that frustration in the form of aggression, whereas maybe other dogs will do that zany spinning in circles thing, or just bark like crazy. I'm not trying to say that pit bulls aren't aggressive. They most certainly can be, but they are just as capable of being safely trained and controlled, and like we agreed, most pit bull owners just aren't that responsible. And if you own a powerful dog like a pit bull, or a rotweiler, etc, you have to be responsible for it.
MrSandman Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 sorry about the spelling. A good owner will change the personality of a pittbull. Imagined if you were two you hit your sister and your parents didn't discipline you. You wouldn't grow up to be a mature adult. It isn't something that can't be fix.
dichotomy Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 but they are just as capable of being safely trained and controlled Agreed, but just not within a human populated environment. It is just not worth the risk. Is this the old 'if it (a savaging) doesn't happen to anyone I know, or myself, then it doesn't matter at all routine?
Paralith Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Agreed, but just not within a human populated environment. It is just not worth the risk. Is this the old 'if it (a savaging) doesn't happen to anyone I know, or myself, then it doesn't matter at all routine? Ouch. I hope I don't really sound that cold. I just honestly believe that if every single pit bull owner was a capable, responsible one, there simply would be no attacks. But that is not the case. And I've said before that I can understand banning a breed in general because of the cost and effort it would take to safely ensure every owner is a good owner and that attitudes about pit bulls are changed. Like people have been saying, when it comes to regulating things that are dangerous to humans, there are lot bigger things to worry about than dogs.
MrSandman Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Like humans for instance. How many people have died from humans than pittbulls? A lot more, maybe we should see what races are more agressive then ban those races/ kill them off. You see it is quite ridiculous.
dichotomy Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 I just honestly believe that if every single pit bull owner was a capable, responsible one, there simply would be no attacks sorry, I don't mean to be too jarring. But if you read what you have just written, you will see that this is fantasy land stuff. "Every single pitbull owner", this is pure theory and perfect world stuff, it would not stand up in the real world. But I do understand your point from a theoretical perspective. Like people have been saying, when it comes to regulating things that are dangerous to humans, there are lot bigger things to worry about than dogs. True, but if people can't tackle the 'little' problems, how do they deal with the large scale ones? It's like the wearing of seat belt laws that where introduced in the 70's. Many people thought it was a waste of time, a joke. But stat's show seatbelts as being quite worth while. Maybe compulsory muzzles for powerful dogs (over 12 to 15kg) might be a good compromise?
MrSandman Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 No muzzles. I hate to see dogs with muzzles it make me cry.
Spyman Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 These are not a good choice for neurotic pet owners. They need to pick something, that is too small, to hurt other people. That wouldn't be fair to the dog, they shouldn't be allowed to have any animal at all.
fattyjwoods Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Maybe compulsory muzzles for powerful dogs (over 12 to 15kg) might be a good compromise? No that wouldn’t work because some powerful dogs are very peacefull and will not just randomlly jump at you (German Shepherd, Border Collies, Labradors and Retrievers.
j_chop Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 This is just asinine. Pit bulls are very good dogs. They are very loyal and highly intelligent. I have never been bit by any Pit Bull, including my own. However, I have been bit by my wife's chihuahua, and my parent's black lab. It's funny how my parents used to always give me hell about having "violent Pit Bulls" at my house until their dog bit me, then they never said another word. Also, my grandfather who was a Postman for 30 years was never bitten by a Pit Bull on his route. He even had a Pit Bull for the family pet. So, you jackasses that think Pit Bulls should be banned, since the majority of crime is committed by minorities, should we ban them as well?
SkepticLance Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 To j chop I am sorry, but what is asinine is your logic. Sure, most pit bulls will never attack and kill any human. In the same way, your average methamphetamine addict will not commit murder. That does not change the fact that methamphetamine addicts have a per capita murder rate many times that of the general public. Pit bulls are the biggest killer of humans of any breed of dog. Whether your own dog is one of the killers or not is irrelevent. The breed is worse than any other breed.
iNow Posted October 27, 2007 Author Posted October 27, 2007 Why not ban cigarettes then, or fast foods?
Mr Skeptic Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 Pit bulls are the biggest killer of humans of any breed of dog. Whether your own dog is one of the killers or not is irrelevent. The breed is worse than any other breed. Well, when you eliminate pit bulls, you will end up with a different most dangerous breed. Let's eliminate every breed, one by one, until there are no dogs left. It's the only way to eliminate all the most dangerous breeds of dogs. Or, at some point, we can decide that they are not too dangerous, and just keep them. I think that point is now. There is almost zero pit bull deaths.
j_chop Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 Whomever you got your information must be just as ignorant and uneducated as you are, SkepticLance. FACT: in Ontario, Canada, Pit Bulls weren't the number 1 biters, nor had the worst attacks. Labs and Poodles were higher on the list than Pit Bulls. Should we kill all of them too? Lance, you are a ****tard PERIOD
SkepticLance Posted October 27, 2007 Posted October 27, 2007 chop The hard data was presented earlier in the thread. Look it up! iNow Why not ban cigarettes or fast food? Cigarettes. Because it would be a futile ban. I would love to see an effective ban on cigarettes. However, the prohibition experiment has showed that such bans are not possible. All they do is give the mafia a new source of earnings. Fast food? Something could be done, no doubt, with fast food industry standards. It is a complex issue, and not one I have researched, so I would prefer not to comment further. Pit bulls. The thing is, here, that there is massive consumer choice. If you want a pet dog, you have hundreds of breeds to choose from. If you choose a breed with a long history of killing people, that is, in my opinion, quite irresponsible. To Mr Skeptic. You are addressing the question of where do we draw the line. This is a valid question and always tricky, since the answer is always subjective. My personal answer, which you are entitled to disagree with, is to eliminate pit bulls by a ban on breeding, and restrict the next few nastiest breeds (Rottweilers and German Shepherds) to use by government agencies such as the police, where their aggression can be put to use.
iNow Posted October 28, 2007 Author Posted October 28, 2007 My personal answer, which you are entitled to disagree with, is to eliminate pit bulls by a ban on breeding, and restrict the next few nastiest breeds (Rottweilers and German Shepherds) to use by government agencies such as the police, where their aggression can be put to use. Your ban will do little to prevent people who truly desire one of these breeds from actually obtaining one. It's one of those laws that can only moderately be enforced. Also, you are, in essence, going to create a black market and simply jack up the price of these dogs. When you make something forbidden, there are many people who want it more just for that reason. In other words, it's a waste of time and energy to implement bans like this, and the problem is of such tiny scale that making such a fuss about it is somewhat silly. What was that number? 63 deaths caused in 20 years? Come on. There is no Eden, but I do love my apples.
SkepticLance Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 To iNow I agree that this is a minor problem in the greater scheme of things. The biggest preventable killer of humans is smoking. 400,000 to 500,000 deaths per year in the USA alone. If I were to start a personal crusade, I would be more likely to attack smoking. For this reason I am not going to get too excited about pit bulls. But I still get a bit irritated when I see some of the dog lovers wearing intellectual blinkers, and claiming that pit bulls are harmless. The published facts say otherwise. To chop Official American government statistics. Between 1979 and 1998 in the United States, 66 people were killed by attacks from pit bulls, while the next worst (Rottweilers) killed only 39.
iNow Posted October 28, 2007 Author Posted October 28, 2007 I agree that this is a minor problem in the greater scheme of things. The biggest preventable killer of humans is smoking. 400,000 to 500,000 deaths per year in the USA alone. If I were to start a personal crusade, I would be more likely to attack smoking. For this reason I am not going to get too excited about pit bulls. Thanks for clarifying. There was a certain "intensity" in your responses which seemed to indicate otherwise, but I appreciate you reaching your hand out here. But I still get a bit irritated when I see some of the dog lovers wearing intellectual blinkers, and claiming that pit bulls are harmless. The published facts say otherwise. You see, I am pretty confident that nobody is saying that. We all recognize that there is the potential for harm when interacting with ANY person or animal. What most of us "dog lovers" are arguing is that the risk does not even come close to warranting a ban. Cheers.
Recommended Posts