Yet another Baby Mauled to Death by PIT BULL - Should they be Banned?

Originally posted by g146541
Bottom line here is, I cannot convince the anti dog people and the anti dog people cannot skew my experience.
So this all boils down to arguing on the internet, and we all know what that means...
Ima jump ship on this thread and devote the time allocated to scratchin my buddies behind the ears, good day all!

I hear ya. I've gotten sucked in to one too many of these arguments.
On a related note, I had a nice afternoon nap with my 10 year old Pit, Lemmy, and my 8mo old daughter, Ava.

Originally posted by tomdham

The Pit bull is, and was specifically bred to fight and kill.

They were bred specifically to fight other dogs. Historically, as a breed standard, any human aggression would result in soft/hard culling. The handlers would have to be able to pull them off of the other dog, without redirection of any kind. They were also not bred to kill, that is controlled by the humans involved and the canine's genes (regardless of breed). The humans decide when to stop the fights, and extremity of training. It has always been a brutal, cold thing to participate in, but that has increased in severity recently (past few decades). This is also compounded by the problem of "backyard" breeders who have no idea what they are doing. Its an issue with every breed really, but a scapegoat breed will attract a certain type of human.

"Pit bull" is a blanket term generally used for three breeds; the american pit bull terrier, the american staffordshire terrier, and staffordshire bull terrier. Though, generally any muscular, blocky headed dog will be lumped into the term incorrectly by the general public. The term also illicits a huge response in the public, which is why it is used occassionally in situations where the dog is not a "pit bull."

Their jaw strength isnt stronger than several other breeds. Nor are they any more territorial than say, your average lab. That part is once again, in the genes (regardless of breed) and human interaction.

I find this topic interesting. There always seems to be a "need" for some scapegoat breed, but it tends to only be a single "breed" for each time period.

I have extensive experience with dogs. As I worked with dogs over the years, a couple of breeds have really stood out as exceptional. The top was, and still is, "pit bull" type breeds. It was impressive, to me, to see them routinely come from terrible situations and just give out nothing but love. No other breed even came close, from a rehabilitation standpoint. From an athletic standpoint, they are incredible animals. From a competition standpoint, they can dominate. Any person who has worked with dogs in any extended capacity will say the same thing.

They are an incredible breed whose name has been marred by improper interaction from humans that has been capitalized to create a fear response in the general public. Beyond that, the answer is almost never "banning" of something. Society, as a whole, just doesnt work like that.

Originally posted by nightstalker78
reply to post by Danbones

 

Yeah,nice try.You're way off topic.No matter how you choose to spin it pit bulls ARE aggressive by nature.It's who they are.

Since when? I don't even like dogs and through all my experiences pit bulls are one of the most gentle breeds.

Notice the reputation for pit bulls is highest in America, followed shortly by Britain. Ever wondered why that is? Yeah, because there's tons of "thugs" who raise them especially.

If Labradors were the breed of choice for criminals and mentally deficient humans then we'd have a labrador death epidemic i'm sure.

Pitbulls are much less aggressive than most dogs. Statistics show this. Pit bulls are the most popular breed in America, especially amongst lower classes, is it any surprise to read stories like this?

I'm much more comfortable around a pit than a poodle. You've been had by media sensationalism.

BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: UNFAIR PREJUDICE & INEFFECTIVE POLICY
By Devin Burstein*

From the abstract:

This comment examines breed specific legislation—the unfortunate attempt of legislatures throughout the country to address the valid concern over vi- cious dog attacks by prohibiting or strictly regulating entire breeds, most often, pit bulls. Such legislation has succeeded in perpetuating uninformed stereotypes and creating a false sense of security for the public. However, breed specific legislation has failed to accomplish the goal of making society safer because it fails to address the responsibility of dog owners for dog at- tacks. In addition, these laws unfairly punish animal and owner alike by ignoring the obvious facts that dogs are individuals capable of a variety of emotions and behaviors, and that no breed is inherently good or evil...

Published in the Animal Law Journal.

Fact is, 9 out of ten times when someone is mauled it's by a Pit Bull. Bred to kill. The numbers don't lie. ~SheopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Fact is, 9 out of ten times when someone is mauled it's by a Pit Bull. Bred to kill. The numbers don't lie. ~SheopleNation

No they don't, but you've greatly misunderstood them.

reply to post by SheopleNation


Maybe the numbers don't lie, but you'll have to furnish the data to back up your claim.
How many of those were pure breeds, how many were crosses, how many were misidentified?

Would you really have this guy:

i.imgur.com...

banned or destroyed. Knowing the reputation of the breed i made sure to expend a good bit of effort socializing him and old Jim turned out to be one heck of a dog. You will not find a more intelligent and loyal breed. The problem with so many pits is that the kind of people who buy them are the kind of people who want a mean dog and as such make them mean. As your first reply stated "there are no bad babies, only bad parents".

Anybody leaving a baby alone with any dog should be sterilized.

Stupid stupid stupid.............the baby had to be left done on the level of the dog or where the dog could get to the baby.

I feel for the baby, but the parents should be charged with neglect and never allowed to reproduce.

Stupid people.

Seems to me that the anti-pit people here are speaking out of pure ignorance. If you've never had or known a pitbull yourself, then you really don't know anything about them except what you've seen on TV. I've had two, so speaking from experiencee, they're the best dogs I've ever had.
What amazes me is that pretty much every ATS member knows you can't take the MSM at face value, yet so many are willing to do just that if it's a story about a vicious pit. C'mon, people.
AliWV

I will agree with others in saying that it is indeed the owners, and the way they treat the dog as they think it's "bad-ass" to have a big mean dog. So they hit the dog, and keep it locked up in a cage, then wonder why it attacks someone.

I used to have a pit bull, but I never once raised a hand to him, I didn't clip his ears and tail, and he was the biggest baby I ever had. He wouldn't go a night without nudging me over and curling up against me to sleep like he did when he was a puppy.

In the end I had to give him away, and it broke my heart. Over protective moms who lived in my building complained that they were terrified of him and were scared for their children, so I was given an ultimatum to either give him up or be forced out of the building.

reply to post by ignant


I wouldn't say it's pitbulls. For the MOST part, the kind of people who buy pitbulls, are the kind of people who will abuse them and make them aggressive.

Whether or not pitbulls have a predisposition to being aggressive, I don't know, but I know that perception is out there. And I know people abuse their pitbulls to make them mean.

A bloodhound has a great sense of smell, but you have to train it. So a pitbull might be mean, but you have to "train" it.

Originally posted by AliWV
Seems to me that the anti-pit people here are speaking out of pure ignorance. If you've never had or known a pitbull yourself, then you really don't know anything about them except what you've seen on TV. I've had two, so speaking from experiencee, they're the best dogs I've ever had.
What amazes me is that pretty much every ATS member knows you can't take the MSM at face value, yet so many are willing to do just that if it's a story about a vicious pit. C'mon, people.
AliWV

all i know is i never heard of a golden retriever or a poodle killing someone.

reply to post by nightstalker78
[more


You speak from an MSM induced stupor of ignorance. If you have an attention span that lasts longer than one of the slanted, biased and sensationalistic B.S. reports you find on the news then read something that is truly explanatory of the breed and it's common perception found at the link below. It's over a 200 page report so I doubt you'll have the patience but at least "cherry-pick" some of the related chapters.


www.pitbullproject.ca...

Pitbulls should be banned. As should death, bad parenting, and dogs in general. In fact - they should ban banning things and then after that - ban the lawmakers that implemented the ban and then ban the pens that aloud the laws to be wrote.

Yes, they should be allowed as pets.
But the stupid people who don't know how to own them properly shouldn't be allowed to have them.

This tragic death in my opinion is 100% the fault of the owner, and was 100% avoidable by simply giving away the dog.

There is no room for chance when safe guarding the life of an infant and it has to take priority over any other love or selfish need.

No room for any assumption that your killing machine will love your baby too, and be welcoming to your new member of the family.

These people have no brains those dogs are spoiled and jealous and will remove that which threatens the way they like things.

Pit Bulls should be outlawed for just anyone to own, they should have to be registered like a deadly weapon, and have many laws attached to owning one.

Originally posted by elouina
Knowing their reputation, why even chance it? I wouldn't have a pitbull in the same house as a baby. No animal should ever be 100% trusted around a baby. And no animal that has the potential to kill a child would be given the benefit of the doubt either. They get jealous, and things could happen...

You can't trust humans either. Some people would say a dog is more trustworthy.

Dangers for children are everywhere, it's just the way of life I'm afraid.

Bad things can happen anywhere. We risk killing children everyday by driving for example. So do you see there are both sides to this topic.

reply to post by Thunder heart woman


Actually, that's not true. When I was young, I was attacked by a Golden at a park. It just ran up and bit me in the face. I have a Doberman right now that has never bit me or anyone else.
Having a "Bully breed" =/= having that dog "Randomly attack".

Originally posted by snalesnot

Originally posted by AliWV
Seems to me that the anti-pit people here are speaking out of pure ignorance. If you've never had or known a pitbull yourself, then you really don't know anything about them except what you've seen on TV. I've had two, so speaking from experiencee, they're the best dogs I've ever had.
What amazes me is that pretty much every ATS member knows you can't take the MSM at face value, yet so many are willing to do just that if it's a story about a vicious pit. C'mon, people.
AliWV

all i know is i never heard of a golden retriever or a poodle killing someone.

Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen:

example

That was a 10 second web search.

Ooh, interesting

ooh interesting #2