Pit Bulls should be banned in this country ! <<MOD WARNING - FOR RULE 9>>

The problem is to know : Is it because pittbull are that much agressive ? Or because they attract bad owners ? Because I saw many people who seems to have a IQ lower than 60 owning those dogs.
A dog is a responsibility, when he have a jaw like a pittbull or a rottweiller, it's a much bigger responsibility.

The problem is too for half pitt bull. I live in a country with pitt bull, staff and rottweiller heavy restrictions and my bitch is concerned by those restrictions too. Fortunately, the law don't forbid pitt bull, they just restrict the possibility to own one.

 

You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, whether your father was a breeder or not! Dogs can't be trained not to bite or attack because it isn't about 'training' ( another denier!), it's all about the individual dog's psyche. God it's soooo depressing!

 

Whatever! Just go away and stop depressing me.

 

It's kind of depressing that you use a dog's placid nature to attack it. What's the poor animal supposed to do? Behave badly to prove you're right? Makes me think of these stupid tourists who try to pull a reaction out of the Beefeaters around Buckingham palace.

I hope you don't have kids.

 

Technically I know that you are right, since the basset is or was related to the saint huberts hound that is now extinct but was imported to England and became the modern bloodhound. The idea posted however is that wild dogs that might include bassets are vicious killers like wolves. Unfortunately a basset couldn't catch a turtle with a broken leg much less catch rabbits or deer. One difference between the hounds in general and a german shorthair, is that the shorthair will cover 1000 times as much ground in the same time as a basset and never ever get lost, while plucking live birds out of the air. All this said a wild basset will either find a human to care for it, or die, no difference from say a pug. See it is not enough to track stuff, that you can not take down, thus a basset is 100 percent human dependent in a real hunting situation

 

You are defending the pitt, which is a grossly insecure timid and scared dog, that chooses to attack and kill the easiest target, often a young human female child. You are guilty of this and the people who believe and trust people who lie like you too often end up like this. You are guilty

You breed hate

Spoiler: Warning- graphic photo

 

I put it down to the probability that they're pathetic excuses for 'a man', and being 'in charge' of a powerful dog is their way of garnering some self-esteem.

What a ghastly picture, from beauty and promise to ruination for the remainder of her life. And all because of fools!

 

Pitts do not have the right to exist, they could and all should be sterilized, these are not wild animals deserving of any protection, they are the product of a Nazi like experiment designed only to kill

 

Fools who aspire to own them don't either.

 

But they have killed children in their cribs. So it's not the deaths you have a problem with it's the physical damage that might be caused.

 

I don't believe the blood thing because my dogs have occasionally tasted my blood when I accidentally cut myself and have showed no proclivity toward wanting more. The dogs I have had to put down were put down for simply snarling at children unprovoked and it has to be more than once. No children were given a chance of being bitten, if the dog shows signs of not loving children they have no home with me. What I am sensing from you on this is you just don't like dogs and it really doesn't matter the breed. I have always owned small mixed breeds because they have a better temperament and tend to live longer than pure breeds.

 

But you were giving gun grabbers ammunition with your statement, unless you are a gun grabber also and it was intentional. I have seen no evidence that pits were created for the specific purpose to kill.

 

No it's not any comfort. But whether that child was killed by a pitbull or a rottweiller or a german shepherd doesn't matter either. You're like the people on this forum that blame all blacks for black crime. It's another form of racism because you don't like the breed, you want to ban them.

It's the owner/trainer that is responsible for the safe keeping of the dog. Just as it is the responsibility of the gun owner to secure their firearms. However, many children are not taught right from wrong by their self-absorbed parents. The same type that leave their babies in the backseat of a car in Houston during the summer.

The last child in our area that was killed by a dog entered into an enclosed fence that was clearly secured and had warning signs posted around the property...that child was 12.

 

You mean .1 not 1, and even that is being generous. Any, and I mean any large dog can kill someone. So apparently you want to outlaw any remotely large breed. That's completely irrational. Let's outlaw balloons, hard candy, swimming pools and guns too. Kids are far more unpredictable than dogs, and they've gotten themselves killed with these things far more often than they've been killed by pits. The total elimination of danger is an impossibilty and an irrational standard for the law or for any kind of decision making. By the way, there are at least 3 million pits in the US. If they were as dangerous as you say, there would be a fatality every day. The simple fact is the getting your dog fixed, socializing them and training them are perfectly reasonable precautions that bring the chances of injury to near 0. Phobias are not a reasonable standard of governance, and they are terrible "reason" to euthanize millions of animals the would never hurt anyone in the mad hope that you manage to get a few dozen dangerous ones in the process. You want more dog laws? There are much better options than breed restrictions.

 

Lol.

This sort of nonsense is why you can't be taken seriously.

 

Yes, dogs can be trained not to bite or attack, although there are some that can't be trained I agree. But good to see you admit it about the individual dog's psyche rather than their breed.

 

Yet another argument typically used to attack gun owners now repurposed for this thread.

 

Left alone, an AR-15 is a powerless thing that can bother no one.
Left alone, a pit bull can kill people, and they have.

 

Neither one can do anything if they are alone. There's no one to injure. That's what "alone" means. And, if you had read the post I was responding to, I was referring to a very different argument: that gun/pit owners own gun/pits out of insecure masculinity.

 

That is utter nonsense. Gun owners own guns for protection and most often conceal them. It's not insecurity. I agree with you, however, that most pit bull owners are either thugs from the cities or trailer park guys with a chip on their shoulder.

 

Then you are as unfamiliar with actual pit owners as the anti-gun crowd is with gun owners.

 

Pit bulls were created to kill bulls, then adapted to become dog fighters/killers.

Get educated

 

How many people have been killed by guns every year?

33,000?

How many people killed by dogs overall and pit bulls in particular?

Less than a hundred?

I knew that was where you were going when you started this thread and it was a huge fail.

 

I'm not talking about 'wild' dog packs, I'm talking about small groups of domestic dogs, roaming freely. Family pets.