Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Two new cases of 4 year olds killed by pits this past weekend Florida and Delaware

I don't think he reads. He just looks at numbers and comes to his own conclusion.

Really, Hawkeye? Pitbulls never attacked anyone?

back in the 70s one of my friends dads (white pollock oilfield trash) raised pits, any dog that was aggressive towards humans was put down.

That's how it was for centuries. They weren't bred to be guard dogs, so human aggression wasn't only not needed, but was a huge drawback for their intended purpose. Any dog can be conditioned to aggression, though, particularly a member of a fearless breed.

PS Guard dog breeds were bred for just the opposite, i.e., tending towards human aggression, since it fit with their purpose.

Interesting how you get a couple-three morons together they can get to blathering on amongst themselves and not a [bleep] one of them is smart enough to figure out it doesn't make one iota of difference if pits were not bad fifty years ago or a hundred years ago or last week.

What matters is that even morons can't trust most of them around other dogs and kids now.

I think they're dumber than setters, and lord knows that people don't go mistaking setters for even average smart dogs even under the most charitable situations.

i trust my dog around anyone. as a matter of he's a puzzy, i know the problems with the breed now a days. you calling people who are trying to have civil debate only makes you look like what you are hating on. dogs are in some ways like human and have their own personality's and some need to be put down,. but not every pit is bad and not every GSD is good, no argument there, but some of you sound just like liberals.

The breed hasn't changed. What's changed is the demographics of the people who tend to own them, and that wildly. At some point post-1980, the Pitbull became a central status symbol among the black "gangsta" subculture in America. The more aggressive their dogs were with people, the greater the effect of said status symbol, thus they adopted ancient, tried and true, methods for making dogs human-aggressive, specifically chaining them while having strangers torment them with brooms, sticks, whips, and other objects, from the time they're pups, with the intention that they will become aggressive at the appearance of every human being other than their handler. Add the Pitbull's innate fearlessness, physical power, and tenacity to that situation, and you've created a public menace should it ever get loose.

If Pitbulls all disappeared tomorrow, and this subculture were then to discover Boxers, within a few years you'd be reading horror stories about Boxers mauling and killing children.

lol its hilarious that your all for banning something that you dont agree with, but someone tries to ban guns and you;d be up n arms over that. Where exactly does one stop banning things? Its not the breed you inbred Norwegian tool, Its that there are more pitbulls than there are any other dogs in the country, and unfortunately a larger percentage of uneducated dog owners own pits. But i'll be god damn'd and gone to hell if im going to let Responsible dog owners of pitbulls and other bully breeds fall on the swords.

I never said i dont trust my dog around other people or animals, but Im more responsible than to let a child that may not know how to behave to an animal be by itself with the my dogs. As far as them not being intelligent, Im quite sure I could put my dog up against you in a game of trivia and he would win quite handily, then again, i suppose thats not really a fair test for a mongoloid such as yourself

STX Here's your answerThis guy isn't smart enough to figure out that a breed that continues an attack after an initial pop and continues it to the point that it kills humans IS NOT DIFFERENT. This is not someone who can be reasoned with. He does not have the requisite comprehension to carry on a rational debate Just like morons one, two and three.

It's just that simple.

read what he wrote again, very slowly, and try and catch the context he wrote it in, i know it will be hard, but you can do it.

you are a complete [bleep] moron, im literally laughing at the ignorace that your spewing. I bet your kids and your wife are dead scared to walk down the street with all the fear mongering going on in your house, you're a sad pathetic sack of chit.

Reminds me a little of my brother. When my brother and his wife had their first boy, he taught him (I guess as soon as he could talk) that my Pitbull would "bite his face off" if he had a chance. The poor kid became neurotic with fear that my Pitbull would bite his face off. Throughout his childhood, we couldn't get him to enter the house unless he was assured my dog was contained upstairs.

This was a dog that positively loved children, and my sister's kids would laugh hysterically at him on his insistence that my dog would bite his face off, because they knew what a big silly goof he was, lacking a mean bone in his body. Poor little kid was positively neurotic about Pitbulls. I assume our friend here at the Fire suffers from a similar condition.

And the beat goes on........

Personally, I have no use for pits but can't begin to make a logical argument for banning any breed. That said, so long as it's done locally (town/city) there shouldn't be any issue, right 'Hawk. First baggy pants, then pits......

Glad my AO isn't going that direction on either count.

George

Because one prefers that laws be local vs national is worlds apart from the opinion that so long as a law is local it's a good law (PS I hope you're just pretending to be as thick as your statement would otherwise peg you to be). You see, when laws are local, you can actually have an influence in their character. So if you favor laws against folks walking around with their pants down in public, you can effectively support them. Likewise, if you oppose breed specific legislation, you can effectively oppose it. Trying the same with laws that come down from DC is many times more difficult and many times less likely to have any effect.

of these two dogs the wiener JJ will bite you way before Petey my pit. i understand all dogs are not the same. but every dog within a breed doesn't deserve to be condemned.

Laffin'......the "thick" comment was a nice touch. We are, of course, all familiar with how intelligent you fancy yourself. Of course, IMO, it's similar to being pretty or tough: if you have to tell folks you are.......

You're unlikely to find a stronger supporter of local control anywhere. It's why I stayed in a small, rural State and why I live in a small town still un via a Town Meeting. It's also why I work where I do. I'm on record here (numerous times) that my AO is my problem, not "yours" while "your" issues aren't my concern.

My issue isn't local control, it's your apparent support for a law/ordinance that would interfere with something as foolish as pants.

You have every right to vote against public decency laws in your AO. Given the chance, I'd like to uphold minimum public decency standards where I live.

Public decency? Perhaps it's our colder climate or the fact that I, admittedly, don't deal with as much of it as you do where you live but I would hesitate to use that label. The folks who "sag" look like idiots and Ill be stone dead before Connor does it, but "they" are wearing boxers, etc. and nothing shows but fabric. Teen girls/young women are much worse "offenders " IMO.

As I stated, I'm extremely glad nobody is attempting such overreach around here.