http://www.inquisitr.com/1364718/bo...-been-around-numerous-times-in-the-past/

http://tbo.com/news/breaking-news/riverview-boy-4-fatally-mauled-by-uncles-two-pit-bulls-20140720/

Theres gonna be Breed Specific Legislation whether the Pit Bull lovers like it or not�.

You can't fix stupid, and theres too many stupid people buying and owning pit bulls to make themselves look like bad asses, then mistreating the dogs to make them act like bad asses...

Yep..

and a Staffordshire kills a 7 month old baby in Ohio

link to story

When children drown in buckets of water (something that happens each year with considerably greater frequency than childhood deaths from Pitbull attacks) it rarely if ever makes national news. Smells of an agenda.

If there wasn't a problem, what's the agenda?
Who(m) or what would benefit from any action?

When will people learn about these breeds? Like Ingwe said "to many stupid people"

stupid works for me. People buy or get hot breeds of dogs with no understanding of the breed, then wonder why the dog chews the leg off somebody.
I refuse to just generally accept the statement "it's a good dog." Not unless proven to me.
I have mostly had a multitude of goldens, which are NOT quite as passive in all cases as people assume they are. My last pup the princess, is a golden. However, I came real close to buying what i really wanted from a breeder not far from me, a czech border patrol german sheppard. Amond other things it would be nice to have a member of the family speaking czech. I didn't, not because I didn't want the breed, but was unsure about people around me intermixing with the type of dog.

If so TRH, why wouldn't folks pick chows or beagles?

3 kids died in one weekend due to terriers.

The problem is who owns the dogs. If you look at bite stats over the years you will see an exact parallel between the growth in popularity of Pitbulls amongst the gangsta black subculture with the increase in the number of attacks by Pitbulls. That community discovered the breed in the early 1990s with the publishing of a book on the fighting dog breeds (The World Of Fighting Dogs), the first of its kind in the US (I used to shoot with the author). The breed's popularity in that community took off like wildfire thereafter. Likewise dog bites by Pitbulls.

Prior to the 1990s, few people even knew the breed existed, let alone ever heard of one biting anyone, because it just never or hardly ever happened.

Outlaw Pitbulls and these folks will get themselves Rottweilers and then it will be the Rottweilers that everybody is complaining about. Outlaw Rottweilers, and these folks will get themselves some Boxers, and it will be Boxers everybody is complaining about. The stats are due to which segment of the population tends to own the breed.

Can we outlaw pitbulls if they put saggy pants on them?

TRH is right about this. YOu guys who want pitbulls outlawed sound strangely like those who would outlaw guns. As popular as pitbulls are, the number of attacks reported is surprisingly low. Of all the dog-attack related human injuries I am personally aware of (and that is quite a few), not one of them was a pitbull. Been around quite a few pits over the years (including the one I had, which was a cream-puff), and never saw cause to be worried. OTOH - we had a GSD in the neighborhood that was dangerous to have around, and it ended up being given the choice between the gas chamber or accepting a job as a perimeter guard at the state pen.

When a kid drowns in a bucket of water, while it may have a certain element of negligence, it is nowhere near the negligence shown by someone that mixes Pit Bulls, and other vicious breeds, with small children. All animals are unpredictable to a point, but, with Pit Bulls, an attack is much more common than, with say, a Yellow Lab. A lot of attacks may be due to how the dog was raised, but some are simply due to the nature of the breed. Once my kids are all grown, I wouldn't hesitate to own one. Until then? Not a chance.

That would be Carl Semencic, author not only of The World of Fighting Dogs, but also Pit Bulls & Tenacious Guard Dogs, and his most recent book, Gladiator Dogs.

http://www.amazon.com/Gladiator-Dogs-Carl-Semencic/dp/0615850243

Who is Carl Semencic?

Discussion about him, here. http://dogocanarioclub.us/forum/index.php?topic=2913

Haven't read many news reports of guns jumping from a gun cabinet or gun safe, running across the yard and shooting anyone.
So not really the same, agreed?

Some would make the distinction between a dog biting and a killer dogs maiming- if they were still alive.

The problem isn't who owns the dogs when the dogs are labs or hounds or pointers, or poodles or collies, are they?

Only a few types of dogs require "with it owners".

Problem is, those owners aren't required.

Give a thousand high schoolers ford pickups and a thousand kids corvettes. After a while, it will be found the corvette is, in common terms, more dangerous. Of course, some would say the kids driving the vetts are more dangerous. I suppose a thousand kids with pits would thus be deemed more dangerous than a thousand kids with Pomeranians, even if the kids having the dogs were drawn at random.

So, it would actually be the breed of dog that was making the pit owners more dangerous. Thus, if the pits were dead, their owners wouldn't be more dangerous, and many innocents would be saved, just as if tons of kids weren't given corvettes .

Of course it's not the same. But put the gun in the hands of someone with a juvenile mentality, and the results can be the same or worse. See the way the argument goes?

Any large dog can be a physical threat. So we ban one or two breeds, thinking that we have made people safer? You don't see the relation to gun control fanatics?

In the meantime, the real problem goes on.....

I admit that immunizations may harm some, but they protect a lot more. More people are saved. Without pits, more people would be saved. Without guns there would be many hundreds of thousands of physical assaults, and studies indicate many more would die without their use than who do because of their use.

I guess I'm not getting the connection between pit bulls and immunizations.....

So - you don't think there are a lot of pit bulls giving protection to their owners, without ever firing a shot - just like guns? No family has been kept safe by the mere presence of a pitbull?

I used to have one of the "dangerous breeds". While I lived in town and had a job that kept me away from home a great deal, mine was the only house in the neighborhood that never had a burglary during that time (previous owner was burglarized). My family found that quite comforting....and yet, that dog never bit anyone.

I love our local phugging moronstrying to equivocate a dog that attacks and kills with a dog that bites and then breaks it off.

The simple fact that a pit is much more likely to kill once the attack starts is all by itself reason enough to shoot them and their [bleep] stupid owners on sight. Anyone who can't get that between their ears needs their ass kicked by someone who just has no interest in quitting until they can comprehend the difference. This has nothing to do with a dog's propensity to bite, and everything to do with what comes after. Most dogs that bite do so without doing any real damage or intending to do any damage. A dog that goes into kill mode once an attack begins has no place loose under any circumstances. They quite obviously cannot discriminate family from intruder/enemy.

Everything I've read (with any documentation) about pits does not support that. My personal experience does not support that. So, I'm a moron.

My experience is that any large dog breed can be trained or bred to tenacity. If pitbulls are especially prone to that and they are eliminated entirely, other breeds will be put to the same service by those who would do so.

How does this not sound like the whole gun ban debate? Deadly device in untrained/irresponsible/criminal hands....it's all the same.

Find me five examples of English Setters killing humans.

The agenda is more control

Many attacks don't involve "Pit Bulls" at all, but that's how they are labled in the media, much the same way as rifles all being called "assault weapons", whether they are or not

I am still waiting on the five examples of killer setters. You and the other resident moron ought to be able to google up that many if half the bullshit you claim is even remotely true.

More control from...........???

Nor a water bucket jumping up around a kids head and drowning them. There is most likely human negligence in these two but with the pits you can add bad dog/poorly trained dog/bad breed (you choose) along with the negligence of the human. miles

Just read some stats,



http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php

The Govt would ultimately be doing the controlling.

The "cries" for more control comes from a small minority who thinks things they don't like should be banned.

looks like we need to just ban dogs. Period. Get rid of all of them. Damn, let's do it for the kids.
Oh, and cats have to go too, because just one contact can cause life threatening cat scratch fever.
And all the rodents too. They harbor fleas, which can pass on bubonic plague.
Snakes? Yeah, too dangerous, especially the killer constrictors.
and on, and on, and on............

In many of the cases of dogs attacking small children, it's parental negligence that causes them to be with the dogs in the first place.

One of the ones this past weekend was a 4 year old who went outside without anyone knowing

It doesn't take a "bad breed" or "poor training" for a kid to aggrevate a dog enough to get hurt

What does that have to do with anything?
They aren't a "large breed", and not even a popular breed.

Most of the so called "Pit Bull" attacks aren't Pit Bulls to begin with

"A study conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School identified fatal dog bites during the period 1966�1980. They identified 74 incidents from newspapers and the medical literature ... many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six [English] Bull terriers, six Great Danes, as well as two attacks by Boxers and one by a Rottweiler.

In contrast to the time period covered by the CDC study, which found pit bulls and Rottweilers to be the most commonly involved breed in such attacks during that [more recent] time period, this study found no fatal pit bull attacks at all in the US during its time period [1966-1980], and only one Rottweiler attack." Wikipedia

Notice that prior to the Pitbull becoming popular among the "gangsta" subculture (which began in the early 1990s), fatal Pitbull attacks were extreme rarities. None, in fact, were recorded in the above study between the years 1966 and 1980.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979�1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.""

Same link as above.

Moron number one speaks.

According to you and moron two, molossers do account for the vast majority of fatal attacks. Pits and pit mixes are the problem that much is clear since there are no licensure requirements prohibiting blacks or gangstas or trailer trash from owning or requiring ownership or requiring ownership of specific breeds by anyone. Thus, it is undeniably a breed problem and not a people problem or we would see the exact same behavior out of other breeds.

That is exactly what setters have to do with it. Dog bites in general tend to follow breed distribution. Fatal attacks by dogs do not. THEY are almost entirely confined to molossers.

Moron number two speaks.

Your CDC data strongly suggests that molossers are bad and getting worse. An excellent argument for elimination of the dogs and quite probably all of the breeders as well.

A 3 year old girl got mauled at a city park here. Pit owner was less than 2 weeks out of jail, with an outstanding warrant for his arrest...

find me a stat that says that there are even 10% of the population of English setters that there are pitts. There more pitts than any other dog in the US, of course they;'re going to have more dog bites, they do damage when they bite becasue they're strong. Ive got 2 of them sitting right next to me as I type this. They are not a breed for novice dogs owners I.e most blacks. I always tell people that approx 5% of pitbull owners should be allowed to have one.

I dont let my dogs alone with any kids. They love my neices and nephews and are extremely tolerant, and even more protective of them, but anyone who leaves a child alone with any dog is a dumbass. There have been kids killed by pomeranians and yorkies.

you are an ignorant tool arent you? maybe we should ban ignorant people such as yourself. Perhaps a 22 behind the ear of you and your whole family just to make sure your hatred doestn spread. You are no better than the gun grabbing libtards

The only thing that a pit bull does better then any other breed is to fight to the death,, to bore in and kill. Thats it,

I'm wondering why folks who have poodles, labs, pointers, setters and such aren't so guilty of negligence as the owners of pits? Maybe it's the dog that makes them negligent? Do you think just getting a pit is something that makes one negligent?

If you think you can live halfway normal and be with a four, five or even an eight year old every moment you are wrong and it wouldn't be the best thing for their development anyway.

You are full of chit. The pug that I had was part of my family until his death. Fifteen years of nothing but love towards my kiddos. He was by my kids side when they were sick. He woke them up on weekend mornings by licking their ears until they got out of bed. He was an amazing little dog and he loved my family unconditionally.
So your statement is as idiotic as anything that The Real Browneye posts about dogs.

Moron number three speaks. There are tens of thousands of setter across the northern tier of states. If they were even one tenth as dangerous as pits the reports of setter killing people would be there.

IT'S THE PHUGGING BREED YOU MORONS. That's why the stats arent there for other breeds. Eliminate the breed you eliminate the problem.

Locally, we just had a sweet-looking 8 month old baby boy mauled and killed by a mixed breed pit-bull. There has not been any explanation as to why the dog suddenly and apparently unprovoked attacked the baby. The dog belonged to the baby's parents.

Just last year, a local middle-aged woman was mauled to death by her neighbor's 2 pit-bulls who came after her in her own yard and tore her apart.

I wonder how much longer our society is gonna put up with these "killer dogs" before they're permanently made illegal to keep or own?


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

A friend of mine and myself got some hog dogs one time, from his uncle in Louisiana. They were a large part pit but not full breed. We had them for a while and they were gentle and never offered to harm anybody but I was keeping them at my house in a pen, and one day some people came to visit my Mother, who lived next door, and they had some small children. One of the male dogs went to growling as soon as he heard the shrill voices of the young children playing. I happened to be by the pen, and he was staring and growling in the direction of the noise. He did not have direct sight of them just sound. We traded him to a man that wanted a guard dog, that would be kept behind a chain link fence all of the time, with all things known. I did not trust the other two, so we sold them to some hog hunters that my friend knew. miles

It was said:

"IT'S THE PHUGGING BREED YOU MORONS. That's why the stats arent there for other breeds. Eliminate the breed you eliminate the problem."


My opinion? Yes and no... the owner has a lot to do with the dog's behavior. My wife and I have a pit mix and it is the smartest, most obedient, most loyal and affectionate dog I have ever had.

However, it is also a dog that aims to please it's master. When we first got it at four years of age, it would aggressively fight any dog it encountered and had a bad habit of chasing deer. It now knows that I do not want it to fight and is now good with other dogs. It even has, well for the most part, stopped chasing deer.

It seems to me that pits want to please the master more than any other breed I have owned. They seem like they will be almost anything the master wants it to be. Left to themselves or left without training; I can see how my dog could be very dangerous. Could easily kill the neighbors dogs if left to it's own desires. I think it could easily be trained to be violent toward other people.

So, although I really enjoy this wonderful dog, I would not get another one. We have a new granddaughter and I will not leave the dog alone with the little girls.

Edit to add: Well, I would not leave the dog unrestrained with the kids and I would not give the dog a chance to even get a quick bite in. Love the dog and I would not expect anything to happen but I see the dog could get excited or be unpredictable.

TF

I think one pit was killing a kid as its owner was getting injured trying to fight the dog to get the child away, got in the restroom and had to pass the kid out the window to others for medical care.

Many owners of pits have been mauled and killed by their dogs.

I think your idea that pits are dependable in pleasing their master is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

I knew a guy who had a rattler that never bit him, too.

My childhood home and grandparents always had pointers, beagles, Black and Tans or curs around and kids could be left around any.

How many examples of people who claimed ther pit was the sweetest most trustworthy dog around the family and then one day it up and killed a kid do you think a google search could turn up?

Every single dog on earth arose from the same gene pool as wolves. Wolves are notoriously untrustworthy as adults, even wolf crosses. This is part of the nature of dogs. Some dogs have these traits buried deeper than others. The social structure of the animals is unmistakeable from centuries past though and it is a thoroughly undesirable characteristic for a dog to behave like a pit. The more so when the expression of the characteristic is unpredictable as it is with the pits.

THERE IS NO LOOKING AT A PIT AND PREDICTABLY CONCLUDING IT WILL OR WILL NOT ATTACK AT SOME POINT.

The certainty with which that conclusion may be drawn with many breeds is orders of magnitude greater, and with the vast majority of them, the predictability of a bite and them backing off is greater still. Hence the example of setters. If they bite, and they most all will in the right circumstance, they virtually always do so without drawing blood and then they back off. I have never known or known of a dangerous setter.

Something like a Chessie can have very distinct ideas of property and if a Chessie tells you it will bite if you continue, you can take it to the bank. Chessies aren't bright enough to know how to bluff. They will bite and draw blood. I have never know a Chessie to just attack when not in defense of property though. They don't go off on a tear and kill people. Most particularly not people who are not/have not provoked them.

Dogs have characteristics as individuals, and just a hair deeper, as a breed.

One of the above morons tried to liken the argument to the anti gun argument. To put it in terms even morons can grasp, a pit is not at all unlike a Remington 700 trigger. Something only fools and morons trust.

Exterminate them all.

English Setters make a pretty lame guard dog. Show me five deaths by paint ball gun.



Your argument is so lame that you resort to name-calling almost immediately. Care to stick to real data? Somewhere above, one of your backers linked to dogbites.org for "data". A site with a clear agenda if there ever was one. It's easy-peasy to link other websites that refute the claims of dogbites.org, with factual information to back it up.

I myself have seen first hand, a pit that was provoked into an attack by another dog - and immediately broke away from the fight (not that it had to). So I know this "fight to death at all cost" thing is not hard-wired into the dog.

Having been around and owned plenty of the guard dog breeds, I know that they are far more effective at such work because of their temperament. Not that they are more prone to kill - but they are more in tune to guarding. Mine were constantly on-alert and on-task, when other breeds would have been sleeping. This is exactly why my house was the one that was untouched while every other house in the neighborhood got hit at some point. it wasn't because I was a badass with a gun, or because the dog looked threatening. Not only that - every other house also had a dog or more than one dog. Those dogs barked all the time, but didn't keep their owners from being burglarized. Ours was always watching, but only alarmed when something was really going on.

So yes, there is a difference in the breeds - but it isn't all in how hard they bite. If I were to find myself in such a neighborhood again, I would want one of the guard breeds. Maybe not a pit (they don't appeal to me as much as some others I've had or known) - but if you can ban pits, then the others will follow.

If you can't wrap your mind around how that relates to gun bans, then you just call me a moron again and we'll be on our way and let the audience think what they want.

Feed that BS to folks who have tried pulling a kid away from a pit as the child's life faded away.

Excellent! Exactly right. It's good to know there are a few of us here with our heads screwed on right.

You'd have just as much trouble doing that with a Boxer if a Boxer decided he wanted to take a child out. I've broken up lots of dog fights in my life, twice when one of them was a Boxer and once when one of them was a half-Boxer. Boxers are just about as determined to finish what they start as Pitbulls. Perhaps we should ban Boxers while we're at it, since the Boxer would make a fine substitute for the Pitbull in the 'hood once Pitbulls are banned.

I wouldn't. Just as I wouldn't be so crass as to knowingly discuss gun rights with a parent whose child had been shot by gang-bangers - unless they were pushing the agenda.

Another bull's eye.

Yep. Broke up a boxer attack in my neighborhood earlier this year. That boxer had already killed one stray dog (I'm on the fence about that one). I let the owner know that the next time I see that particular dog out of his yard, it would be a dead boxer. That dude has ruined his dog. Dude must believe me, because it has been under very strict control ever since. Boxers climb high fences, btw - something I have never known a pit to do.

True freedom would allow people to have loins, tigers and bears as pets.

As an aside, speaking of folks who get dogs and let them roam the neighborhood, there's a young couple with small children a couple of blocks from me that last year adopted a medium sized dog, then let it roam the neighborhood. Their fence is missing whole sections, so it's 100% useless, but I bet they claimed they had a fenced yard when asked by the shelter. Anyway, every time I walked my dog anywhere near that house we got harassed by this loose dog. Only once did the owners happen to notice it and come out to get their dog so I could proceed in peace. Most of the time it was a huge problem.

Eventually that dog disappeared. I assume it got run over or otherwise eliminated. Eventually, I saw a new medium sized dog wandering the neighborhood, and figured it was their new dog. I was right. I saw them with it in their yard and I commented on it, "New dog, eh?" "Yeah, we adopted her from the shelter." Me: "Oh .... good." Yeah, good that you have another dog to let roam loose in the neighborhood.

They can't have pet loins? What about Ingwe?

Actually, there are probably more people with such exotic pets than you realize. But why stop with that comparison? I know a guy who keeps a bull that is ornery and deadly, right behind his house. I wouldn't go near it alone without a powerful weapon. He keeps it under control because he knows what will happen if he doesn't. Hmmmm...

You can't fix stupid.

The keeping of wild dangerous animals has always been a special case in tort law, i.e., strict liability if anyone is injured or killed, i.e., no excuses like "I took reasonable precautions, but by some freak unavoidable occurrence the animal escaped." Reasonableness has never covered you with regard to the keeping of wild dangerous animals.

That's liberty, but which demands 100% personal responsibility. Dogs are domesticated animals, but the law traditionally dealt with dogs the same way if the owner had notice that his particular dog (breed didn't matter) was a danger to innocent folks, i.e., had already bitten someone without justification. That's also perfectly consistent with liberty combined with personal responsibility. That's been the law forever, and is the sort of law consistent with liberty. The kind you advocate are not.

Bull's eye number three. No pun intended.

I can't abide free-roaming dogs of any breed. I understand that sometimes they escape briefly, but habitual free-roamers don't get a pass from me. Have seen too many destructive events from loose dogs of various breeds. And the owners are just like those parents of kids who kill...."It couldn't be him - he would never hurt a soul...". You hear this line from owners of other-than-pits every time, sometimes before and sometimes after the damage is done.

Reasonable laws just don't resonate with fear-mongers.

Or pit owners.

Or gun owners?

A lot of folks think semi-auto bans are reasonable. Their argument sounds about like the anti-pit argument, and has about the same kind of science behind it.

It's not reasonable to just hold people accountable for their actions or the dangers they create?

Between 1966 and 1980, 74 Americans were killed by dogs (not counting those killed by guard or police dogs in the course of their intended duty). Of all those deaths, some of the dogs involved were eight Saint Bernards, six English Bull Terriers, six Great Danes, two Boxers, and one Rottweiler. In that entire span of time, not one case was recorded of a single Pitbull killing anyone in the United States.

- University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Study

It's not the Pitbull breed that's the problem. There were plenty of Pitbulls in the US prior to 1980, but you never heard of any of them killing anyone (If you thought about Pitbulls at all, it was about Petey from The Little Rascals). Instead, such horror stories were about those other breeds killing people. Remember Cujo? Remember The Omen? What changed?

What changed was that at some point after that date Pitbulls became wildly popular among the black "gangsta" underclass. These people didn't raise their Pitbulls like folks did before that date. To them, the owner of the meanest Pitbull in the neighborhood had the highest status. They developed techniques for "making their dogs people-mean," involving chaining the dog and having strangers come over periodically to torment them with brooms and sticks to the point that they would snarl and go crazy whenever anyone approached them. That's the norm in these communities. When these dogs, so conditioned, get loose, the first thing they often do is attack someone, either a family member or a stranger. No way the owners then tell the police that the dog was so conditioned, either.

If Boxers were wildly popular in that subculture, we'd be barraged with stories of children killed by loose Boxers.

Pit advocates here seem akin to supporters of the present administration, in the truth doesn't matter as long as we can run on emotion..
This is a waste of time, your minds are already set on a course that no amount of fact can change, but here it is anyway.
--------------------------------------

Pit bull myths ::

Pit bull owners, breeders and animal advocacy groups have created a slew of myths and distortions about the pit bull breed to fight breed-specific laws. Below are the top 10 myths.

Myth #1: It's the owner not the breed

The outdated debate, "It's the owner, not the breed," has caused the pit bull problem to grow into a 30-year old problem.1 Designed to protect pit bull breeders and owners, the slogan ignores the genetic history of the breed and blames these horrific maulings -- inflicted by the pit bull's genetic "hold and shake" bite style -- on environmental factors. While environment plays a role in a pit bull's behavior, it is genetics that leaves pit bull victims with permanent and disfiguring injuries.

The pit bull's genetic traits are not in dispute. Many appellate courts agree that pit bulls pose a significant danger to society and can be regulated accordingly. Some of the genetic traits courts have identified include: unpredictability of aggression, tenacity ("gameness" the refusal to give up a fight), high pain tolerance and the pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style.2 According to forensic medical studies, similar injuries have only been found elsewhere on victims of shark attacks.3

Perpetuators of this myth also cannot account for the many instances in which pit bull owners and family members are victimized by their pet dogs. From 2005 to 2013, pit bulls killed 176 Americans, about one citizen every 18.6 days. Of these deaths, 52% involved a family member and a household pit bull.4 Notably, in the first 8 months of 2011, nearly half of those killed by a pit bull was its owner. One victim was an "avid supporter" of Bad Rap, a recipient of Michael Vick's dogs.5

Link to more

700LH - why didn't you name the link? Is it because I already mentioned that dogbites.org (your source at the link) is clearly agenda-driven and uses unscientific "data"?

I've read their site, and it reads pretty much like many of the anti-gun sites....complete with unsubstantiated claims and skewed data. Even one source they claim for support actually does not support them.

If it's the breed, explain the differential stats from pre-1980 to more recent times. There were plenty of Pitbulls in the US prior to their wild popularity in the black "gangsta" subclass which occurred post-1980.

700, of course there are characteristics that are breed associated, but it's not a characteristic of viciousness. The breed characteristics are related to combat ability, i.e., once in combat, they are capable of great performance due to power, courage, and tenacity. If you don't raise the dog to be vicious, those capabilities never express themselves in aggression unless they are themselves attacked by another dog or person.

The trait of viciousness, in fact, was not only not bred for, but was actually considered a major flaw during the breed's multicentury development. It was well known that any inclination towards viciousness was an indication of a lack of fighting ability. Any such inclination also disqualified a dog from the pits, since these dogs needed to be constantly handled in the midst of battle, and often by strangers.

It sure wasn't because pits weren't around. I saw them in the '70s and never had any occasion to think of them as a threat back then. Dobermans were the boogy man at the time (also unfounded).

https://www.causes.com/actions/1753697-fatal-pit-bull-attacks-sharply-rise-in-2013

+1 I remember when Dobermans were the MSM's devil dog. No one had ever heard of Pitbulls, because Pitbulls just didn't attack anyone.

No one questions their capabilities (Boxers and other breeds have similar capabilities). What I'm saying is that those capabilities didn't express themselves in fatalities prior to their wild popularity in a particular subculture in the US. Were Boxers in that position, those stats you cited would be about Boxers.

Oh great! A link that links dogbite.org as it's source. And it's a fund-raiser, to boot. With more unsubstantiated claims. You don't see the agenda here?

CDC statistics, Read the tables mid page, take a good look at table #2.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

You think I didn't already read that? But the real question is....did you read it?

It doesn't support your argument, Bro. Make it easy for ya if ya don't feel like reading it all - just read their own conclusions in the upper-left-hand box.....where it says "Conclusions".

I referenced this very study earlier. It's key to my argument. Have you considered anything I've been saying?

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.

When you can put together a rational argument that a dog the attacks without provocation and goes into kill mode is any kind of normal you might get some sympathy. The fact of the matter is that anyone who even remotely trusts a pit they don't know at all, and especially around children is the one with nothing between his ears. Further, when it's a breed which has such a well documented history of killing people and children I really do think you're as much a part of the problem as TRH and his "gangstas". Grow the [bleep] up or go off yourself. The world has enough jackasses like you.

Do your high schools permit it? Ours technically do not, but I gave up sending them to the Dean's Office for it, since teachers get mixed messages from the Dean's Office about it. On the one hand, they tell us to send them in without warning, because they're already presumed to be on notice that it's a violation of the dress code (girls get in serious trouble for less). But when I do send them in they get nothing but warnings. Now I don't bother. If they're not going to enforce their own rules, I'm not going to waste my time with it. If they want a school full of kids walking around like that, it's their business.

I don't know what the surrounding high schools have for a dress code for saggy pants. I don't recall any in the trips I've made.

The school Connor will eventually attend is slacks/shirt/tie. That's the only one I concern myself with.

Your brother doesn't trust your judgment. Interesting.