"Except, bassplayerguy, that "wild animals are predictable" is exactly what you said. Multiple times"

Nope. Here's exactly what I said:

"At least most wild animals are predictable in their unpredictability, e.g. a grizzly won't attack you unless you startle it, get between the bear and it's food/cubs or if it's really starving."

I said this once (ONCE not multiple times) in post 72

"Wild animals/predators are predictable and it's called behavior."

And it was in direct response to you saying:

"every single thing you said is untrue"

which was in response to the first thing I said (the first thing in this post). Should I have known that you wouldn't understand what I was saying and made abundantly clear what I meant? Probably. However I didn't and that was my bad. So I will now make that one post (ONE post, not multiple) abundantly clear.

"Wild animals/predators have a degree of predictability and it's called behavior."

"And you've also said that domesticated animals, about whom we know far, far more than wild species, are more dangerous and less predictable."

Nope, sorry, didn't say that. I said that animals that are specifically bred to be violent are unpredictable. Not "domesticated" animals but animals specifically bred to be violent. See the difference?

"I have never said that the animal brain works like the human brain"

No but when I said that the difference between a rapist and a dog is that a dog can't choose to be violent, ergo, comparing humans to dogs is inherently flawed you responded with:

"many animals (humans among them) are entirely capable of choice."

And

"Conscious thought in dogs and other animals (including pigs and cats) has been studied and well documented for decades."

So which is it? Can dogs choose to be violent like rapists are can they not?

@99 It's not likely to happen any time soon because (unlike many pit bull owners apparently) I'm aware of the fact that all animals are dangerous and you're level of caution around an animal should be directly proportional to the ability of the animal to kill you. I'm not going to let my guard down around a pit bull just b/c it's been "bred for 10 thousand years" to be obedient.

No, I responded to you saying "people have choice" by pointing out that animals do as well, so it's a false distinction. If you'd said "People are capable of far more sophisticated thought and decision making that other animals," we'd be cool. In fact, if you'd just stop saying all sorts of untrue and inaccurate things in your attempt to make a point, it would probably save everyone a lot of trouble.

Whether or not pit bulls have been bred to be violent (and a very little bit of research shows that, from pretty much the beginning, that was not the exclusive purpose of the breed), they are still a domesticated animal, bred for obedience and service to humans, and inherently more predictable than a wild predator. Any argument to the contrary is complete bullshit.

I also really enjoy the whole "I never said that, except for these times right here when I said that" defense.

"In fact, if you'd just stop saying all sorts of untrue and inaccurate things.....blah, blah, blah"

*sigh* Yes, yes, little one, that's exactly how it happened.

"I also really enjoy the whole "I never said that, except for these times right here when I said that" defense."

Mmhmm. I bet you hear a muted trombone when people talk, don't you? Anyway, enjoy your pit bulls, I hope they make you feel tough.

I don't have pitbulls, just literacy skills and adult level brain function.

I look forward to your brother's response to "Pitbulls are more dangerous than lions and wild grizzlies." Keep us posted!

"Pitbulls are more dangerous than lions and wild grizzlies."

Didn't say that, which belie's this statement "just literacy skills and adult level brain function."

Keep trying though, lil' trouper. One day you'll get those literacy skills and brain functions.

@ 100 - "I walk safely down my street past multiple pit bull's every day. In a city."

Well, good on you, then! Come to my 'hood for a visit sometime: somebody two streets over has a pit that REGULARLY gets out and runs the streets. So yeah, we've learned to be vigilant on our own sidewalks because this asshole 1) chooses a potentially-lethal animal to own and 2) doesn't make absolutely damn sure that their potentially-lethal animal can NEVER do harm to others.

So where does that leave us? Back to the 'asshole owners' argument? Maybe, but if this particular asshole in my 'hood owned a dachshund, say, that regularly got out and ran the streets, there wouldn't be the same level of fear and agitation.

So again: Why does this person's right to own a pit bull trump my right to be safe on my own street?

Here, I'll answer for you: IT DOESN'T.

That guy is already not following the law.

So, why doesn't anybody do anything about it? And would anybody do something about it if pit bulls technically weren't allowed, considering that nobody's doing anything about his dog already?

I think the pit bull issue has been beaten to death. The issue is 1. DANGEROUS dogs, not just pit bulls and 2. owners and training. Maybe breeds known to be more dangerous should at least have more stringent requirements for ownership.

But the fact is that pit bulls aren't uniquely the only dangerous, or the most dangerous by far breed of dog. They're not that much more dangerous than many other large breeds, and other breeds are at least as dangerous (and many dogs identified as pit bulls by the media aren't actually pit bulls).

So... support rational requirements for dog ownership, particularly of the BREEDS (plural) that are more dangerous, but this anti-pit bull hysteria is just tiresome.

I'm pretty sure merry is a troll or unaware of the irony of shrilly calling other people shrill. That would be @97. Keep it civil, please, or you're just accusing others of being the douche bag that you are.

"Can a pit bull owner please tell me why their right to own a pit bull trumps my right to safely walk down my street? "

Let's say I'm allergic to peanuts. Can an M&Ms lover say how their right to walk down the street and come in contact with other people while eating M&Ms trumps my right to be safe from my life threatening allergy? Easy, if something is dangerous for you, it's up to you to watch out for it, not other people. Other people are responsible for the consequences of their decisions, including owning potentially dangerous animals, but something like a chain saw, or a car, or a tazer is also unpredictable, and if you look at statistics, there are other, less emotionally charged but more unpredictable sources of human death and maiming than dogs. It's more of a human-judgment issue than a dangerous animal issue. We still don't live in a nanny state, so people are trusted, albeit undeservedly for many, to make reasonably good decisions regarding social norms and interactions. Otherwise, we'd be a police state. Your right to assert what is safe and acceptable does not trump my right to assert what is safe and acceptable, nor vice versa.

@83 bassplayerguy

i meant sober driver v. drunk driver and the responsible owner v. the irresponsible owner. you are arguing that pits should not be allowed to be kept as pets based on the fact that they have the potential to be fatal. so i was just saying that in that sense, cars should not be used as modes of transportation because of their potential to be fatal.

i just don't agree with the generalization of the breed. i do agree that they have potential to attack and be lethal, but how much of that mental stability is nature and how much of that is nurture?

and why hasn't anyone suggested a muzzle/leash/pronged collar law instead of just banning breeds outright?

those ideas of holding the owner directly responsible for the dogs' actions are not bad. i'm sure less people would want to own a pit if they knew they could potentially spend years in prison if it maims someone.

111 - Oh gosh darn it, ya got me. I'm just an innernetz troll, yep, you sure got me there.

Now then, as to your 'argument' - "Other people are responsible for the consequences of their decisions, including owning potentially dangerous animals..." Well, that's certainly what's being called for in post #32, which had a chorus of ringing approval. Problem is, that's NOT what we're dealing with today -- people want an intimidating dog so they get a pit, don't treat it right, let it get out of their yards, and next thing ya know, the old lady down the street is missing her ears and most of her face. Would we see less of that if we could charge the owners of said dogs AS IF they had done the crime with their own hands? Maybe, and I say, it's worth a shot.

What do you suppose is going on here? People are discussing A PROBLEM. There is A PROBLEM (a two-pronged problem) with pit bulls, and MANY of the people who own them. When a problem arises in civilized socity, people discuss it.

And, before you go waggling your internet finger at a long-standing member of an online community, you might wanna, you know, check yo'self.

@113

If you looked over the comments, you'd see that I agreed with charging people for criminal negligence if their dogs hurt people. I even admit that pitt bulls are currently the breed that seems to be a source of the problem. Please don't condescend to instruct me on how debates are held. Clearly we are having a discussion. Thanks, professor. Dealing with the consequences of people's actions is exactly what we're dealing with today. What I suppose is going on here is that when you run out of counterpoints, you start attacking the person making the points. Again, you don't seem to notice the irony of waggling your internet finger at an internet finger-waggler.

@112 I don't agree with the comparison of dogs to cars b/c cars NEED to be operated by a person, a dog doesn't. Your car isn't going to get loose while you're asleep and hurt anyone and this is even more true with the peanut comparison that someone else made (unless the peanuts you happen to be eating are living creatures that have the capability of leaving your hand independently and inserting themselves into someone else's throat.)

That being said, I've modified my opinion through the course of this debate and I don't think there should be any breed specific rules and, like I said in post 98, I don't know if breed bans (or any kind of bans) are a good idea or would even work. However I don't have any problem with tons of regulations on any animal, not just dogs, that has the capacity to kill a healthy adult and I'm not talking about freaky incidents either where you trip and inhale and accidentally suck up an animal and choke to death or whatever. If the animal is physically capable of mauling a person to death then I think it should require a special license, classes to teach you how to handle the animal, laws that hold you criminally liable if your animal kills/mains someone, etc. That way, if you REALLY feel like you need to have a large, powerful animal as pet then you can but it will hopefully weed out some of the idiots who only want pits b/c they're cool or tough or whatever.

If you still want to use the cars as a comparison then this should be acceptable b/c we DO have all of those regulations with regards to cars. You need to take classes and get a specific license, you are held criminally liable if your car kills/maims someone while you're operating it, etc.

114 - Sigh.

Here are your words from post 111: "I'm pretty sure merry is a troll or unaware of the irony of shrilly calling other people shrill. That would be @97. Keep it civil, please, or you're just accusing others of being the douche bag that you are."

So! YOU decided that my post was "shrill" (ooooo! shrill!!), YOU decided that I'm a troll, or maybe just stupid, YOU sweetly ask me to 'keep it civil' (Excuse me?!?), and then YOU call me a 'douche bag (sic)'.

Here's the deal: YOU don't condescend, and I won't condescend. See how that works?

Back to the subject at hand: I think we CAN agree that ALL dog owners need to be 100% personally responsible for the actions of their dogs, and prosecuted as such if need be. (Good luck getting that passed, but) THEN we'd start to see some actual changes with how people perceive their pet ownership.

115 - I agree with your post completely. This sounds like sane common sense to me.

@116

Yes, yes you're right. I was calling you a douche bag because that's what I think of people who rely heavily on ad hominem.

Exhibit A:
"Wooboy we got us a powerful lot of moronity up in here!!!

Joemomma, you are wrong. You're just flat-out wrong. Not that you need me to tell you that, certainly not that you'll believe me, but... it makes my fingers happy to type it out. "J-o-e-m-o-m-m-a y-o-u a-r-e w-r-o-n-g."

These pit bull defenders are indefatigable, no?"

Exhibit B:

"Plus which, why is it always the pit bull apologists who start screaming about a breed ban?... The only people screeching about a breed ban are you pit bull people - do you have to wipe the spittle off the computer screen as you post these things?"

Etc, etc....

You're twelve times more condescending than me. Don't demand respect you didn't come to the table with. Take your own advice.

I donated to fight Prop 2 in Florida, and asked Dan this question: "Is there a later scientific peer-reviewed study supporting the efficacy of breed bans that forms (in part or whole) the foundation of your opinion?"

As part of my preamble, I explained that I have searched online for such a study, but could not find anything. I could only find the CDC study of 2000, which actually states that there is no such evidence. I was hoping that there might be a later study I could read.

Dan's response was
"breed bans have worked in the UK, and they work well in Denver. i don't trust the studies you cite.

all the best,
dan"

Now, I am ecstatic that he did NOT simply tell me off. However, he didn't really answer the question, as he doesn't cite any study in the UK or Denver. So I am left with the conclusion that No, Dan Savage does not base his opinions of breed bans on any scientific evidence.

What I find interesting is that he "doesn't trust the studies [I] cite." I believe there was a study in the UK that also concluded that there is no supporting evidence of the efficacy of breed bans. But he doesn't trust scientific research? What does he trust? His gut?

I find that his response, while deservedly terse, spoke volumes. His opinions on breed bans are simply that: opinions. He is neither more nor less correct than the rest of us. In fact, his opinions can be said to be faith-based, since he chooses to discount evidence that does not agree with his ideas.

The answer bears repeating: Any dog breed has the potential to be aggressive and dangerous. Yes, even the cute, small fluffy ones have the potential to do real harm. In fact, any animal has the potential to be aggressive and dangerous (including humans and other seemingly less aggressive simian types).
As many other posters have stated, treat all unfamiliar dogs (or any animal, pet or otherwise) with caution and respect.
Banning a breed doesn't treat the root of the problem. The root of this problem, in my view, is that people treat animals like fashion accessories, symbols of masculinity, status symbols and a multitude of other functions to bolster our flimsy egos and/or feed our neuroses. Animals, pets or otherwise, should be approached, adopted and treated with respect and a good deal of knowledge about how to treat them like a dog (or cat, ferret etc.) instead of treating them like a little or not so little human being, weapon, child or fashion accessory.
Responsible Pit Bull owners understand the breed and understand what it means to keep a pack animal with a tendency toward Alpha behavior. These dogs are inherently less dangerous than the same breed of dog owned by some douchebag trying to look tough or some nervous soul hoping to feel safer. However, even these dogs should be approached with the same caution as I would use to approach an unfamiliar Sheepdog or a Shi-tzu.

I refer all comments to Cesar Milan .

@ 118 - Newsflash: The language of the internet is Snark!!

OMFG!!!

Well, Dan I suggest that you avoid touching or at least approach with caution any kind of dog, especially if you are unfamiliar with canine behavior or body language.

Any kind of dog can bite or attack you, not only pit bulls. It's okay to be wary of a breed of dog. My mother is still afraid of German shepherds since she was bitten by one over 40 years ago. However, you must remember that other dogs besides the ones you don't like can hurt you.

Also, some good rules of thumb for gauging dumb-ass pit owners:

1. If they have more than one pit bull and they are all unspayed or unneutered, keep away. The kind of people stupid enough to keep more than one large terrier breed and not alter them is usually too dumb to train them.

2. Avoid the dogs if, in addition to not being altered, if it has a great number of scars. Granted, this could also be a sign that it was a submissive dog that got beat up by more dominant dogs--if you check out Animal Planet's special on pit bull fighting--a great many of the "fighting dogs" actually try to escape the pit. Not all pits bred for fighting cares to fight, so it may have scars for trying to avoid confrontation. Nonetheless, you might avoid these dogs. Especially if the owner is unconcerned by the wounds.

3. If the pit bull has as its leash nothing more than a long, heavy chain. You won't believe the number of people I saw coming into the vet clinic I worked at (in S. Carolina) with a dog attached to its tree-chain. I never saw a pit bull done in this fashion act aggressively (they are usually some of our best patients), but chows were usually unable to handle. A dog with a long tree-chain on its neck means it has not likely been socialized--and that's a danger.

I will say that the worst thing that has happened to pits has been their popularization by some of the stupidest people on the planet. I have many a tale I can tell you of the horribly and spectacular idiotic pit owners. These people would absolutely refuse any suggestion of neutering, and they were the only people that refused pain medications for their dogs.

@merry

I see that you ignored my point that, you know... Your neighbor's already not following the law. His right to have his dog run free is only trampling your rights because the law's not being enforced.

A breed ban isn't the reason why that asshole's dog gets to roam the neighborhood free.

bassplayerguy (@28 specifically), a pit bull can certainly be restrained by its owner if it's properly leashed. Pit bulls on average weigh about 50lbs, not at all comparable with a gorilla, which, as you can probably guess, weighs significantly more than an average human. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that a ban on any one breed would do absolutely nothing to prevent people from illegally letting their dogs off-leash.

@124 Well, wolverines only weigh about 40 pounds so I guess they aren't dangerous then. Just keep 'em properly leased and you're good to go, right? Anyhoo, you should be specifically referring to one of the posts were I specifically say I don't favor breed bans (115 would do nicely.)

I mean "leashed." It might be hard to find someone who "leases" wolverines.

"Everyone who thinks pit bulls come out of their momma's cooch aggressive violent killers is more ignorant than an inbred moron."

This would be a much more powerful statement if we didn't have documented cases of pit bull puppies killing people, too. Fail.

""Everyone who thinks pit bulls come out of their momma's cooch aggressive violent killers is more ignorant than an inbred moron."

This would be a much more powerful statement if we didn't have documented cases of pit bull puppies killing people, too. Fail. "

Where is this documentation of killer puppies? Links? (insert snarky, insanely cliche, lame, uncreative internet jargon here--"Fail". Or maybe "Epic Fail". "Woohoo, I'm so cool on the internet! I can argue my logic-less point using conjecture, cliche remarks and misinformation based on fairy tale!")

I am really surprised how worked up people on SLOG get about Dan's dog posts (on both sides). 130 comments? Comparing pit bulls to Muslim terrorists? Srsly?