BACK IN 1986, FOR CHRISSAKES!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Humans and chimps share 95%+ plus of their DNA too. A little bit goes a long ways
Then kept reading.
Here, many children have been attacked, some killed, by pit bulls last years. This has lead to some kind of discrimination against these dogs. Not too many people realize their "owners" are the real problem.The governments and legislators through time have promised to legislate a real "responsible pet 'owning' law", but as many things -and because of chilean people's bad memory- it's forgotten in a month. Banning this kind of pets is not the solution to this problem.
*solemnly shakes head and blames owner*
Can someone find one example of a little girl being mauled to death by a Yorkshire Terrier? Anyone? I suppose this might be true and if so I'm sure there's a wealth of examples of children, pregnant women, etc. being mauled to death Yorkies.
it's parody bassplayerguy
And 98.9% of human DNA is exactly the same as chimp DNA so I guess there's no real difference between humans and chimps! Hurray!
because guns are both in the Constitution and do not have wills independent of their owners, neither of which is true for pit bulls
My dad always used to tell me animals are unpredictable. And that's really not the case. You can usually predict how an animal will react - it's anticipating the scenario that causes the reaction that's impossible.
Ban them? Kind of excessive, I think. But there should be an added licensing requirement and additional hoops before someone can own one. In the wrong hands, these are deadly dogs.
This. I also think there needs to be a law that if your dog kills someone then you, as the owner, will be held liable as if you were the one that killed the person. If it really is just an issue of bad owners then this would get those bad owners off of the street.
Sometimes the owners are to blame, sometimes a dog's history before the owner adopts it is the problem, sometimes illness (such as rabies) plays a role, and sometimes a bad dog is just a bad dog. I would firmly agree that we need strict breeding laws with regards to pit bulls to protect them from being bred to fight and to protect the public from dogs that have been trained to be aggressive but outright banning the entire breed is simply not fair to responsible owners of perfectly well behaved pitbulls and it just isn't pratical.
By the way, do you remember that story in the news the other day about a woman rescuing two dogs from a fire? They were pit bulls but the story referred to them as Staffordshire Terriers. Hmmm, I wonder why...
Terrible how the owner of the dog did nothing to help. "Mrs Ancaito claimed the dog's owners did not help her despite her pleas." But it's definitely not the owner's fault... right?
I think this is an interesting, sane take on dog attacks:
Even if banning pit bulls got rid of them, which it wouldn't (look at how well banning heroine worked), some other type of dog would become the breed most used for fighting, most abused, most likely to bite. I've seen some scary fucking Great Danes at the shelter, for example.
Who fucking cares?
"and it just isn't pratical."
Why not? There's all kinds of animals that are illegal to own.
And given that you're responsible for your own dog losing an eye, you're hardly one to talk about problem dog owners. You really need to shut the fuck up about the entire subject.
lmao are you serious
(Honestly, I think all the media hype actually makes the problem worse, because it increases the thrill in the paint-eating morons who love the idea of having a dangerous animal as a pet.)
@2-- It's a combination, really. Dumbasses want pit bulls for stupid reasons and breeders consider them a target audience worth catering to. It's like how some people in the UK actually argue that you shouldn't ban them from using dogs to hunt foxes because they claim -- like it's a badge of pride -- that the dogs have been bred for such a specific purpose (chasing and killing small, brightly-colored animals) for so long they can never be pets and would have to be destroyed. And according to them, the only alternative is to keep using them to hunt foxes.
Keep in mind we're living in a world where people openly cheer Michael Vick.
That said, there are breeders out there who are deliberately trying to breed pit bulls to downplay the breed's stereotypical violent tendencies. My mother had a couple of pit bulls from one and had no behavioral problems whatsoever.
No, wait. That didn't come out right.
"By the way, my sweet little dog (who melts into jelly at the first sign of conflict) is half pit bull."
But that doesn't change the fact that you know nothing about dogs, that you're promoting the least effective solution to dog attacks, or that you really should shut up about the whole topic.
So Stranger if you are only going to post Pit Bull stories post every dog attack, journalism does report both sides? Right?
I don't know who the owner is and whether he or she is a "good owner" or a "bad owner." I'm pretty sure he or she thinks the dog is awesome and would never hurt a child. Of course, letting the thing go wandering off their property off-leash is against the law. And since all I know is that the damn thing probably weighs three times as much as my three-year-old, I can't let my kids into my own fucking backyard without looking over my goddamned shoulder.
I agree with Dan 100% on this subject.
As I've pointed out before, you're perpetuating exactly the same kind of credulous hackery in your posts about pit bulls as those anti-marijuana articles you so love to hate. Promoting the fallacy that marijuana is a gateway drug is no less idiotic than promoting the fallacy that the solution to dog attacks is breed bans. I know you like to heap scorn on those who say that owners are the problem, but breed bans are utterly ineffective. If owners were required to show that they have the skills and physical ability to properly care for their chosen breeds, and if owners were held fully criminally responsible for attacks by their dogs, and if irresponsible breeding were curtailed through effective laws, there would be a lot fewer attacks by all breeds. You'd know all this if you bothered to do even the most cursory of research on the subject rather than just periodically posting links to whatever comes through on your Google alert for "pit bull attack" and making idiotic remarks like "discriminating against or between dogs is exactly like racism."
Don't blame the breed, blame the deed. Pit bulls aren't the only strong dog that can cause serious damage to a human.
Labs, Golden Retrievers, Standard Poodles, German Shepherds, and other breeds are all equally capable of causing serious harm.
Even if you believe, as Dan clearly does, that Pitbulls and Pitbull-esque dogs are clearly more likely to commit an act of violence against a human, it is unfair to the victim of the attack to judge the attack not by the damage caused but by the breed that caused it. Laws should be made to protect and defend victims and potential victims, not to punish one group more than another for the same crime.
Did you read all the way to the end of the article and see those nine other incidents of attacks in recent years? Complete coincidence, every one of them.
Over 50% of the deaths caused by dogs are by Pitbulls/mixes. If you look at the ages of the people killed as well it seems as if Pits, Rotts, and Huskies are some of the only dogs that can kill an able bodied person. A majority of the deaths are children under the age of 5, or elderly people. This indicates a population of people that shouldn't own, or be around these kind of dogs for their own safety and that of the children. I feel like people should take responsibility for their environments, and since so many people can't seem to understand the dangers to owning these dogs, maybe they should be banned to prevent needless deaths.
You keep spouting this as if it's fact without a shred of evidence. It's working wonderfully in Denver and Council Bluffs, for example.
"Pit bulls aren't the only strong dog that can cause serious damage to a human."
But they're the only ones that consistently DO, in numbers far greater than their proportion of all dogs.
I just don't see how banning them will do much.
There seems to be a bit of hysteria when it comes to pitbulls. Yes, they have the potential to be dangerous as do other dogs, people, animals etc..
How many people die each year due to pitbulls? car accidents? gun accidents (correct- guns don't have a mind of thier own but they are not always used mindfully). In the grand scheme, is this really a big problem or just someones (ahem) pet problem?
Also, let me note that while I'd be annoyed with any off-leash dog in my backyard--the backyard of a family who chooses not to own a dog--if said dog had been a, say, beagle, I'd be annoyed because I don't want dog shit in my yard. Would I be seriously concerned about the safety of my daughters? No, of course not. And why not? Because I'm a reasonable human being with a grasp of reality.
Since addressing one problem doesn't solve other, larger problems, we should ignore that problem!
Oh. Jeeze. I was gonna stay out this bullshit until I read nonsense like this.
Okay. Sure there are a number of negative myths attributed to the pitbull breed but the disingenuousness of the pathological pit promoters just goes to far sometimes.
Yes. Pits have a jaw PSI in line with most doges their size - average of like around 235Lbs. Dogs like Rots have more PSI.
But PSI is only small part of what contributes to the trauma of any given breeds bite.
Pits are, pound for pound, tremendously strong, athletic and tenacious. It's what makes them so attractive in so many ways. Including for dog fighting - which is more about their inherent and FACTUALLY documented capability for dog aggression.
Comparing a Pit bit with a Yorkie bite completely disqualifies you from any remotely honest or intelligent conversation ever.
In fact lets test your fucking idiotic comment if you have the balls.
Let's get an agressive fucked-up tortured 40lb Pit bull to attack you.
And then let's get a an uncommonly aggressive 7lb Yorkie to attack you.
And we'll compare the emergency room visits, shall we?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Sure, Dingo's proposal is far from fool-proof. But I spent a few years in DC where pits WERE banned, and... (do I really need to say it?) there's a bit of a pitbull problem there too.
my unpopular belief is that we should just stop having dogs. we have plenty already. no breeding of any kind. mandatory neuter/spay for all born. betcha there would still be plenty of illegals to go around if you happen to have the psychological disorder of needing to own one. that goes double for cats.
Let's ban birds next. because. You know. Avian flu.
And we HAVE to ban owning fish since thousands of fish species are on the brink of extinction.
And then lizards. Because, let's face it, owning lizards is just plain dumb.
Oh. And cars... let's ban cars. They are waaaaay more dangerous that pitbulls, guns, and Michelle Bachmann combined.
And then let's ban the internet! Because internet servers farms are contributing in a major way to greenhouse gases and taking away vital energy infrastructure and strategic mineral resources from more important uses.
Then Computers. Ban 'em. Because those strategic mineral I mentioned. yeah. they are mined by children and virtual slave labor and the mining of them generally fuck up ecosystems.
And then let's ban technological civilization because clearly and provably it's quickly destroying ALL life on the only planet in the universe that we know - for sure - support life.
And while we're discussing throughly unworkable and completely idiotic ideas let's ban human beings form the universe because they can't seem to entertain lick of fucking common sense.
"Unpopular" belief was an understatement.
In response to the more rational person who correctly pointed out that all breeds can do damage. You are right. I was just making the point that certain breeds off leash in my yard would piss me off, others, like pit bulls, are of more serious concern. And if any dog bit my kid, of course there would be a serious problem. I'm thinking it highly less likely that my kids would die in the jaws of a cocker spaniel.
And let me make another distinction: had it been a cocker spaniel illegally on the deck, I would have walked outside, checked the dogs tags (or it had any), open the garden door and shoo the dog out. With a strange pit bull, I'd be an idiot to walk it the door and thus was trapped in my home until either, it left of it's own accord or animal control removed it.
Goddamn, Dan, you are such a troll sometimes. You're worse than Charles when you're in a mood.
@71, "the psychological disorder of needing to own [a dog]"
So... disagreeing with your personal preference is a "psychological disorder"? You do realize what an incredibly asinine thing that is to say, right? Regardless of whatever point you were making?
I wish to high heaven that The Gays would stop being bred for viciousness! The only way we're going to have any safe Gays at all is if we start to breed them for gentleness...
But as long as people want to have big, vicious potentially lethal Gays around, well........
Aren't rescue pits MORE likely to have been mistreated? And therefore, aren't they MORE likely to have behavior problems?
Or maybe you think good intentions can never possibly lead to bad outcomes.
Honestly, Dan, you should know by now that prohibition never actually solves the problem. All breed bans will do is a) ensure that idiots will now turn to buying from breeders willing to breed and sell these dogs illegally, and b) move media hysteria onto whatever new, legal breed takes pitbulls' place as the Evil Dog. Like German Shepherds and Rottweilers before them, there will be yet another breed bred to pander to that subsection of people who want to own aggressive dogs. You can play whack-a-mole with breed bans all you like, but that does absolutely nothing to address the core issue.
Here's the thing - NO ONE GIVES A FUCK IF POMERANIANS BITE PEOPLE
Any breed unleashed, tagged and uncontrolled can pose a danger but yet you are willing to confront something you assume is safe not knowing anything about it yet you will lock yourself inside and hide your pearls seeing something that I am sure you only read about in the Stranger.
So I still at this point will consider you a racist.
Sorry to burst y'all's bubble with science, goldy style.