Posted on 08/27/2007 8:32:25 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
TACOMA, Wash. -- Margaret Wingerter is amazed her Shetland pony is still alive after having its face chewed off by pit bulls.
The veterinarian needed to use nearly 300 stitches to repair the injuries.
"His face was just hanging off," Margaret said. "Both sides were literally just hanging open, gaping open."
Over the weekend, two dogs attacked the pony in the middle of the night. Neighbors rushed in with pool cues and beat the dogs away, but not before the damage was done.
Margaret was keenly aware of what happened to Sue Gorman, a Gig Resident, last week when two pit bulls entered her home and severely mauled her.
"You read about someone else like the lady that got attacked and it was like horrific, and you just it makes you sick," she said.
The dogs that attacked Gorman were captured and will likely be destroyed, but the two that attacked Margaret's pony disappeared into the neighborhood along the Puyallup River Road.
"The dogs were soaked with blood dripping off of them from the attack," said Jack Wingerter. "So those dogs went home to some parents or some family and they know something happened. But whether they come forward or not, we don't know."
The couple has grandchildren that are always around and say they now fear for their safety.
The Wingerters say the owners may believe these dogs to be harmless, but now that the pit bulls have attacked they need to be considered extremely dangerous.
The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is investigation.
Perhaps, but more like media driven hated. I’ve heard too many heartbreaking stories of how these dogs rip faces off kids to give a crap about the supposed 90% “safe” ones. I’ve read here that these bred to kill dogs instinctively go for the kill points of head and neck and don’t let go when they snap rather than nip at hands like truly domesticated dogs . They have no rights.
If one took out either of my two toddlers, I’d without a doubt be doing time for what I did the the owners after I snapped.
Large percentage aren’t really pit bulls, so the impression you are drawing on is based on a false premise.
Now, see, I can talk about this topic because I hit one over the head with half a 2x4 when it became attached to my brother’s right forearm when he was 5. I beat that dogs head until it was dead, and then I beat it some more.
You aren’t objective, obviously...and I can’t honestly blame you given the experience you recite here. I’d probably feel the same way had it been me and my brother.
That said, the simple fact is there is no such thing as a ‘vicious breed’ of dog. Wiping out the breed, or as you put it ‘put em in a zoo’ is ridiculous, ill informed.
I know from your post you’ll not change your mind. No problem.
But what this is really about in the ‘big picture’ is society shying away from blaming who’s really responsible in such cases.
The Human owner.
Do you need a Expert weatherperson to tell you if it is raining?
‘Do you need a Expert weatherperson to tell you if it is raining?’
If I’m in a dark room without windows, yes.
And thats an accurate depiction of those screeching ‘destroy all pit bulls NOW’.
They don’t know what they are talking about.
Its no different than an anti gun nut claiming all guns should be ‘banned’.
In both cases, the problem is with the owners, not the gun nor the breed of dog. In fact, citing a ‘breed’ is no more intelligent than citing a gun based on its ‘shadow outline’ on a piece of paper and saying ‘ban it’.
We’re on the same page. It’s definitely the human owner at fault.
You can’t make them buy a bond, because many of the nimrods that own this breed are judgement proof.
There is a major difference between a poodle and a pit bull. You can’t have tigers in your backyard either. Pit bulls require more of their owners than most owners can muster. So, since these owners can’t be responsible for their pets, you have a number of unpalatable options:
1. You can’t shame people into not having them, because the owners swear they can handle their animals right up until they chew up some jogger running by.
2. You can’t jail the owners, because the cost of prosecuting the idiots, regardless of breed, is high, and when it goes to a jury, chances are Betty White will be on the freakin’ jury and both the dog, and the owner, will get pleaded down to a wrist slap. No restitution will be made, because, again, the owner is a derelict who couldn’t meet their first set of primary obligations, which was to protect the community from their pets.
3. Because we are dealing with idiots, it almost assures you have to pass another law. Either you have to ban the breed, or you have to pass mandatory minimums for first offenders. You have to create enough disincentives for idiots such that they won’t want to own a pit bull. Tough to do.
4. There may not be a ‘vicious breed’ but there are breeds more disposed to being vicious. There are also breeds, that even though they aren’t ‘vicious’, are so inherently dangerous that you can’t risk having them around. The pit bull is one of those breeds.
‘Pit bulls require more of their owners than most owners can muster.’
I don’t dispute most of what you wrote, except for this.
A puppy is a puppy. And just as in the case with children, 98% of the future behavior is based on what they learn and experience via home and overall enviroment.
There really isn’t any difference in this concept. You raise a dog to be ‘responsible’ (as its own limitations allow, of course) same as a child.
Put a child in a cage, go days without any affection, and you get a very ugly teenager, and worse adult in my experience.
Same goes for dogs, all breeds.
“Large percentage aren’t really pit bulls, so the impression you are drawing on is based on a false premise.”
I doubt it. These reports usually include in depth interviews, sometimes with dog owners statements. I’m confident that the vast majority are as reported.
The consequences of abusing a pit bull puppy have consequences on the community at large. More so than the consequences of abusing a cocker spaniel. So much so that the risk to the community must take priority over the rights of the individual to own a pit bull.
“Large percentage aren’t really pit bulls, so the impression you are drawing on is based on a false premise.”
I doubt it.
Then you enjoy being hoodwinked. No big deal too me.
The consequences of abusing a pit bull puppy have consequences on the community at large. More so than the consequences of abusing a cocker spaniel. So much so that the risk to the community must take priority over the rights of the individual to own a pit bull.
Okay, lets ‘play’ for a moment;
“The consequences of abusing a gun have consequences on the community at large, More so than the consequences of abusing a knife. So much so that the risk to the community must take priority over the rights of the individual to own a gun...”
If its your concern that people - especially Children - are at risk due to pit bulls being alive and owned....then it stands to reason you want to ban guns, given accidental shootings and intentional shootings account for far more number of dead and maimed.
Right?
I hope you see the contradictions you are expressing....unless of course your a gun grabber, then you’d be consistent...but wrong....(chuckle)
That’s nonsense. Animals are much more driven by instinct that are people. Even people’s temperaments are to a large degree influenced by breeding, certainly not 2%. My two boys' personalities were radically different from the first day of their lives, and their evolution can be traced from it.
Nothing personal, but you’re too apologetic for me to trust your opinion on this subject.
You’re acting like an ignorant, presumptuous self righteous nut. Get lost.
Your comparison has no basis in logic. It’s tempting, but it’s not valid.
A gun isn’t an animal with four legs and teeth. A gun is an instrument DEPLOYED by a human. Properly stored, it is no threat to the community, and cannot break free of its confines to threaten the community at large.
Properly deployed, it enhances the community at large, providing disincentives to criminal elements to target that community, and instead pursue communities with more ‘evolved’ opinion on the possession of firearms.
A gun can’t, of its own volition, struggle against its confines to break loose and menace a community. A gun cannot contribute to its own liberation like a restrained animal can. It can’t chew itself loose. It can’t pull itself loose. It can’t shoot itself out of its lockbox.
Even if a gun is stolen, or deployed by a child, or accidentally discharged, the gun isn’t, on its own, going to enhance its effectiveness through the exercise of its own free will. Unless, of course, you own an automatic weapon, and you can lock down the trigger somehow. Even in that case, you run out of bullets.
The pit bull equivalent of ‘running out of bullets’ is that the dog looses interest, or it dies.
Guns are inherently dangerous. Most have to be loaded. The have to be cocked, or a round must be chambered. There are trigger locks, safeties, palm safeties, slide locks, and other devices that contribute to the element of INTENTIONAL DEPLOYMENT.
Indeed, we ban (much to my chagrin) certain types of firearms for their lack of safety features, or their ‘intentional offensive nature’. Still, no matter what firearm you care to discuss, some element of intentional deployment must be present in some form. Safeties need to be defeated, the gun must be loaded by some human being, the round must be chambered or made ready to fire. There is no logical basis to ban any firearm on its ‘inherent danger’ to the community.
Explosives are another matter completely. Grenades, rocket launchers, claymores, etc. They are dangerous all by themselves.
Dogs can attack without the owners volition. It can contribute by its own devices to its liberation and pose a risk to the community.
It’s more apt to compare the housing of explosives or dangerous chemicals on your property to the housing of a pit bull. Chemicals, improperly stored, can contribute to their own improper deployment. Same with explosives.
Guns are far safer than pit bulls. Even street sweepers, AK-47’s with full auto, M-16’s, AR-15’s, take your pick.
“A puppy is a puppy. And just as in the case with children, 98% of the future behavior is based on what they learn and experience via home and overall enviroment.”
That’s nonsense.
Nothing personal, but your lack of knowledge makes it clear you have nothing to offer but rumor and MSM driven nonsense.
“Then you enjoy being hoodwinked. No big deal too me”
You’re acting like an ignorant, presumptuous self righteous nut. Get lost.
You act like wallowing in ignorance on a given subject is a virtue. I’d say your already ‘lost’...with no hope of a clue.
Its best we stop these exchanges.
Your comparison has no basis in logic. It’s tempting, but it’s not valid.
I can understand why you don’t want to address it. No big deal.
When you can change a single word, used in the exact same context, and you refuse to even consider it...well...
No, I DID consider it. I refuted your comparison. I even supplied a more apt comparison.
You can’t defend your analogy, and you’re blaming me?
To recap, a pit bull can act on its own volition. Guns cannot. Explosives can, to an extent, act on their own volition too, though not through force of its own will, but by its chemical composition and improper maintenance.
By that standard, pit bulls share a more logical basis with improperly stored explosives or volatile chemcials than with guns of any sort.
I’ve considered it. I’ve addressed it. A man that owns a .45 and a pit bull poses more of a risk to the community with the pit bull than with the .45, all things being equal. The reason - the pit bull can work against its confinements and the gun can’t.
‘You can’t defend your analogy, and you’re blaming me?’
Blame? Nope.
Mock? Yep....(chuckle)
Its the owners responsiblity in both cases. Period.
Only a liberal thinks personal responsibility isn’t at play 100% of the time in such scenarios.
Take the .45 comparison off the table...for as little as it's actually observed, we still have a Constitution that guarantees a right to its ownership.
Consider if you will, the SUV (an item many see as "excessive" and would like to ban, much in the same vain as pit bulls.) You might argue that an SUV will not, of its own volition, break out of its garage and attack people...and so it won't. However, an improperly maintained and improperly operated SUV will eventually "escape" control of its owner, either through loss of brakes, steering, rolling when improperly parked, etc. And when an SUV gets outside the control of its owner, it's likely to cause a lot more damage than a smaller sedan or coupe sized vehicle...clearly by the logic of breed specific legislation, SUVs should also be banned.
This is a far more apt comparison than the .45 or other firearm. While brakes or steering may fail due to the course of natural wear and tear, the liklihood they will fail is increased in direct proportion to their inappropriate care, maintenance or careless/reckless handling, yet it makes more sense to cite the operator for negligence or recklessness than to ban SUVS. Pit bulls or any other dog may make efforts to get loose, but a responsible owner will maintain them in conditions in which they won't...if they're not capable of it, they shouldn't have a pit bull...but the same can be said for anyone who can't keep an SUV in road-worthy condition or operate it responsibly.
That last reply caused me to read your ‘about’ page. My fault for taking the bait, actually. I can see I’ve wasted my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.