"Yep, I'm the big ol dumbass for picking the side of somebody who comes out with reports and documentation, rather than some hair-trigger ad hominem act with an invective agenda. Yeppers."
Well, you said it. Or was that sarcasm? You and the other knuckledragger can use all the "big" words you want, but it comes down to you and an hysterical minority of dog owners being in major denial about what your special breed is capable of doing with as much, or more, frequency than any other breed--that is, maiming, mauling and killing humans. You can massage the "stats" all you want. You can call it the media "overreporting," or "sensationalizing" (what are they sensationalizing, nonexisitent dogs attacking nonexistent people...so, all these newspaper and television stories are completely made up, huh?). You can even say your special doggie is your special buddy, and better than your bestest friend ever (all the while ignoring that most of us dog owners bond that way with our pooches no matter what their breed is--"My dog is a member of the family and everyone who meets is very impressed with him." You and your pit really have to get over yourselves).
But you can't change what we all know, and what you know to be true if you'd only admit it. They're killers.
"Most people cannot match the loyalty of good dogs."
The emotions and psychology of a dog and a human are really quite different, and do not bear a direct comparison. Unless of course you're a pit bull hysteric, and have deluded yourself into conflating the basic canine traits that many of us enjoy and appreciate in our dogs with some sort of "personal statement" on "liberty" or "freedom" that must be upheld, no matter how much facts, logic or basic common sense intrude. But as the First Amendment does not defend anyone against screaming Fire! in a crowded theater, illogical positions don't give you the right to harbor animals that are the most likely of their species to harm or kill us. Yeah, you nuts may have all the facts, but how is it that all animal control professionals, and all LEOs, know the pit to be the most dangerous dog out there? (Wait, of course! The answer is, The Great Pit Bull Conspiracy, Wherein The Media and Everyone Else Plots to Make the World Think That The Crimes of 15-year-old Toy Poodles With Cataracts Are Actually the Work of Pit Bulls!)
And something I've always wondered: If it't not the BREED, but the OWNER that turns pits into dangerous animals (yes, many of us wonder how you can make both sides of the argument at once--they're not killers, but it's the bad owners who make them killers), what is it about this breed that attacts so many "bad" owners? Chew on that with your kibble, and try to remember not to get back to me--it was rhetorical, y'know?
denial
No denial here. I am fully aware that my dogs could mess somebody up.
They're killers.
They have that capability. So do you.
The emotions and psychology of a dog and a human are really quite different, and do not bear a direct comparison.
We never made claims to the contrary.
But as the First Amendment does not defend anyone against screaming Fire! in a crowded theater, illogical positions don't give you the right to harbor animals that are the most likely of their species to harm or kill us.
Incongruous comparisons. Illogical positions? Who here has that? And speaking of species most likely to harm/kill..
what is it about this breed that attacts so many "bad" owners?
I reckon many folks think owning this dog makes them badasses. And I reckon many folks who have the need to be a badass also possess a certain disregard for correct animal stewardship. I think folks on this thread have covered that point well.
How's that for an unsolicited response sans bloviating. I return to my previous point, which was, as long as I or anyone else controls his property, what business is it of yours?
That being said, if said property enters the public domain, then the public possesses the right and obligation to settle any issues...
LOL!