Replies

In the Yukon territories and Alaska, where men and women still must depend on dogs for their survival...

There you go. In the Alaskan wild, let them have all the pitbulls they want. In my neighborhood - or any neighborhood where there are children, either ban 'em or make it legal to shoot them if they are out of someone's yard off a leash.

As a matter of fact the picture of the child you posted showed a single bite injury where a dog had grabbed the child.

Your are sick - literally - if you look at that childs face and minimize her injuries as you have.

A huskie would...

We are not talking about Huskies (we are not talking about SUV's or about guns). You are completely incapable of sticking to the sujbect, pitbulls in residential neighborhoods.

Take your single incident driven mentality...

I'm guilty on that one. It is the many incidents of pitbulls viciously attacking or simply terrorizing neighborhoods that has me (and many others) wanting to ban pitbulls.

...with which you would end the good ownership of dogs by good handlers...

I've seen an incident where the pitbull of a good owner attacked a child. He could not believe it. He had years of experience with dogs and sounded just like you before that incident. Now he says no one should own the things anywhere that children can be exposed to them. That is full experience talking.

Add to that the irresponsible, incapable and the punks that want a pitbull and now you have real trouble. Yet, you will not even propose that an owner of a pitbull must prove they are, as you say, good handlers before they can own one. Do you propose even that much?

take it on over to MOVE ON.ORG. Such thinking does not work here.

Shall we put it to a vote of FR? Help me work out the poll questions and the answers and we will put your assertion to the test. My suggested poll question and answer would be as follows:

Should pitbulls be allowed in residential neighborhoods?
- Yes, anyone should be allowed to own one.
- Yes, but they must prove they can handle pitbulls.
- No, they should be banned.
-No, the breed should be made extinct.

Of course you realize that many liberals are reincarneted as pit bulls.

It is the only reason that even approaches a form of logic as to why Pitt Bulls should be banned.

Here in the West dogs are much more than a food source. There is a culture of dogs and humans working together in animal husbandry, transportation, and security.

More to the point though, ask yourself as to why people who do not have the skills to control pittbulls actually want them? It is because our society is experiencing social pressures which make people insecure. When a person lives in fear, there is a disregard for the skills associated with having an animal that can get out of control.

So lets limit freedom and liberty more, lets ban pitt bulls , guns, and shovels. The fresh corpses of those who die when attacked by the forces of fear, crime, and who otherwise woould be free, can be used as sources for organ donations!

And for all the 99.9 % of pittbull owners who DO successfully control their animals, well, we can confiscate their dogs, fatten them up and send export them as Pitt Bull protein. Yummy!

And the great culture of close work between man's best friend, and the associated skills so prevalent in the Americas , can end just like that, as we shift over to a more liberal human approach where no one should have pitt bulls because a few unskilled, fearful, desperate individuals cannot control their animals. Blame the dog, not the owner.

Thtas not the way the Inuit do it. When a dog goes wild the owner is blamed. I wonder why they have evolved that system of responsibility over thousands of years? I guess they just don't like to eat dog.

Candor7: As a matter of fact the picture of the child you posted showed a single bite injury where a dog had grabbed the child.

BJ's: Your are sick - literally - if you look at that childs face and minimize her injuries as you have.

Its obvious that you have little exposure to the real world around us, the world of fang and claw, nor do you understand what a serious dog injury looks like, the clamp and hold injusy this little girl had is not live threatening if treated quickly and properly.

Look at this, this was not caused by a pit bull but by a bull mastiff and it was done by a dog that rips to kill rather than clamp and hang. These injuries were fatal, yet Bull Mastiffs are not subject to a ban novement, this is because the owners were responsible, not the dogs. I assure you that there are much worse throat lacerations done by dogs against humans and pitt bull injuries are relatively tame in comparison:

You might ask why the seriousness of the Bull Mastiff attack on Diane Whipple has not resulted in a banning of Bull Mastiffs? Wasn't Diane Whipple beautiful or cute enough for liberal sensibilities in San Francisco?

Every one has a duty to protect themselves and their children. I guess you are not quite prepared to observe that duty for yourself and would want the state to do it for you. Maybe you need a speed dialer and a home right next to a police station.

Tragedy visits every one of us in our lifetimes at least once, some are prepared and others are not.Like many liberal weenies you want the state to do the dirty work of individual , free citizens who value liberty and quite bravely assume the duties of their own protection. I live in a place where bears come down from the mountain and mosey right through my yard. Coyotes pass through as well as deer come right up to our window and look in. Whenever a wild animal gets out of hand, I run quick and call the police?

Yeah right.

I call Benelli in my closet and he pumps up and helps me right away.

Perhaps you need to jump into America further and become one.