We're not allowed to own hand grenades and, there will come a time when certain breeds of dogs will be banned>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No domestic breeds should be banned. And I have yet to see a dog explode and kill a room full of people. Maybe you have.
People who do NOT know how to handle aggressive bredds either need to be trained to handle them, or people should not own them, and breeders should not sell to people who do not know how to handle them.
Just as you do not ban guns, in a democratic republic, you do not ban dog breeds.You train people to handle them.Its called education, and without it, BTW, a democratic republic does not function.
I would love to breed an exploding dog, just feed it lots of beans and pull its tail, BOOOOM!
They would be popular in Iraq and other Muslim countries.You could make a lot of money.
Post 72:
"The track record of them being friendly just isn't there"
Duh! That's because YOU have been reading the paper. For all those people out there that rely on FACTUAL INFORMATION instead of the news, there's a wealth of information about pit bulls doing great things. There are service animals, therapy dogs, drug dogs (some of the Canadian banned dogs are now working with the New York police), and hunting dogs, all of which by the way, seem to be doing the job better than the breeds originally intended for them. But every time someone gives you a source, you either ignore it or conveniently forget it.
"On a thread where the Pits let go of the cow and charged the humans.."
I LOVE how the word "charged" is used in reports on pit bulls doing the same thing that Labs do (running up to people) but when it's a report of a lab attack, somehow the wording changes to something like "the lab ran up to greet my dog" or some bull. Just because the dogs were killing a cow (what they were originally bred for) doesn't mean that they were running up to the people to do the same thing.
There will never be any proof that they were human aggressive, because they never reached the people. Just the other day, a lab/sharpei mix was shot for "charging" at someone who THOUGHT it was a pit bull. Turns out, the dog was very friendly, and was probably going up to "greet" the guy before his IDIOCY took over. The guy was in his fenced yard, by the way, and actually had to take the time to go inside his house to retrieve and load his gun. During this time it never occurred to him to call animal control, or even give the dog a second look to see what it was all about.
Post 78:
"The fact that a normally placid pit will, frequently, snap and start mauling..."
That is flat-out FALSE. The REAL fact is, according to their population, they are one of the LEAST LIKELY breeds to attack. Do not confuse this with their ability to do damage. Even though they DO attack less frequently than MANY of the most popular breeds, their sheer strength (and the media) do them a great disservice, making it seem like as a breed they are somehow more vicious. If they represent almost ten percent of the dog population, but only represent two to three percent of all attacks, there is NO WAY to deny that they are not the monsters the media and PETA would love for you to think they are.
Post 83:
"..evidence is reaching the point of being nearly overwhelming"
What evidence, exactly? The two pit bulls that have killed someone this year compared to their population of four to six million is somehow meaningful?
Post 87:
"...finally found a case where some labs killed someone..."
Before I saw this very recent story, labs were still on the death list. It isn't like this was the first time. A great dane also killed a woman about a month ago. That's two for two. But again, these stories NEVER get the same attention pit bull stories do. Were the people killed by labs and a dane somehow LESS killed than the victims of pit bulls??
"If all those problem owners had greyhounds, poodles, spaniels, etc. there wouldn't BE a problem."
Out of the sixty people reported by the CDC to have been killed by rottweilers and pit bulls over the past 30 years, there are one hundred and forty that weren't. If we're going to look at deaths, then there's about 30 breeds we need to ban, and not all of them big. After all, those people killed by dogs other than pits and rotties were no less important. The fact is that with a stronger dog, the chances of serious injury or death is greater than that of a weaker dog. That doesn't mean the chance is Zero for those other dogs, otherwise one hundred and forty two more people might be alive today.